Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
: Thanks for it, I saw your note. I will try my best... ] 03:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
: Thanks for it, I saw your note. I will try my best... ] 03:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
:: Hi, I am blocked by an admin without prior notification (see my page). I was not reverting, anything. S/he might be a good friend of MB. I would also appreciate if you unblock my user ID. '''Resid'''
Would you please consider not using images in your votes? It's an unnecessary addition, makes it seem to others that you consider your vote more important than others, and wrongly encourages others to do the same. It is an unnecessary use of resources - images in particular cause headaches for the server admins who keep the site going. -- Netoholic@07:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually wouldn't mind stopping if there's a good reason to do so but currently both the main points you brought up are strawman arguments. On principle my vote is not any more important than anyone else and everyone knows that so it's a pointless arguments and on your second part It has never been stated that using images puts a strain on the server but feel free to get a dev to reply to me telling me that there is a significant server effect caused by this and I'll stop... Until then I see no reason not to use images on my votes. Jtkiefer ---- 08:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
That's an unfortunate attitude. Voting templates have never been supported by consensus. Your request to be shown proof of a "significant server effect" is a strawman itself because we both know that your voting images aren't crashing things, of course. It's just an avoidable drain. Please read this advice from one of the developers. -- Netoholic@08:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
So long as they 1) do not make use of images, and 2) are always subst'd, personal user voting templates can stay (though they don't save much typing). -- Netoholic@08:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Netoholic's link to Jamesday's comment, please see this more recent comment from Brion which clarifies the situation regarding images
REgarding these comments, does every edit you make hinge on a policy justification? This is a wiki, I do not need specific permission to edit any page. You're comments assume bad faith on my part, and are worded in a way which implies the reader should also assume bad faith. -- Netoholic@09:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
They are speedy candidates. After I researched and found the TFD vote, I made that decision. Youc an check the source yourself, they are recreations. The vote was note to userfy, and so recreation, both in content and usage, is a speedy deletion reason. Clearly. Yours are safe, since they are subst'd. -- Netoholic@09:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Fir0002 is not subst:ing them on vote pages. That is the difference. he took the deleted template, created it in his space, and just went right alone using it as before - just as though the TFD never happened. -- Netoholic@09:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't need to do anything, nor respond. The TFD was clear. If I take this further, I'll be pushing towards getting everyone's recreations deleted, including yours. You're all failing to abide with the TFD decision and that is the "end run around process". -- Netoholic@09:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
NetBot was approved to handle tasks related to WP:TFD. This is one such task. You're involved and biased. Unblock the bot, and get someone else. What benefit, and I mean real benefit, does it serve to leave the images on a bunch of closed voting pages. -- Netoholic@10:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to reward bad behavior (recreating the template) by preserving images which were shown to not have support of consensus. You're in a extreme minority that endorses those images. That being said, I'm doing making the substitutions I intended, so the bot's work is done... except for those you snap-rollback-reverted. -- Netoholic@10:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
If you look really closely, you'll see that you're the one who broke the compromise (well, actually it was Trodel first, but when it was reverted, you decided to break it as well). You bitch and moan, constantly, on my talk page about working things out between us, but you have zero interest in compromising over such a pitiful thing as a link. Please do not attempt to lay blame with me for your own failings. —Locke Cole • t • c08:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I strongly urge you to be civil, also please note that my talk page is not a battlefield and I will not hesitate to remove comments at my discretion if it starts being used at one. Jtkiefer ---- 09:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You might want to have someone else watch over that page for a while. You've made a lot of reverts, and there are several (not related to the image removal) that I don't think are convincingly clear "vandalism". -- Netoholic@08:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
His changes noticeably changed the image size and the image size had been discussed on the talk page. He decided to change the image himself without bothering about the fact that there was an agreement on the talk page to keep it at 250px. He was also just blocked for breaking 3RR. Jtkiefer ---- 08:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Notice
