User talk:DESiegel/archive1
Welcome!
Hi DESiegel! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! --Flockmeal 20:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template messages Wikipedia:Cite sources
First Amendment
I have reverted First Amendment to the United States Constitution back to the compromise version posted by DESiegel at 16:56, Feb 24, 2005. I have placed a discussion regarding the differing views regarding the content that should appear on this page on the article's talk page. Please view this page and the discussion there prior to making any substantive changes to this page. I am attempting to resolve this dispute with DESiegel's compromise version, and hopefully avoid formal dispute resolution (ie. page protection, mediation, arbitration, etc.). (sent to all users editing the article since Feb 10, 2005: user_talk:DESiegel, user_talk:Pythagoras, user_talk:Kenj0418, user_talk:66.169.84.88, user_talk:68.209.177.180, user_talk:205.210.232.62) Kenj0418 07:03, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Prior restraint
I believe you're the author of most of the content in this article. I recently rewrote Censorship in the United States without being aware of the content in prior restraint. The U.S.-specific content in prior restraint should probably be merged into Censorship in the United States. In the meantime I added a "see also" wikilink. Mirror Vax 01:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Having fun?
Well stop. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 23:11 (UTC)
Failed TFD is not consensus for use --- it is just a lack of consensus to delete. Please stop using spoiler-other, because you can just as easily use spoiler-about and say the same thing effectively. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 23:18 (UTC)
It is surely not consensus for non-use. I intend to continue to use it where it seems appropriate, and if you change these uses simply to make a point about about your preference for spoiler-about, to revert thsoe changes. DES 28 June 2005 23:28 (UTC)
- That's silly. Just help me keep the template space as simple to use as possible. There are too many random templates already. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 23:49 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think that, while you can often do the sme thing with a carefully worded spoiler-about, spoiler other is a valuable tool in the proper circumstnces. i want it in my toolbox, and i intend to use it ehan i think it is appropriate. If you alter those uses solely to make a point that you dislike spoiler-other I will revert you. i now must go to the bother of puttign every page wher i use spoiler-other on my watch list. Why are you putting me and all of us through this? DES 28 June 2005 23:53 (UTC)
- For all the new users coming here, so they have a simpler environment. -- Netoholic @ June 29, 2005 00:27 (UTC)
- I really don't think "choice of three, explained on a good doc page" is significantl;y harder than "choice of two". In any case, the consensus seems to be against you. DES 29 June 2005 00:56 (UTC)
- For all the new users coming here, so they have a simpler environment. -- Netoholic @ June 29, 2005 00:27 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think that, while you can often do the sme thing with a carefully worded spoiler-about, spoiler other is a valuable tool in the proper circumstnces. i want it in my toolbox, and i intend to use it ehan i think it is appropriate. If you alter those uses solely to make a point that you dislike spoiler-other I will revert you. i now must go to the bother of puttign every page wher i use spoiler-other on my watch list. Why are you putting me and all of us through this? DES 28 June 2005 23:53 (UTC)
- You've stated the above belief countless times, but you've yet to explain why your opinion should override a contrary consensus. What was the purpose of initiating a formal TfD process if you didn't intend to respect the outcome (unless it was the other outcome)? —Lifeisunfair 29 June 2005 03:06 (UTC)
CSD proposal
Hi there! I was wondering about your comment re:bands and clubs about other ways of asserting significance. Could you give an example please? Yours, Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 19:22 (UTC)
- That is correct. Ouch. Several weeks of discussion and nobody mentioned point five and six on bands. Okay, since the proposal has been up for a very short time, I'll reword it to include all of WP:MUSIC and contact the voters about it. Point five is easy to add; would you agree that point six is impossible without attracting media attention? If not, please give me a hand in suitable wording. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 21:04 (UTC)
Block
Hi there, I've unblocked that IP now. Sorry you ran into that message, but we've been having lots of vandals coming from AOL recently. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)
- Re: an autounblocking, that's an intriguing idea. I'll have to think about whether it would work as a feature request. I could see that it would weaken the vandal fighting ability, because if there was an active vandal, someone logging in legitimately from the same proxy/IP would consistently unblock it, which would take away a crucial capability for the admins. Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 04:15 (UTC)
Possibly.
