User talk:Quiddity/Archive 5

Concerning the notice you intend to place on WikiProjects about the basic lists, we should probably take this opportunity to include the relevant Lists of topics and glossaries in the notice as well. Let me know what you think.

By the way, do you think it would be better to place the notice on the WikiProject talk pages, each project page, or both? How about a message on the talk page, and a standard instruction for the project page? I did one awhile back, but I can't remember which WikiProject I placed it on.   The Transhumanist 14:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to devote some more time/thought to that one tonight. By the way, I love the navbox stacking in the basic topic lists (eg History), brilliant :) —Quiddity 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I normally find stupid comments on my User talk page quite amusing, but I think that one did rather cross the line and I'm grateful to you for zapping it. Loganberry (Talk) 03:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. --Dweller 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You said that you changed FT's colours to "match the scheme". Do you mean the scheme of the featured projects overall? I'm not sure how we decide what colours work together best, but I was wondering how you decided that your new colours match the scheme better than the old ones. Thanks, --Arctic Gnome 15:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I personally might still like periods, but I'm guessing this has already been discussed up and down the block a few dozen times at MOS, and as long as it's all consistent (which I see it is, now), no big deal to me. Thanks. Luna Santin 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be an impostor. For one thing, I have a custom sig line (as you'll see) and if you check my contribs you'll see that I have never edited that page. Thanks for checking before dropping a ban on me. z4ns4tsu\^talk 19:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like good handling, to me -- probably the same person, but if they keep switching up IP addresses, our only options are talking them out of it or protecting the page, unfortunately (not that either wouldn't work, but the latter of the two is a bit of a blunt instrument). Let me know if you'd like me to keep an eye on it, or if you need any other help. :) Luna Santin 20:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to use the Move Page command on Philip K. Dick Award, but as the destination title already existed as a redirect with two edits, it would not work. Thanks for tagging the page for history clean-up. Rillian 20:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

...thou mayest be cheered if you join yon indicated discussion. You know me and how I hate reverts... but even I figure this guy is a lose canon just aching to prettify and reform all of us stodgy wikipedians. Take a look at what I reverted and his pages. Sigh. Like we don't have enough to do! Cheers // FrankB 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to ya; looks like you got it sorted. I find both versions very confusing, but it's not really an area I'm interested in right now. --Quiddity 03:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the links which have been removed have been on there since the list was created in November of 2005, I was surprised that your response (on the admin's notice board) wasn't consistent with your solution to an unrelated situation awhile back: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Browsebar&oldid=67575652

In response to the corresponding change, you reverted it and wrote in the edit summary: "Widely used template, please dont edit war something that's been stable for six months, take it to talk)".

Well, even though I've kept my involvement on the talk page, the other side has forced their changes regardless. The list has been "stable", with respect to the links in question for over a year - they've been on the list since its creation. How is consensus supposed to work here? Shouldn't the links remain in place until consensus has been reached to remove them?

I am trying to ascertain whether there is an actual standard procedure to follow, or if it's just rules lawyering and agenda pushing lip service. You for instance don't seem to be responding to this incident in the same way you did the one cited above. Your "stability" argument and your personal "take it to the talk page" precedent seem to apply here. If you truly believe the issue should be resolved on the talk page, then please intercede in the same way you did in the example of your intervention provided above.

I look forward to your reply. --The Transhumanist 09:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"I am large. I contain multiples" - Walt Whitman

I have no great respect for 'Randianism'. I'm trying to stay out of philosophy-related debating, as I said above "philosophers are far too proficient at cryptic quibbling, and battling with loaded language. They're the priests of the Religion of Words; adepts of the navelward gaze. I just read my bible and point out any naked emperors." Plus I have no time, so I must decline getting further involved. --Quiddity 11:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words, selective support of policy and proper procedure. So "take it to the talk page" was just a ploy then, which you used on a page you were interested in? I am very disappointed. All I was asking for was help keeping a dispute on the talk page, as you've been adept at in the past. It doesn't entail that you participate in the debate, only that you enforce proper procedure. If I'm not mistaken, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the proper procedure for making an opposed change to a page is to reach consensus (on the talk page) on the change before making it. Right? Without reaching such a consensus for removing an item, the item remains, right? But if the defending side stays on the talk page, then how does consensus get applied to the article? I look forward to your reply. --The Transhumanist 02:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, remains at original if that's what the policy says. I thought that part of the question was rhetorical.

