Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thuresson (talk | contribs) at 21:26, 22 April 2005 ({{idw}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk pages on other Wiki's - simple, meta

Add a new section

Motivation

Database compression

Can't currently undo that compression but compression of en hasn't progressed very far yet and I will try to dodge compressing those types of pages if that's readily practicable - as you say, they typically are small and have few revisions. Jamesday 18:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To get one of those pages deleted:

1. receive an actual copyright infringement notice or complaint from a copyright holder or other legal notice from an appropriate party which indicates that blanking and protecting for a few months is not sufficient.
2. point a developer to that notice so a developer can act appropriately.

Jamesday 06:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A followup on this: I've modified the database compression code to support excluding certain namespaces and am currently running the concatenated compression to exclude templates, categories and their respective talk pages. All pages prior to Bv in this run plus all from the previous run aren't affected by this change and may have revisions compressed with concatenation but there shouldn't be more (barring a human not adding the restricton clause to the job). Jamesday 23:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

New footnote proposal Misplaced Pages:Footnote3

Hi; I've seen that you are created the {{fn}} and {{fnb}} templates. I've made a new proposal which is designed to allow automatic numbering. I wonder if you could comment or have any suggestions? If this turns out to be the "one" footnote system for the future, I'd also like to discuss about converting existing pages and eventually changing over the existing templates to use the same system. Mozzerati 13:55, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Hey :-)

We got off on a rocky start, but I've come to value your contributions around here. It unfortunate that you're so misunderstood! I hope that people don't start treating you like a troll. Cause I'm concerned about that, I've put a very brief message on Jimbo's page asking that he make sure you get treated fairly. Hope you don't mind. Good luck with everything Neto. I'll miss ya. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk page revisions

Net -- I'm on IRC right now and just replied to some points on the injunctions. Please contact me there ASAP if you are on or on AIM. --Wgfinley 19:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

block

I am not saying that what you did was either a revert or not a revert, merely reporting the fact that you were blocked (iirc it was Blankfaze who blocked you. I am not an administrator and can't block anyone). At the time I spotted that you hadn't been unblocked, but evidently now you have. I will look again at the block log and that page and see if I feel I need to add any more to my evidence or rephrase anything I have previously said. Thryduulf 11:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TfD

I was unclear in my clarification - I meant that you had not linked James's comments in the TfD discussion, which was the really important discussion, since it was the one that went 11-2 in favor of keeping the template, and the one that had the weight of official policy behind it. I'll make that clearer on the page. Sorry. Snowspinner 17:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but all of James's comments in that discussion look to be made after the fact, and in support of keeping the template. Snowspinner 17:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

OK. but my point stands - nowhere in any of the TfD discussions did you respond to the requests for Jamesday's sayso on the badness of those particular templates, and it appears that, for whatever reason, Jameday's opposition to those templates was/is limited. Snowspinner 18:09, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've never actually said the templates were good. In fact, as I look at it, I think I agree with you on it - there are better ways to do it. I just wish that you'd presented that case in a way that didn't alienate as many people. In all seriousness, if you find yourself in a situation like this again, please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page explaining the situation as clearly as you did here. I'll see if I can keep disasters like the one that sprung up out of this issue from happening. (And I'm not being faceitious here, I swear. If your position is as reasonable as it is here and is going as badly as it did here, I really am willing to do what I can to help you.) Snowspinner 20:17, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Arb Case

Net -- talked to several people today on the case, need to talk to you asap, contact me when you are able. --Wgfinley 03:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Calendar templates

Have you really edited any of the templates beyond 2005? The templates created from 2006 to 2025 are non-meta-templates, and I created them in advanced so that no one would pull the same trick with the 2005 templates. See Template:MayCalendar2006Source for an example. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk, great plan!

Nice to hear from you :-) I'm going to have to fwap you a bit I'm afraid (wear a helmet), but maybe we can go from there and get productive. I'm typically on irc during weekdays at 18:00 UTC or so, sometimes a bit earlier, sometimes a bit later. Sometimes I'm on at additional random times in weekends too. And you can always try at 18:00 UTC eh?

Finally users JRM, PZFUN and Oscar have my number; so if you see them but not me, you can ask them to phone or sms me to come online. I don't think they'll mind... much. :)

Hope to speak with you soon!

Kim Bruning 12:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recusal reason?