I'll concede the point entirely if a style guideline is created that makes people use that under the lead section. However, there is now a problem of the heading underline cutting the TOC, making it look unprofessional. If these things can be sorted I will drop all my objections to the template, and apologise for losing perspective on the whole issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)
You wrote, on the talk page: I removed a manually inserted Category:Possible copyright violations from the article. If someone thinks this article indeed violates a copyright, tag it with the copyvio template. -Poli 07:54, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC) You might have let me know, since I made it quite clear why i had inserted the tag rather thn the full template. But since you insist, the template will be used. DES 4 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)
- I did post it in the article's talk page, I suppose I should have posted it on your talk page, too. Well, the process for possible Copyright violation problems in Wikipedia:Copyright_problems makes it clear that the ((copyvio)) template should be used. Manually inserting the category was only half-way on the process and got no solution within the 11 days it remained that way. Only minutes after you tagged it with ((copyvio)), the talk page had 2 comments about it, and it was removed, as you can see in the article's talk page. The copyvio makes it much easier to find.-Poli 2005 July 5 04:10 (UTC)
TOCright
I personally think the current version of Terri Schiavo is one of the best examples of the proper use of {TOCright}. Hope you agree.--ghost 5 July 2005 05:47 (UTC)
PBurka pointed out that an important omission from this proposal: a band could meet WP:MUSIC criterion #5 (sharing a member with a famous band) and still be speedily deletable by this criterion. I've added a sentence to the proposal to reflect this: it now reads An article about a musician or music group that does not assert having released at least one album, nor having had media coverage, nor having a member that is or was also part of a well-known music group. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead. Please consider if you support this new wording, and change your vote accordingly. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 10:00 (UTC)
duplicated content
Hi - For some time I've been trying to help chase down how articles end up getting duplicated, as happened recently by this edit of yours. Do you remember exactly what happened? I think there's generally an edit conflict window involved, but if you could remember exactly what you did afterwards (perhaps copy, paste, back button, etc.) it would be very helpful. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) July 5, 2005 18:02 (UTC)
- I have several times, including I think that edit, made an edit and gotten a "no response from the wikiserver" message. After that I usually click "back", and find my changes still on the screen, when i usually click save again (after copying my text to a local file in case of loss). Sometime i then get an edit conflict, at least once apparently with myself. When I do i make sure that my edits are properly included in the upper edit box, and click save again. i admit that i havn't been checking if the upper box includes a double copy of the page or section. Most of the time this has happened has been on section edits, but than by far the most part of my edits are section edits.DES 5 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)
Image:The Dark Tower.jpg
You asked if Image:The Dark Tower.jpg was a bookcover. It is, for The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower by Stephen King. DarkTower.net states at the bottom of its page "All trademarks and copyrights owned by their respective owners. Visitor-submitted comments are owned by the individual who provided them. All other contents copyright © 1997 - 2005 TheDarkTower.net. All rights reserved. Please read our privacy policy. Interested parties can read the colophon. All excerpts from The Dark Tower are copyright © Stephen King." Endlessmug 05 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)
Image:Skheadshot.jpg
Image:Skheadshot.jpg is from stephenking.com and it is his press photograph from the "press bio & photograph" section. Here is a link the source page. I've seen that picture (and the original photo on the king page) in many of his books as well as other places (idk if that helps or not). Endlessmug 05 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)
Recent changes on Template talk:Merge
You made an edit with no edit summery. When i did a diff, it shownd the only change beign the removal of gkhan's remarks, it did not show them being inserted eslewhere. It also did not show any new commetns from you. Either the diff was in error or I mis read it badly, or possibly your edit didn't do what you intended it to do. Sorry. i should have checked with you and assumed good faith. DES 6 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)
- This is the "diff" page that you referenced. Please scroll down.
- I didn't include an edit summary, because I posted replies in two different sections. I'm sorry if this contributed to the confusion.