I'll have to read up on that. Thanks for your 2 cents. --TT

At the WP:AN I was just trying to add another dimension to your somewhat POV explanation of the situation (of that note coupled with the thread above wherein you specifically name Buridan as the party at serious fault. creates a subtle psychological connection whilst appearing neutral.) I was only at that page because of a thread 5 down, but saw your sig whilst scrolling down to it. --Quiddity 04:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I didn't think the two pages had much in common - there's very little room on the template, so it doesn't make sense to remove a topic from it to make room for Rand's "Objectivism". On the other hand, the links have been on the basic list for a long time. It didn't even occur to me to mention the other page, so I'm glad you did. Thank you. --The Transhumanist 12:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to this article keep getting reverted even when I try to re-instate them. Now I just got warned about the 3RR, even though the anonymouse IP address who has reverted these edits has already approached 3 reverts. Help make these changes take place. Pugno di dollari 21:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Quiddity. I keep having issues with those pesky Fixfire users on how to display a certain "purge link" on portals. When it looks "good" to me in IE, it looks "bad" to them in Foxfire, and visa-versa. Would you mind trying to create a "div" code that works for Foxfire? I'll then "live with it" for IE.

As the "test case," would you format the "Show new selections" at Portal:Religion so that it's centered, bolded, and has a background ("the problem") that is about the same width as the background for the "Main page" tab as it appears to you? Thanks, Rfrisbie^talk 18:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "float:right" from the intro-box-div. That cleared up the problem with the purge-div appearing behind it. It looks fine to me now in firefox and opera (my IE is too old to trust).

I'm not sure what you mean by background/width - you want another color in there to highlight it? --Quiddity 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks exactly the same to me for the "before and after." I was just trying to say something like "1em above and below the text" for the background. When firefox types "fixed" it, it usually looked like about 2em+ to me. Go figure. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 22:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to make any changes that will prevent disruption of text on a page. I've reduced the size of the signature slightly, but I'm not sure that fully addresses what you are suggesting be done. Could you point me to an example of my signature on a page where a problem exists, so I can actually see the problem? Thanks. -- John Broughton ^☎☎ 23:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I usually notice things like that myself, but I guess on those relatively rare occasions when I look at something I wrote, I'm focusing on the wording and not the format. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 23:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

See Template:Smiley and the 3 others linked there. If they were restricted to user-talkspace somehow I might be able to live with them (though not the animated ones), but they're already being used in many article-talkpages. Unprofessional, unnecessary, and visually-distracting. TfD\CSD would be appreciated. --Quiddity 18:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/August 2005#Template:Sad. These templates qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G4, and Betacommand's bot should be orphaning them in the near future. —David Levy 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

and Wikipedia:Emoticons? No templates, but it is encouragement.. --Quiddity 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Because those are just standard image transclusions, the in-process deletion of that page would require an MfD discussion of its own. —David Levy 19:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Quiddity, I'd love to discuss wiht you the wikipedia policy regarding the deletion of talk pages with you, but it would seem silly for us to do it on a page you are threatening to delete :) Might I ask that you also participate in the larger debate, on a page you aren't also threatening to delete? Thank you kindly :) Mathiastck 14:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I replied there. I'm hoping I can get a better understanding of the consensus with regards to talk pages created before, or left up after, the existance of a corresponding article. Mathiastck 23:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Oh thou master of the watchlist!

re: Notices like this page related to maps categorization and now spreading to other interlinkings (That page pending save) for use of Template:NestTextColors(edit talk links history) on category pages. That is I need (ASAP) a safe text color suggestion for use on important text that can be seen by anyone with color deficiencies on either a transparent or white background. Got any ideas? XPost anwer on my talk please. I'm doing a lot of interwiki systems rework, pending a formal projects page, and would like a stable solution soonest. Also affects the other (interwiki project) on that bigger stage. A 'no' if this is not something you have to hand--you and I were discussing such issues (in general) in our memorable first meeeting(s)! <g> Thanks // FrankB 17:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See my message on the talk page of that article. Dbuckner 19:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my example off of Wikipedia:Signatures, because if you did it on the grounds that you thought it was overly complicated, HAVE YOU SEEN SOME OF THE OTHER WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINE PAGES?!?!?! But don't take the emphasizing by means of Capitalization the wrong way. I look forward to reading your rebuttal. Please reply on my talk page

-Steptrip 18:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, but I do not think you addressed the basic issue. Despite claims to the contrary, Wikipedia promotes Academic Publishing Wiki by linking from Wikipedia to Academic Publishing Wiki.

Please refer to Wikipedia's policy page on original research It reads:

"This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."

Under "Further Reading," found at bottom of the page, is a link to Academic Publishing Wiki.

In other words, Wikipedia does link to Academic Publishing Wiki. That's all I was doing, and I think users should do the same. It's "an official policy."

