Misplaced Pages

User talk:Sardanaphalus

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) at 07:10, 14 January 2015 (→Your recent reverts: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:10, 14 January 2015 by Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (→Your recent reverts: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
Your contributions to the finer details of Wiki markup on various articles, at a rapid rate, is noticed and appreciated by others. Leep up the good work! MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Hi sardanaphalus you have some good history and it is nice thanks for doing history and making it look nice. hope we can be friends thanks jalyn.. Jlynn13 (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Example

Yes, I did see the message and that helped convince me that it was a test page. Categories in the main space, as this was, are for encyclopedic purposes and clearly this one did not fit that guideline as I understand it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your response:
    1. When you say "the message", do you mean Template:Namespace example page or the talkpage post – or both?
    2. My understanding is that "main space" = article space, i.e. not including categories etc. Is this incorrect..?
    3. If Category:Example should not exist, does that mean pages such as Template:Example should be deleted..?
Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I think these are the answers to your questions:
  1. The message was the message you left concerning the deletion on the talk page.
  2. Categories support the encyclopedia so those anything without qualifications needs to be for that purpose and not something else. A simple way to look at this should be to say that if it does not serve the purpose of navigation in the encyclopedia it does not belong. So main space may have been accurate but they do support the main space.
  3. What exists in the category and template name spaces have their own rules, so because something with a specific name exists (or does not exist) in one name space it does not imply anything for any other name space.
Hope this helps. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Start div col listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Start div col. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Start div col redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- ] {{talk}} 15:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox company

Hi Sardanaphalus. It appears that the changes you made at Template:Infobox company caused the parameter location_country became non-functional. That parameter is used in a lot of articles. Was it intentional? If that's the case, sorry for bother you. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, it seems to be working fine now. Thanks for your time. Cheers. Urbanoc (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop now!

Unless you can cite a very good reason to revert my edits, you reverts have absolutely no basis in any policy, and you are the one edit warring! -- ] {{talk}} 15:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Your own user and talk pages messed up on 1024 width display

Just for interest, on my 1024 width display, the TOC on this talk page overlaps and obscures content on the left, and your user page is a real jumble. I noted you attempted to enforce hard-coded widths on the Theistic evolution page - have you done the same on your own pages, causing these illegibility issues? -- Jmc (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for passing on your observations. The ToC here will indeed overlap content if it's left expanded, while the user page has, over time, come to include/combine various page/section/line formattings as I happened to test them alone/together/etc. (It looks fine here at 1680 by 1050.) I'm puzzled, though, by the second part of your message – I don't believe I've tried to enforce anything anywhere, nor intended (or intend to try) to do so. Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You can't assume everyone has a 1680x1050 display! That seems unnecessarily inconsiderate of your readers. And your reinstatement of a hard-coded width on the Theistic evolution page after it had been reverted by an admin gave me the impression of an attempt to enforce. -- Jmc (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm still a bit puzzled as I don't understand why you think I'm assuming everyone has a 1680x1050 display..?
As regards Theistic evolution, it sounds like you have the edit I made today/yesterday in mind, in which case you might not be aware that it was a restorative action taken in the context of a user (User:Edokter)'s... erratic behavio/ur. (That situation is awaiting resolution<aside>cf here if intrigued</aside> so the article may yet see further related amendment.)
If, though, for the sake of smaller/mobile/etc screens, tables and table-style columns are discouraged and {{Div col}}-style columns can only be used in ways that produce overly wide or shallow columns on desktop screens, then that does seem to be a problem. Am I (hopefully) misunderstanding/missing something..?
Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
You said, "It looks fine here at 1680 by 1050". I'd pointed out that it didn't look fine at 1024 px wide (to say nothing of narrower screens). My inference from that was that you approach layout with the assumption that other readers also have 1680 px wide screens (and too bad if they don't and are consequently unable to read parts of your pages).
In a wider context, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on achieving responsive layouts that enable all content to be readable no matter what the screen dimensions. -- Jmc (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I mentioned that the page looks fine here in case you were wondering whether it didn't but I hadn't sorted it out yet, or it didn't but was part of some experiment, or... (etc).
Re responsive layouts where all content is always readable regardless of screen, I don't know whether that's asking the difficult, impractical, improbable or impossible, but restricting structures as fundamental as tables, grids and columns to full-width {{Div col}}s<aside>if that's what's required</aside>seems a heavy price to pay. Might a version of Misplaced Pages somewhere between here and the mobile version be needed..? Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Shall we start over?