- I accept your apology, but I was aware of the fact that you made an honest mistake (and didn't intend to remove my comments.) No worries. :-) —Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)
Stop
Stop with the trolling and tattling, and grow up. You're more interested in harassing me than anything else. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)
- None of my comments on this proposal, nor on your actions can properly be desceibed as "trolling". And when a person under mentorship for, among other things, actig provacatively and precipitiously and not communicating enough with the community makes what I think is an improper revert on a project page, then politely calling this to the attention of a mentor is hardly "tattling" in any improper sense. If Raul or the other mentors don't want to hear about things like this let them say so, and i won't bother them again. Letting other people involved in the situation know what is going on is hardly "tattling" in any sense that I would feel a need to avoid.
- I have not been "harassing" you. I have not been following your contribution log, nor visiting pages because you did something to them. I have been involved in both the CSD proposal and the Template:TOCright discussion on there on merits, and i was involved in both before I was aware of your participatiuon. I do disagree with soem of the substantive positions you have made, but only because I hold other veiws honistly, not because they are opposed to your views. I do feel you acted imporperly on the revert. You may well have a case that new proposals should not be added after the vote has started. taht could be debated, and if there is a general agreement on that point I will accept it. I don't think that is nearly as clear-cut a reule as you seem to think. But even if it is, I don't think the way you dealt with the situation was a good idea. DES 7 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)
- My mentor has spoken, and said the edit summary alone was enough communication on my part. Now, leave me alone. -- Netoholic @
CSD proposal
Hi there! Regarding your suggestions... I've been thinking about them. There are three things wrong with the original proposal. The first is that it would technically apply to any speedy criterion, including patent nonsense and vanity. Your rewording fixes that. The second is that it is written as a limiting amendment to other proposals. That is a problem because it means that all people who voted on those earlier proposals might not get what they voted on. The third is that, technically, it's not a criterion for speedy deletion since there is a waiting period. So I'm going to reword it a bit to make it stand on its own. Thanks for your feedback, and if you have concerns please tell me. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 18:07 (UTC)
CSD P1 redirect
You just changed the redirect on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/P1 in suich as way as to make it point to the revcised proposal P1B. P1 is still a live proposal, please don't hide it by accident. There have been so many reverts in this area that I don't want to simply revert your change here. DES 7 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)
- I only pointed it at where its target redirect (then Wikipedia:Expeditious deletion) went - janitorial work, nothing more. I have no opinion where the redirect should point, so long as it's not a non-functional double. —Cryptic (talk) 7 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)
He didn't. Feel free to remove the tag if you want. The template states "It is believed..." -- so nothing is set in stone here. I just figured, when you put a picture on the open web, under a url with your name in it, you probably use the materials on the website to to sell more books and you'd expect your picture to be copied on the web. If I had the time, I'd type some letter to the webmaster. I think Wikipedia has a template for stuff like this--Muchosucko 21:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC) (copied here from my user page)
Wheel of Time
Look at the timestamp. I'm just getting started. :) —Lowellian (talk) 23:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
True History
The link you gave me for book categories was red. You're right, I think the book's designation as "crime" is subjective. Is there one for historical fiction?
Lapsed Pacifist 01:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
If you want to revert it, I'll leave it alone.
Aubrey-Maturin
You're welcome, and thank you for putting in all the work to pull this together. I just made a fairly major change to the linking -- hope it meets with your approval. I'm double-checking the date policies, since I see you removed some that I added back in. I might post a change shortly, if I was clearly wrong.--SarekOfVulcan 02:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, I see you already re-fixed the dates. Sorry.