YOU COULD AT LEAST STOP REVERTING THE BOT WHILE THIS IS BEING DISCUSSED. IF YOU TURN OUT WRONG, YOU'RE JUST MAKING EXTRA WORK FOR US BOTH. I'LL FIX THEM MYSELF IF IT TURNS OUT YOUR WAY. -- Netoholic@10:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
STOP ROLLBAKCING THE CONTRIBS. That is short-sighted and impatient. Most of those pages are LONG AGO closed and so there is no immediate need to revert them. -- Netoholic@10:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Substing is easy. Normally you do {{User:Fir0002/Support}}. The way you subst a template is instead of doing that you do {{Subst:User:Fir0003/Support}}}. By adding subst in there it copies the code over to that page so when a page is pulled up it pulls it from there instead of having to pull it from your userspace. More info can be found at Misplaced Pages:Template_namespace#Dynamic_or_subst
Please remove the ad hominem portions of your comment on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. By commenting on my actions, you aren't actually making a case regarding the templates. You're just poisoning the well. Such talk leads discussion away from being constructive. You'll notice I made no mention about who challenged my speedy tags, nor have I mentioned your actions at all. Please respect that, just so things don't become distracted. -- Netoholic@10:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
From the previous discussions on this page I can see that you and Netoholic aren't exactly best of friends, and it seems he's waging a campaign of destruction again. I'd therefore like to thank you for reverting his deletion of my voting templates, as I can see you have done with others as well (User:Fir0002). If I had known about using substitution before, then I would have, but I would like to thank you for taking such helpful action so soon, and so nicely. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ11:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
the only way to get the incivility off Misplaced Pages is to fight it! your contributions are valued. please stick around --Alhutch07:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
hi.
I don't know what exactly is on your mind, so I won't presume to tell you "it's all ok, stick around" ... but I would tell you that you should feel free to talk or vent at me if you like. Some people have found it helpful. You can get me at adrian (at) adrian (dot) org.
And I do hope we'll see you back. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 07:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, make this only a temporary wikibreak! We will all miss you dearly - you have been a notable figure in the wikicommunity, and please don't let the actions of a few sway you to take such a course. --M@thwiz202001:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message...
Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog) 02:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I have filed an RFC concerning an administrator's reversal of several blocks without discussion. This may be of particular interest to you as a one of the blocks was set by you. Regards. — Mar. 12, '06 <freakofnurxture|talk>
I'm back
Thank you all for your kind notes. I've decided to come back at least part time though due to a busy schedule outside of Misplaced Pages I will probably be a lot less active then I used to be. Jtkiefer ---- 03:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back!
I was very tempted to put the above heading in all caps... but a personal rule forbids me doing so. ;-))
Hey could you (or someone else) take a look at this? This user was just warned about posting accusatory statements on my talk page yesterday and he's done it numerous times today. Aucaman02:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to talk to him but not listening. We, the editors working there, decided to have a poll of approval later in two moths. He insisting to start a poll without any consensus. He is not even activly contributing the page. Resid Gulerdem02:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am blocked by an admin without prior notification (see my page). I was not reverting, anything. S/he might be a good friend of MB. I would also appreciate if you unblock my user ID. Resid
AOL
Though I surely agree with you that, in part because of AOL's reluctance to get involved (which reluctance, were I an AOL user, I would applaud), sundry AOL users vandalize Misplaced Pages with some frequency, I think it is nevertheless correct that, were one to eliminate all propspective AOL contributions, one would find the encyclopedia, on the whole, to be worse. Whatever may be the considerable damage inflicted by some users, surely there are more AOL members who contribute positively on a great scale to the project, sometimes themselves dealing with vandalism perpetrated by other AOLers. Cordially, Joe02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
He instigates these problems then pretends he is innocent. I was never warned by anyone I was told that the beleived I made a personal attack and I verified what I did. Can you please look at the threat Acuman made toward me. How come nothing is done about his racist or untrue comments? Look at the large group of people complaining about his edits that are very misleading and misinforming 69.196.139.25005:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
250
He's supposed to be blocked per this. As you can see for yourself, he's now moved to grossly vandalizing my talk page! Aucaman06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
06:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
06:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)