You obviously like "Start div col", then here's my proposal:

  1. I withdraw the RfD.
  2. Your request a move of Template:Div col to Template:Start div col.

The outcome of the requested move discussion will determin the primary name of the template, and consequently how the template will primarily be invoked. You should know I have no preference either way; I only have a problem with the way you push your preference (using a self-created redirdct). This whole affair is why WP:RM exists in the first place. -- ] {{talk}} 14:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for posting the above. I've no particular regard for Start div col other than as an alternative name for Div col (for the reason here) and, since the template can be used by itself, it's probably best to keep "Div col" as its name. If you feel more than one alternative is too many, perhaps instances of Template:Tnf and Template:Tnf could be replaced by Template:Tnf and Template:Tnf..?
More importantly, though, do you think characterisations such as "...the way you push your preference (using a self-created redirdct)" above, or those here, for example, suggest good faith and an authentic intent to cooperate..? Before posting something, for instance, do you imagine it is by someone else and for your attention – and then, perhaps, reconsider how it's phrased..? (My first thoughts here aren't as to whether something might be taken personally, but as to what it can suggest about the sender's thinking and its origins.)
Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Good faith only goes so far... and is easily abused. I can have all the faith in your intentions, but is is your actions that ultimately count. And to be frank, your actions show a degree of disregard of some core policies. Playing the good-faith card is not going to change that. I say it like it is, and I may be crude in my phrasing. But that only happens if I am not being understood, or worse, being ignored. And if that comes across as lacking good faith, then we simply have a communication probem.
Now, when you start replacing the template name with what you call an 'alternative' name, and trying to get it into the documentation, then it isn't actually alternative; you consider it the primary name. Even though your reasoning for wanting to start the name with "Start" has not convinced me, I would not oppose a move that is backed by consensus, So by all means, start a move request. But I will maintain that creating a new redirect and seeding it into articles is a non-valid method of bypassing a move procedure, and I cannot allow that. Do not take this as anything personal; one of the jobs being an admin (being responsible for technical matters) is to prevent a wild-growth in templates and their names, and it is sometimes a thankless job. So my question remains... Are you going to request a move? -- ] {{talk}} 13:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hint

Check the template talk page before you continue discussion with dummy edits... You may find I already started a discussion there. -- ] {{talk}} 22:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Template editor right removed

I just noticed the ANI thread open involving you and Edokter, and I see that there still currently concerns about your template editing. There have been several similar concerns in the past, e.g.#Explanation of revert further up the page, and more looking back through your talk page history. I've removed your template editor rights until we can be reasonably sure that similar problems won't occur in the future. Please take to heart the advice given to you in the ANI thread - whether Edokter was right in his reverts or not, you could have likely avoided all of this drama by considering all the technical implications of your edits. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 10:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User pages in "content" categories

I noticed that you removed a couple of administration categories from a userspace userbox, stating in your edit summary that (as I interpret it) your reason for doing so was that those categories didn't belong on a page in userspace. I just reverted that edit, as I believe that those categories do belong on the page. Since they are project administration categories, I don't think they're covered by WP:USERCAT. APerson (talk!) 02:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your message. I disabled the categories because my understanding is that they're not meant to include userpages. The Admin user templates page states that "User pages are not user templates, so they do not belong in user template categories", while the entry "User:Deskana/Userboxes/checkuser since" does look out of place among the templates listed at Date mathematics templates. My apologies, however, if I'm mistaken. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the categorization there is a bit confusing. I'm pretty sure that "user templates" are templates in userspace (e.g. that userbox) and aren't considered user pages for the purpose of that rule. As I read it, the rule says that we shouldn't put pages like User:APerson in those categories, but pages like User:Anomie/User Admin adminstats are fine. APerson (talk!) 14:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Your recent reverts

When I revert your edits, it is with reason. With regards to Template:Hegelianism‎, the years were only half-visible, so I removed them. In the case of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel‎, the widhts were way off; they are actually equal when I removed the width. I have repeatedly stated "no hardcoded widths". Every time you reinstate a reverted edit, you are engaged in an edit war. There is a pattern where you are deaf to these arguments and reinstate your edits regardless. I have decided to personally put you on notice; every time you reinstate a reverted edit, I will immedately report you to WP:3RR, even if it is your first revert. When are you going to realize that it is nothing personal, and I am reverting your edits because they are bad edits? -- ] {{talk}} 23:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And that is report number one... -- ] {{talk}} 23:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Edokter: When you revert my edits, it is almost always with assertion. With regards to Template:Hegelianism‎, the years are perfectly visible at reasonable zoom levels, so there's no need to remove them. "In the case of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel‎, the widhts were way off; they are actually equal when I removed the width" is an example of an ambiguous report. As elsewhere, you repeatedly make dogmatic assertions. Every time you revert someone's contribution in this manner, you are not following Misplaced Pages policy. Your pattern is not to realize that your manner is to assert, revert and dismiss. Your penultimate statement above is a further example; you behave as if this project is yours to dictate. When are you going to realize that it is nothing personal and that your reversions evidently originate from a bad attitude and bad faith? Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It is clear you do not want to address the actual issues I put formard. That is unfortunate, as that means I am wasting my time here. I do find your response concerning enough to notify other administrators. -- ] {{talk}} 23:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
"... the years are perfectly visible at reasonable zoom levels" - I'd be interested to learn what Sardanaphalus considers "reasonable zoom levels". It seems a highly subjective statement to me, and one that (again) shows a lack of appreciation of the wide range of screen sizes in the real world. -- Jmc (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just heard about this latest flare-up from EdJohnston. Sardanaphalus, you really need to listen to what Edokter is saying here. Your edits are making templates slower, more complicated, and less portable. If you don't learn how to write more efficient template code, it's only a matter of time before you end up at ANI and are topic banned from the template namespace altogether. — Mr. Stradivarius 07:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- ] {{talk}} 23:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The report is at WP:AN3#User:Sardanaphalus reported by User:Edokter (Result: ). You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)