Since advertising is not a speedy criterion, and this template is promoted for usage on several people's toolkit templates, I've reworded it to become a cleanup template instead. Please consider if you wish to change your vote on WP:TFD now that the template has changed. Radiant_>|< 08:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the input regarding the stub tag at the Sam Seder article. I'll remove the stub tag. =) ZachsMind 11:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
WPSS-cat
I will wait for the input of the template's creator, since the usual is for templates such as these to be discussed for some time before they are implemented, something which did not happen in this case. The message you posted on the Talk page is suitable, and we can carry on the discussion there. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 22:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Epilepsy
A ceiling fan is a prime suspect all right. The speed at which it revolves will mean that the light behind it will flash through the blades at a one twentieth of a second sometimes. That is the sort of speed needed to trigger off an attack. I certainly would strongly advise to place fans where no light is flashing near it (either natural light or a lightbulb). It is a classic example of a trigger of photosensitive epilepsy. Anything that reflects very fact movement and on-off-on-off light changes at a rapid pace is dangerous. I had a fit as a child and fell into a fire and got one of my feet very badly burnt. So I know how dangerous fits can be. (I also once punched a DJ in a niteclub who kept strobe lighting on for over a minute. I stormed up to his box, told him that he was quite literally endangering my life and that of everyone in the niteclub, and punched him in the face. The police were called. When I explained what had happened, they pointed out that he had broken the law and wanted to know if I wanted him charged with reckless endangerment!)
FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 00:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad the police took a reasonable view of the matter. Thanks for the exchange, and I'm sorry if I came on too strongly. DES 00:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
reply
replied at Wikipedia_talk:Kick_the_ass_of_anyone_who_renominates_GNAA_for_deletion_before_2007.
- I have already made appropriate comments on the appropriate pages. Read them.
- I removed your VfU for identical reasons as above
- Please take note of the warning at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Kick_the_ass..._forestfire that I posted earlier.
Sorry about being like this. It's kinda tricky. I'm doing my best ^^;;
Kim Bruning 02:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- It is not to anyones advantage for this to be seen by a wider group at this point in time. Once again, see: meatball:ForestFire, this procedure is still applicable to wikipedia as far as I'm aware. Kim Bruning 02:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I am currently on irc, it might be a good idea to get your third opinion there. However, as far as I'm aware I'm following policy. I will also delete the RFC. You may at your option get a steward to temporarily de-admin me, or open an RFAr. However this might leave a rather sticky situation on-wiki with no admin looking after it. Please please PLEASE read meatball:ForestFire, and understand the implications before you proceed. Kim Bruning 03:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Please, stop calling attention to the forestfire. I want it to die out. We can discuss this at a later date. I'll also be glad to discuss details with you on my user talk or on irc right now too. Note that Forestfire supercedes CSD by quite a margin imho, as far as preventing damage to the wiki is concerned. Now please stop and think, before you act again. Thanks. Kim Bruning 03:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually there are (or were) at least 6 pages involved (not counting talk) , and over 50 users , though depending on how you count, now over 8 pages, partially due to you I'm afraid. Please slow down and read carefully. Part of what causes a forestfire is overhasty reactions and a failure to think first. forestfire!=vandalism. As there have already been 3 long VFD flamewars spawned in quick succession, there is no reason to believe that these would not simply have carried through to undeletion. The other things you tried would give trolls handholds again. When there's a forestfire, try to keep things limited to a single page. Don't try to spread things out like you'd normally do. That's what caused the situation to start up in the first place, you see. Kim Bruning 03:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
To weigh in briefly, I tend to think that, although we want to keep the GNAA article, we can largely do without actual GNAA members. Not that we should actively drive them off. Just that we shouldn't treat them as lovable old coots who can be reformed. If they're being dicks, we should crack heads. Good show, Kim. Snowspinner 03:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- But but but but, I'm trying to be the *nice* person around here ^^;; Kim Bruning 03:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
So far as I can see, the people whose policy pages were deleted were long established editors here, not members of any vandal group. Am i mistaken? DES 03:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes and no, these people know me, and I know them , and we trust each others' judgement :-) . We've all been trying to reach the same objective dealing with a persistent troll+vandalism situation. I'm certainly going to do my best to talk with all of them by this evening (UTC) with a little luck. I'm sure there's some things I could have done better, and some things that I've done right. :-) Kim Bruning 03:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Bureacrats is ok, though I'm not sure what they can do. Personally I've been trying to find an arbitration committee member, to make sure I'm doing the right thing, but they're all in bed at this hour, I think. :-( Kim Bruning 03:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think we've both been doing some quick reflex actions to cover perceived problems. Sometimes it can't be helped. I think the situation is mostly under control now. *cross fingers*. Thanks for letting me get some sleep :-) Kim Bruning 04:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Quick descision, long tail
I'm exhausted...., Ta bu shi da yu dropped by just a moment ago. I took the time to give him a quick timeline.