You have asked me to recuse several times, but, despite me repeatedly pointing out you had provided no justification when you did so, you continued to ask providing no justification. In fact, you still haven't - just blank assertions. We are now down to just six arbs on the case, so I am definitely not going to recuse just for the asking (and never mind the horrible precedent that would set to be abused by some of our more creatively antisocial ArbCom defendants, as I'm sure you'll see if you look back through AC history). What was your actual reason? With diffs. - David Gerard 19:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Commons

I didn't even realize it was protected. The earlier edit to which I was referring was, in fact, identical to my recent one (not counting my reversion of User:RicKk, a sockpuppet/impersonator of some sort), i.e. I removed the same six words. I have no opinion regarding meta-templates, and to make any edit relating to that dispute while the template is protected would be an abuse of my rights as an administrator. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 23:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The English cricket season

Hi,

As you've seen I've started to create what will probably end up at about three dozen encyclopaedic articles on the English cricket season that has just started. As part of this, details of various games could go into up to four articles - one on the season as a whole, two on the teams and another on the competition. Such an approach is only possible if there is a way of inserting the same text in a number of different articles. Without that facility, such a series of articles would be too time-consuming a task: every time a comma or typo is changed, or every time someone changes one article - either all four would need to be corrected or they would go out of kilter.

Thankfully, Misplaced Pages has the technology to allow this. It will allow us to adopt an approach and report on the English cricket season in a way that no-one else does. We can report thoroughly and in an encyclopaedic manner that differentiates us from the rest.

This is why I am using "transclusion", and also why I should be grateful if you would allow me to continue to use "transclusion" without reverting. In this instance it will be to the benefit of Misplaced Pages - greatly improving our cricket coverage. Kind regards, jguk 18:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Catching Up

Neto, haven't seen you in a day or two, look me up on IRC if you are on or drop me an email. --Wgfinley 20:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TfD / VfD / UfD

Hi there! I don't know where you got the idea that I was frustrated, but let me assure you that isn't the case. However, you do realize that VfD is going to reject this because 1) it's a template, and 2) it's a userpage. I fail to see how it doesn't belong on TFD or how it 'becomes disruptive'. We might need a new section for this, but since VfD can deal with inappropriate user pages, so should TfD deal with inappropriate user templates. Radiant_* 14:41, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Please don't factionalize the issue. This has nothing to do with high schools, it is simply the fact that I (and many others judging by the votes) find voting-by-rote using non-subst'ed templates considered harmful. You do realize that on VfD this will become another of the daily shouting matches, that will yield no consensus and miss the point entirely? Radiant_* 15:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• • Also please consider rephrasing your VfD vote in a less inflammatory fashion? Thanks. You do have a point that there should be a more general proposal regarding voting (in fact I was discussing this earlier this month with some users) and I'd be happy to work on that. However, TfD should have the ability to deal with templates in other spaces, to prevent abuse thereof. Radiant_* 15:05, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• • • Hi there! Sorry about that. I'm not frenzying or anything, I simply moved to a different WikiSection for the time being. I'll re-think whether the /proposal is appropriate, give me a couple of hours on that. But please consider rewording your VfD vote. Yours, Radiant_* 15:13, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Dr Zen/keepschools

The discussion on this template on a user subpage has been moved from WP:TFD to WP:VFD as user:Netoholic closed the discussion in its former location with the comment that TfD is only for entries in the Template: namespace. I have taken the liberty of moving your vote from its former location to the present discussion at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Dr Zen/keepschools. You may of course change your vote or stikethrough it all together in the normal way. To avoid any allegations of vote stacking I am contacting everybody who voted at TfD and Netoholic who closed the discussion, but not anybody who had not already expressed an opinion. Please feel free to disucss this on my talk page. Thryduulf 14:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SamuraiClinton RfC

I want to thank you for adding your voice to this issue and especially for your call for civility. I hope our efforts pay off. Take care. - Lucky 6.9 03:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD Templates

You stated that templates should not be used for VfD voting and that "we're closing any loophole which allows this sort of thing". Who is "we", and what Misplaced Pages policy forbids the use of templates in the VfD process? As a programmer, the use of templates makes perfect sense here - hard coding is considered bad practice, using a #define statement (here, a template) is generally preferable. Firebug 15:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Xiong

Would you be willing to co-certify an request for comment regarding Xiong's recent strings of odd behavior? I think he has a distictly different view of Misplaced Pages than most others, and perhaps an RFC would show that the feedback he gets from individuals is supported by many others. -- Netoholic @ 18:22, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think he mostly just has grand ideas and needs to be shown that it isn't just a "secret conspiratorial cabal" that is opposing them. He needs to edit a little less boldly and relax a lot. If the request for comment will show him that a large majority of the wikipopulation disagrees with him, maybe he will turn his enthusiasm towards more productive endeavors.

He seems to have a personal vendetta against you, though, and frankly, I'm not sure where you rank on my list after all this meta-template nonsense, so I'm not sure about a co-certification... I'll read up on RFCs. I usually try to avoid this political stuff. - Omegatron 18:42, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I've read about them. I will participate in an RFC, but I'm not ready to be the co-certifier. Let me know if you can't find someone else and I'll reconsider.