WvogelerWvogeler

I've left another reply (and a request) to your project proposal on my talk page. The Transhumanist 17:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Along the same lines, I suspect...

re: Your request on Wikipedia_talk:Welcoming_committee#COI/Autobio welcome. Quote:

Request for a new welcome template, for obvious cases of people writing about themselves/their companies. Would need to link to WP:COI and maybe WP:AUTO. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a favorite welcome template to work this into? AFAIK, this could be handled by adding a parameter to any or all the current templates. Just have to be careful picking the right place and mode. Glad to help if I can. I didn't want to post back to that WT:Wc again tonight... four posts in 24 hrs is a lot of activity thereon! Cheers! (and keep this damn cold weather north of the border dang it! <g>) // FrankB 05:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the implied compliment. I'll look in there again and see if I can help. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Template:TWCleanup is being placed by bot on dozens of glossaries as a permanent part of those articles, detracting from the articles' content and making them appear less professional. Template:wiktionary may be more appropriate. The Transhumanist 14:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Introduction. The Transhumanist 13:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't it take longer to notify me than it would to fix it yourself...? --Quiddity 19:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me see the light! Criticism of anything to do with Israel or of American traitors who support that cancerous state will result in being barred.

Why don't you racists rename this site "Judaeo-fascist-ipedia" as you seem hellbent on removing anything unflattering to the Zionist Entity and its murderous supporters like Michael Oren and Jeffrey Goldberg? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.19.89.120 (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi Quiddity. I was the one who posted the "barnstar for your talkpage" notice that you removed from the Wikipedia:Community_Portal.[1] Would you please let me know why you removed it. Thanks. -- Jreferee 21:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, I was overly-hasty there (it was a pre-coffee edit..). I jumped to the erroneous conclusion that it was a barnstar-handout, and missed the hidden-context-link. I'll replace it with (imho) a slightly clearer message, feel free to change it further/completely though. I see you already have. Looks good. Sorry again, about my overzealous cleanup. :) --Quiddity 02:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Can you take a look at User_talk:The_Transhumanist#HTML_and_template_needs and particularly the sub-section 'Interleaved clarification' about half-way down, and let me know if you know of anything that will scratch my itch. Thanks! // FrankB 01:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As you were putting your helpful instructions on my talk page and as I was copy editing (one section at a time!) the Albert Einstein page, someone started vandalizing the Einstein page...ack! What should I do? The part I saved over is gone now but will be in the history pages, and the other part (the one that says "Kill the Jews") I left untouched because that's what the police on television always tell you to do.

??? Is there a reporting procedure?

~ Otterpops 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, Quiddity, but I already have an account. I just was to lazy to log in during mid-edit. --Purplezart 02:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm six days into copy editing the Albert Einstein page, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel but now I got myself a troll problem. Somehow I aggravated DAGwyn into reverting, asserting and reasserting, and undoing my work all over the place (over basic dumb stuff) on both article and discussion pages. His name comes up red - apparently he's not signing as a registered user but he was able to get past the semi-protected page status. Should I ignore, finish my work and move on in the interest of not feeding? I'm starting to get mad and I know that losing my temper is not the way to go. I still have to go back to the beginning to check links and references so I'm not going to be able to "not notice" his changes. What do you recommend? ~ Otterpops 01:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Please God, DAGwyn is not you.

Thank you, it does. If you're interested you can see what I decided to do on the discussion page. After going out to dinner with my brother, playing some WoW with my sweetheart and getting some sleep (!!!) I realized that maybe, when people are getting punctuational (e.g. "!?!?" and also see above), it might be because they care a lot, and they're feeling confused, betrayed and upset.

The essays are a breath of fresh air, also a breath of fresh air might be a breath of fresh air, like you say. I hear you. I just...want to...get through...the Einstein Ordeal...

~ Otterpops 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You used the word "linkdrop". What does that mean? ~ Otterpops 19:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hah! I have found that a well-placed "linkdrop" can let the facts speak for themselves, albeit very subtly...

Sometimes bluntly adding a telling fact is necessary when an objecter is madly deeply truly in love with a sentence as s/he wrote it (e.g. Einstein was NOT on the Hebrew University's first Board of Governors because the Hebrew University was built in 1918.) "Ahhh, my precious...we hates the copyeditor, we hates him, yesss..."

Have a great weekend! Don't forget daylight savings, if you're USA.

~ Otterpops 00:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The synopsis given here has nothing whatsoever to do with this book. El Ingles 20:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your idea in wikilinking from Drop City the Commune to Drop City the book was a perfectly good one. However the uncommented synopsis is totally wrong and I'm going to re-comment it. I wouldn't mind writing a true synopsis if only I could remember who I lent the book to. El Ingles 21:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Would my talk page be more appropriate? Geo. Talk to me 03:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)