See User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu#Heh, of course you're not a troll! for details for now.
And now off to bed! Kim Bruning 04:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
{{Bio-book-stub}}
Just a little thought about the stub text: I think it's a bit unwieldy (try reading it aloud, and not to speak of the double usage of biograph...); wouldn't it be easier just to say something to the extent of: "This article about a book which is either a biography or an autobiography is a stub...."? THX for creating the stub, anyway, great idea :) Lectonar 11:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Much better now; sorry to have bothered you ;-) Lectonar 06:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I didn't create this article, I simply added the speedy delete template to it.
db tag
Thanks for the suggestion on the db tag. I'll make use of it now. ElBenevolente 00:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
VFDs
Could you please review how to correctly tag VFDs at WP:VFD especailly concerning the {{subst:vfd2}} tag. Thanks! Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Once you've created a vfd page, use {{subst:vfd2 | pg=''Page name here'' | text=''reason for deletion}} ~~~~. It creates a nice header so that when you list it on the VFD log it doesn't cause any conflicts. Always glad to help out so if you have anymore questions, feel free to ask me. Regards! Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:29, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
VFD for Tekken characters
Although I admire your determination to clean Wikipedia of unecessary pages, it seems to me you are not very knowledgeable about the history of Tekken's characters (correct me if I'm wrong). therefore, your reasoning that characters in a computer game (most would refer to it as a console game) do not need individual pages is, to say the least, ill-informed. its an insult for all the people who pored their hard work into these pages and, for the most part, provided good information for you to vote to blanket delete them all, even if you think you're doing the right thing. please read the articles you are voting to delete next time (again, correct me if I'm wrong), because if you did, you would find a wealth of information there spanning 6 major games that could not possibly fit coherently on a single List page. if you are able to revert your vote for delete, i urge you to do so. Bubbachuck 23:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Quit putting Tekken characters up for deletion! --Dangerous-Boy
Your deletion for Tekken characters was outline. Perhaps we should delete Soul calibur ones as well? --Dangerous-Boy
Actually a better place to bring this up is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games which I have already done. --Dangerous-Boy
I disagree, I think that writing scientific papers is an indication of notability. Feel free to VfD it if you want. JYolkowski // talk 22:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
{{deletevanity}}
Yes, I was unaware of {{nn-bio}} because it was never listed on Wikipedia:Template_messages/Deletion, so two IRC users and myself created the new template. As I understand the Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Deletion_of_vanity_articles, articles that do not assert the notability of the subject are "vanity". I've considered rewording the template to deal with groups of people, like bands and so on.
I wouldn't mind redirecting to {{nn-bio}}, but I like the wording of the {{dv}} one better. I think I'll fix the wording of {{dv}} to adress the concern you brought up about bands and other groups, then copy that into {{nn-bio}} and redirect the others. --malathion talk 16:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
If not all people agree with the official policy, they should post their objections on the talk page of the policy and try to get it changed there. But until it is changed, it's policy elsewhere. I've voted in the TfD to keep the template. --malathion talk 16:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
{{blanking}}
Hi, DES. Just a thought, when a user blanks a VfD page, the best template to use is {{drmvfd}}, with {{drmvfd2}} and {{drmvfd3}} as followups. These have far more meaning for a VFD page! Cheers, [[smoddy]] 16:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deletions
First of all, let me be honest and preface this by mentioning that I was not totally in favor of the new Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles criterion for speedy deletion. That said, the policy states that "articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered." Otherwise, "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead."