Maybe just try Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts about the meta-templates stuff for now? - Omegatron 19:37, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

As one of the people who's tried to encourage this user to act more appropriately, I thought I'd let you know I have opened an RFC on him at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Xiong. In short, his actions have continued to be disruptive, especially his recent nomination of Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion for deletion (see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Templates for deletion.

If you'll consider either certifying or supporting the summary, that would be appreciated. -- Netoholic @ 21:47, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

This user never "encourages" anyone; he merely edit wars and rants. Oh, I don't think there is a secret cabal. I think there is a small clique around this user, and the upcoming discussion around my RfC will throw its members into sharp relief. — Xiong熊talk 07:26, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Contact Needed

Neto -- you haven't been responding to my requests for contact but I've seen you have been on. We're really going to need to talk if I'm going to be able to represent you at all. Please get in contact with me ASAP. --Wgfinley 19:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Same here, ditto what he said. Wanted to talk with you last week. Seek contact ASAP. Kim Bruning 21:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Withdrawing

Neto, Unfortunately you haven't replied to my last email to you and continue to edit and make comments on your arbitration case. I'm unable to work with someone who either doesn't want my help or can't communicate with me so I can do my best to advocate for them. Since this appears to be the case here I'm going to have to respectfully withdraw from being your advocate and wish you the best of luck with your case. --Wgfinley 20:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In reply to your message I'm not opposed to discussing it some but my impression was that I sent you that emaill and then you made a bunch of edits over at the arb case so that indicated you weren't interested in my help any more, if I'm incorrect in that then straighten me out. --Wgfinley 22:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm on IRC right now. Catch me there, I don't see you in the room right now. --Wgfinley 22:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Nocontent

This template seems to largely duplicate Template:Nonsense, and is also not worded in a way that is supported by any WP:CSD guideline. Can you please explain why this templates is necessary? -- Netoholic @ 00:27, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

• Criterion 1 for articles: "Very short articles with little or no context". This template is useful for articles that can't be called patent nonsense but are still candidates for speedy deletion for that reason. Firebug 00:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there any reason you feel that using this instead of the more generic and flexible {{deletebecause}} ({{db}}) is preferable? We have deleted templates before for being far too specific when a flexible alternative is easily used instead. -- Netoholic @ 00:36, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

It saves keystrokes. Firebug 00:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then use {delete} and trust that the admin can see it has no context. I am going to nominate this for deletion, as I don't believe the extra template is needed, and I don't like instruction creep. -- Netoholic @ 00:48, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I'm growing frustrated with your obsession with deleting templates. I think Xiong's actions are WP:POINT, but your actions border on that as well. This template serves a useful purpose, and disk space is cheap. Firebug 00:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unexpected?

Netoholic: Let's look at the evidence:

1. Scope Creep: You start an edit war. Then you demand that I justify my edits although you hadn't explained your own revert. When I do explain my concerns, you insult me, make snide remarks, and casually dismiss my comments. Then much later, you make an edit to the Scope creep that only makes it worse in my opinion.
2. Use lists: Some snide comments in reply to my concerns, and then you ignore the issue. Finally you edit the Use List part of the proposal without ever addressing my concerns, but still "borrow" my comment about WikiProjects.
3. move to guideline status: This is the ONLY time that you appear to want to seek input, but when I offered some comments and suggestions, they are ignored (and I wasn't going to do the edits myself because I just expected that they would be reverted).
4. Subst: You edited out my mention of Subst:. You only leave an addition to the main article on Subst: that someone else adds much later after Jamesday endorses its use.

1. For my part in the exchange, I will admit to one snide remark at WP:TFD.

You thought that we had started to work out some solutions? Just because you finally edit out calling me a troll and made a single attempt at seeking my input over a month after your first revert and almost a month after your first insult and incivility, and after you had ignored my comments and concerns up until then? I have to ask if you are completely clueless, or if you are delusional, or if there is some other explanation. After your last Scope Creep edit to the proposal I took the page off my Watchlist and gave up on it--it just wasn't worth the hassle. Since I have worked as a database programmer in the past, I could have helped improve the Meta-template article, but you never gave me the chance.

Normally I am a very easy-going haiku poet. It is extremely rare that I get this pissed off at anyone. I would suggest that you ask someone you trust, either within the Misplaced Pages community (User: Ta bu shi da yu?) or someone in Real life, to give you their opinion on our dispute and the rest of the evidence in your RFAr. BlankVerse ∅ 05:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My template

Thanks for the compliment. With regard to the HTML coding, that was changed by Susvolans ("use

...

instead of ==...== to remove box, making sure that users who want to get rid of the message edit their talk pages instead of blanking this template"). You edited, not the template (which is at User:Mel Etitis/Wel) but my sandbox. I'll copy over the changes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

File:Mahatma Gandhi.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mahatma Gandhi.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Thuresson 21:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)