I will admit that since I saw the VFD tag on Brandon Barnes that I automatically assumed it was borderline without reading them carefully. However, Matt Deckard is different because Fedoralounge.com and Lottaliving.com are real web sites and being a moderator on those forums could still be debatable whether or not they are significant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
vfD
Hi. I see that you have spoken against Tony Sidaway and his "pro-school" cohorts. Would you agree that they have taken to bullying against school deletion voters too far? Look at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Gwinett_County_Public_Schools. I've been called a liar in no uncertain terms who deliberately misquotes, when I obviously did not, and been painted in the worst possible light there. My only crime? Voting against schools. Oh, they thought it fair to remove what I say when I stated very firmly that Tony is elitist, rude and blatantly misrepresenting me. This is getting unbearable and too political. Do you have any solutions against this? Please advise. Mandel 21:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe you're the wrong person to approach, since I just realized you stated that you've been in Wikipedia for a fairly short period. I've been in Wikipedia for some two years. That Wikipedia has an "active policy that any actual school is inherently and automatically notable" is not true, rather it is an illusion that "school inclusionists" have created in their argument in order to mislead, basically newer Wikipedians, that they should vote in favor of school articles. The guideline Wikipedia:schools is inherently pro-school and has been criticized by many Wikipedians (see talk page). In the past, school articles have been treated on a case-by-case basis, stating that this school is notable, that is not, etc. Some survive, some do not. Unfortunately, the case now is that any school article - substub, below-par writing - will survive, mainly because school inclusionists have multiplied themselves many times over (via sockpuppets? I don't know).
- Secondly, their rudeness is appalling. In the VfD, Tony Sidaway insults my intelligence palpably, and when I resort to arguing my case, a cohort of his minions swoop down to attack my statements. If this doesn't amount to bullying, I don't know what does. You probably seen something like this before. Stick longer and maybe you'll find out more. Mandel 22:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Bah, mainly to find out if Tony Sidaway has been adopting the same attitude with others who voted against schools in VfD. Obviously you're not an admin - I know that. From your remarks, it seemed you have been. If you've voted for them or hasn't been harassed, then ignore my comments. Keep up the good work at Wikipedia. Mandel 23:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
"TOCleftist and rightist"
Thank you for taking the time to explicate so carefully and even-handedly. You make me feel that I'm in the company of adults again. --Wetman 09:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
{{TOCright}}
Why did you but the TfD tag back on {{TOCright}} less than a month after it was voted to be kept? DES 13:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Editing Help GOMS
Hello, you responded to my question. I figured you might get the message faster if I posted here. It's in GOMS, I was pretty done with thinking by then : ). Indo
Thanks
For trying to help me out. The John Ford thank you. --Maoririder 18:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
SfD
You missed at least one step, check the instructions for Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion again. (SEWilco 19:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC))
- Oops, I missed the step you did. You indeed did add the templates to sfd-current. (SEWilco 19:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC))
Speedy templates
Thanks for the tip. Will do! - Lucky 6.9 19:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Maoririder's templates
User:Maoririder has created even more templates than you already listed. You listed {{mountain-stub}}, {{Oregon-stub}} and {{Kansas-stub}}, but he has also created {{restaurant-stub}} (usable as a daughter of {{food-stub}} and {{corp-stub}} and as a split-off from {{food-corp-stub}}), {{fictional-place stub}}, {{MainePBS-stub}}, {{PBSKids-stub}}, {{Basketballbio-stub}} and {{Football-position stub}}. Aecis 17:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- I have listed them for discovery. I don't know if they need to be deleted or cleaned up. I could use {{restaurant-stub}} (after clean-up ofcourse) in my efforts to clear out the categories for {{food-stub}} and {{corp-stub}}. {{Basketballbio-stub}} needs to be merged into {{hoopsbio-stub}} and Football-position into {{Amfootball-stub}}. MainePBS and PBSKids can be nominated for deletion. Fictional-place might have a place on Wikipedia, but I think that could best be discussed on the proposal page. Aecis 18:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- And another one: {{Knife-stub}}. Aecis 18:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
All of the templates of have done should be away to make them correct for use on Wikipedia. --Maoririder 18:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I like the idea of trying to be sensitive to this person's feelings, but disrupting the site? Heck, we have plenty of real trolls who can do that. :) I only wish that the light bulb finally comes on above Maoririder's head since cleaning up is really becoming a chore. Sigh...we persist. - Lucky 6.9 18:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, aside from his knife-stub template, at any rate. Hopefully he can develop into a valuable contributer. We can but try. --Scimitar parley 18:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I'am really sorry everyone but templates really sorry and the articles need big cleanup and expansion. Sorry again hope we can all work together. --Maoririder 18:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I see you are responding to the claim of 5 delete and 4 keep votes on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Democratic Ideals. However, if you look there are 6 delete and 3 keep votes. You might assume that the rewrite comment was also a vote but 5 to 4 is inaccurate. (Wile did not bold his delete vote and it is getting overlooked. Also note that two of the users just started in July at the time of the voting.)- Tεxτurε 19:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- You are hereby quoted. :) Thanks for the note. I'm actually less concerned about the rewrite vote and more about the possible sock-puppets. I'm inclined to believe the deleting admin verified votes prior to deletion. Either way just wanted to have the facts out there. - Tεxτurε 20:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't intendign to shout. That was a typo, or perhaps i should say thinko. I usually start VFD page entries with a bolded vote, so I automatically typesd thre quotes at the start, then i decided to put my comment before my vote for once and failed to remove the bold makrup at the start. Sorry. DES (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- My edit summary which you are referring to wasn't meant seriously, hence the smiley :). Thue | talk 20:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Robert Diamond VfD
"Are you sure your vote on this VfD was what you meant to write?".
- I screwed up. I've changed my vote to keep, which was what I really meant. Thanks for pointing that out! -Splash 20:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
TOC Discussion
The default is thst the TOC appears after the lead section, and before all other sections, left aligned, with whitespace to the right of it. By using TOCleft or TOCright it is possible to have a "floating" ToC, where the article text wraps arround a left-aligned or right-aligned TOC. We are hoping to develop consensus for an MoS entry on when and how to use, and when not to use, these templates.
Thanks for clarifying. Is this proposed as a new option for users to select in their Preferences, OR as a change to the current Preferences default? Or is the vote whether to keep the templates available instead of them being deleted? Or is the vote whether to keep the additions to the MoS instead them being deleted? As soon as I understand I promise I'll vote :) -- Sitearm | Talk 17:35, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
Voting done -- Sitearm | Talk 17:58, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
TfD closures
Hi, I replied on my talk page Dan100 (Talk) 15:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Undeleted. My laptop battery is about to die so I'll sort the archives out later Dan100 (Talk) 16:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Template:DeleteBecause
While I understand your reasoning behind moving the template, it might have been more prudent to discuss the move before breaking quite a number of pages put up for speedy under that template. For the time being, I have recreated the template at the original name so that we don't have to fish through the articles looking for those that were broken. You might also want to note that the template your moved is named specifically on the WP:SD page. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, I hadn't seen the TfD discussion on nn-bio. I still think its an incredibly clunky change though. What I was referring to as broken was any page were the DB template had been used; they all displayed 1. Redirect db-reason.
templates
DES,
You shouldn't rename or move templates: Create standardly-named redirects if you want to. All alternative names should redirect to one template, it doesn't matter what it is called. By moving things around you then create double redirects and cause an unnecessary pain in the arse. Dunc|☺ 23:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
More on templates
Well, I'm just as happy whatever the main template is called, as long as I can use {{dv}}. :-) Thanks for keeping me updated. --malathion talk 23:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Template:Delete
Hello, DES. After review of the relevant discussion (I admit, I only scanned through it last time), I feel that this should undergo community debate first. I would recommend posting it on the Village Pump, and wait for replies at Template talk:Delete. We'll see what happens after a week or so. How's that sound? BTW, what are you proposing it be moved to? Template:Db-db? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
renames of speedy deletion templates
Now that the TfD on {{nn-bio}} has been closed I have renamed all the speedy deletion templates to names that start with "db-" as discussed in that TfD discussion. I have also cleaned up all double redirs and fixed all coumentation pages I know of. The only template not conforming is {{delete}} because it is currently protected. I hope this meets your concerns in this matter. DES (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, much less confusing right now. I think it's better to keep Template:delete as it is, since it's a bit of a special case. I would have also left Template:deletebecause or renamed it to Template:db, but the current name of Template:db-reason isn't that bad. --cesarb 00:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Maoririder RfC
I've initiated a Request for Comment concerning Maoririder that can be found here. Thought you might be interested. --Scimitar parley 18:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Re: Templates in Templates
In general, (we talked briefly about this on IRC a while ago), you should avoid templated in templates as it causes unnessacery server strain. If there was a template within a template, (e.g. the one {{db-repost}} before I changed it), when you type in {{db-repost}} or a shortcut to it, it first has to go into the database to find that template to show the text. Now since in itself is an another template, it then has to go into the database AGAIN to fetch that template. This extra step is completely unessacery and just slows down Wikipedia. Although I won't totally object to using templates in templates, when it is not needed, I suggest you avoid it. And the text is not that hard to edit (i.e. if you don't know how to edit it, ask someone else to). Again, just trying to save server strain. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 19:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
MoS
Regarding your most recent change to the MoS, I want to thank you for being willing to engage in the spirit of compromise. Nohat 19:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Wooops !
I know, I just missed it ;) Thanks for correcting me friend :)
P.S. thanks for the note on deleting msgs. I was aware of this for criticism, but since I don't think your message was in the cathegory, I rm'd it. If you want to restore it go ahead, by all means :)
--Raistlin 17:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
hi there. thanks for the note before. my page on Edward P. L. Tsang and addition on Utility Computing were removed. I guess there is a steep learning curve to put stuff on wikipedia, i will take my time to learn about it when I can. But for now, I better finish my thesis before attempting to contribute again. The other guy didn't seem to appreciate that I was trying, and just deleted it right out. Anyway, good and bad of open source effort, i guess.
TOCright
I was going to ask you to check whether I had done things correctly when I closed the {{TOCright}} vote at the MOS, because I could have sworn that you were an admin because of your behavior, but I see that you're as new as me. Anyways, good work like this will make you an admin very soon, so keep it up. :) Whenever you get a Request for Adminship, tell me and count me in. --Titoxd 22:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I erred on the side of caution and restored it, though i doubt it will survive for long. Martin (Bluemoose) 23:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I am doing a lot of reading now and preparing to update the page on Utility Computing which will put this page into context. I am modifying the summary of my thesis to use for the page. Just trying to learn how to "wikify" the Utility Computing page, should be ready real soon.
Roman the Great
Before the birth date you listed "a." Did you mean this to stand for "about"? the wikipedia standard is to use "c." for circa. Dit it apply to the birth date only or to both dates.
Yes I meant "circa" and it applies only for the birth date.
You wrote "Roman Mstyslavych was reputed by victory hikes against Polovtsi in 1197-1198, 1201 and 1204". I don't know what this means -- did he defeat the Polovtsi, or was rumored to ahve doe so, or did he gain reputation for doing so, or what?
He gained reputation for having defeated the Polovtsi.
You wrote "He lived mostly in peace with Hungary and Poland, won uneasy neighbours." this doesn't make sense as written do you mean that his realtions with Hungary and Poland were uneasy, although mostly peaceful?
He lived in peace with Hungary and Poland but also won battles and territories against other peoples neighbour to him.
Hike
I mean "a victorious campaign" !
Hike = campaign in my text.
Sorry for my bad English language ! :)
Tip
Thank you for the tip, It's been a long time I was wondering how people do to sign and show the time etc.
Now I know :
Bogatyr 16:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Dust bag
Hi. That was some bizarre, rambling kiddie-wiki. Why it's being undeleted, I have no idea. Kappa, to his credit, tries to include things...but NoPuzzleStranger is stalking my edits left and right. Check out his vote at "Monique deMoan" to see what I mean. - Lucky 6.9 17:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
lol
This nearly killed me [1]. It's exactly the correct response of course, and I was contemplating doing it when I saw you did. Previously undetected garbage on WP is no argument for letting more garbage through. But hell you deserve a humor barnstar.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 02:28:51, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
GEO
I'll have to take a look as to how. The original entry was nothing more than something like "Geo is a Pakistani television channel" without so much as a period. - Lucky 6.9 18:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Should be OK now. Nice save. :) - Lucky 6.9 18:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)