I loathe fragmented discussions.
Please place comments relating to specific articles on their talk pages. If I post on your talk page, I will see any replies posted there. Unless you request otherwise, I will reply here to comments made here. |
GRider
Regarding GRider's 'Socratic' VfD nominations and the ensuing reactions by voters, please read and comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider2. Thanks. Radiant_* 12:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
75px|center| | Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Petrified wood closeup 2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~
|
Thank you
Hi Korath, thank you for voting for me in my adminship nomination. I very much appreciate your support. Best, SlimVirgin 02:55, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for cleaning up my mistakes on my nomination of Sesel for adminship. Guettarda 23:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My adminship
There can be no doubt that Babylon 5 is the best show. Thank you for your support. :> Inter\Echo 00:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for fixing S (New York City Subway service). Too many damn tags to remember; I would have thought a simple <br clear=right> would have done it, but no, that seems to clear all. --SPUI (talk) 20:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Pic of the Day
Hi Korath,
Just to let you know that the Image:Walt Whitman edit 2.jpg you nominated for featured pictures is up for Pic of the Day on the 31st March. You can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/March 31, 2005. -- Solipsist 16:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Olchfa footbridge
Thank you for your edits to this article. None of the words you changed were British/American English differences. All of them were typos except imparement/impairment, which is just my inability to spell! Thryduulf 21:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your feature request on WP:AN
Here's a feature idea: first, put a "Block" tab near the "Delete" tab (in the default layout) for admins viewing User pages. Second, when you click the tab, you automatically see that user's complete block history. Good idea? dbenbenn | talk 00:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This might be possible with javascript. (The second part certainly is.) If you can email me the html source that's displayed for a user page, and that for Special:Blockip, to administrators, I'll see what I can manage. (I could dig these out of Mediawiki's source code, but that'd be fairly painful. I really should install php and mysql at some point so I can play around with it more directly.) —Korath (Talk) 00:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
- See [3] and [4]. I didn't copy monobook.css, so the pages don't look like normal. The tab bar is at the bottom under "Views".
- A preliminary version is at User:Korath/blockip.js, and should be installed in User:Dbenbenn/monobook.js. It adds a "block" tab to User: and User talk: pages pointing at Special:Blockip, which will fill in the username when accessed this way. It currently only adds a "blocklog" tab to User:, User talk:, and the Special:Blockip pages (the latter only when accessed through a block tab) pointing at the user or ip's block log instead of pasting it directly into the page
; it also doesn't yet deal with weird characters in user names (which, of course, is the main reason you'd want the tabs in the first place). Neither of these drawbacks are insurmountable, but they'll take a bit of fiddling to get right. —Korath (Talk) 04:23, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
- A preliminary version is at User:Korath/blockip.js, and should be installed in User:Dbenbenn/monobook.js. It adds a "block" tab to User: and User talk: pages pointing at Special:Blockip, which will fill in the username when accessed this way. It currently only adds a "blocklog" tab to User:, User talk:, and the Special:Blockip pages (the latter only when accessed through a block tab) pointing at the user or ip's block log instead of pasting it directly into the page
This is excellent! Thanks very much. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 22:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Excellent work, sir; your script has just found a cozy little spot in my customised work. May it prove its worth many times over. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:56, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
- Wow. Thanks so much for this. I came here to thank you but I didn't realize you had just whipped this up, which is even more impressive. Those two tabs are going to be very useful, especially for cutting down on block conflicts. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Tnx re VfD
Thanks, i've gotten rusty lately, despite having (at least independently if not exclusively) originated the practice of linking of VfD subpages to articles, back when they still had headings on the main page! It's been probably 2 months or more since i nom-ed one, and that's 3 strikes: wrong heading depth (but caught it myself), unlinked (caught by you), and previewed but never saved the addition of the VfD notice (caught by another before i saved & got the ed-conf screen). Actually, that was a nice effective review, so i shan't go RTFM, but i should make a point to stay in practice! --Jerzy (t) 22:50, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
Edit counts at RfA
Korath, as a matter of interest, how are you getting the edits counts to the encyclopedia as opposed to the overall count (apart from going through and counting each set of 500 edits)? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:38, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Mediawiki lets you get up to 5000 results on the various log pages, though you have to edit the url by hand (for example, [6]). I paste the result into emacs, remove the header lines, and look at the line number of the last displayed edit. —Korath (Talk) 02:43, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Qualifying SniffandGrowl edits
Korath, I intend to stick around, so your "user was added today" schtick will become anachronistic. If you intend to stalk me, I will have to remember who you are. I am doing what I do with perfectly good intentions. You're engaging in ad-hominem behavior and stalking to boot. I suppose we have to start distinguishing keep and delete votes based upon innuendo rather than merit?
"Don't listen to him he's a newbie" plastered on EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION PAGE is weak and obsessive. What is your problem? Sniffandgrowl
Lost 'n' Found VfDs
Howdy. Just out of curiosity, how are you finding all of those improperly-listed VfDs? android↔talk 05:20, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
- {{vfd}} includes Category:Pages on votes for deletion, so anything with the template, whether substed or transcluded, will show up there. (It won't help if vfd has been substed in, but someone edited it out, or worse, just edited out the category link, but there's no help for that.) From the category listing, I check "what links here" for each article; if it has a well-formed vfd entry with a link to the article, it'll show up on a daily subpage. If there's no link back from the subpage, it probably won't have been resolved properly even if it did make it to a daily page. —Korath (Talk) 05:27, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Rendering issues
You've been very helpful in the past - can you look at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Need help keeping table from overlapping text again if you have the time? Thanks a lot. --SPUI (talk) 11:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot - it's perfect in K-meleon now, but unfortunately still has a few problems in IE (Image:SS cut.png). Any ideas? --SPUI (talk) 12:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Lost pages (vfd ifd)
Hi Korath, I noticed that you were finding pages and images tagged for deletion in the category section that weren't on the corresponding listing pages. I've been doing the same thing for copyright violations and wrote a python script to help. It downloads and parses the category pages, does the same for the listing page and compares the two. Then it creates a formatted list of tagged pages (or images) that can be added to the appropriate listing page.
If you are interested I can send you a copy. Can be easily modified for your vdf work. --Duk 05:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer. I thought about writing one myself, but the volume's small enough that it's not really needed, and I have plenty of time to do it by hand. —Korath (Talk) 05:42, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
improve or this article will disappear
(I agree with you with regard to fragmented discussions, and I do not intend to create a long debate, just make yet a statement. :-)
We wrote:
- I would suggest a new banner (like POV-banners, etc, placed at top of articles that we wish to get improved further beyond the level of wiktionary definitions.
- — I'm not sure the stub-banner would be a good place to state such a wish of ours, but maybe a certain kind of stub-banners? However, that might be complicated to combine with the stub-sorting project. /Tuomas 06:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- {{Move to Wiktionary}} contains such a notice already. —Korath (Talk) 01:26, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
I perceive a psychological difference between the non-threatening
and the urging message of
This is a candidate to be moved to Wiktionary because it appears to be a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but Wiktionary is.
If this article can be modified to be more than a dictionary entry, please do so and remove this message. |
...of course it might be only me who is sensitive. :-)
/Tuomas 05:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You do have a point; {{Move to Wiktionary}} is still worded kind of ominously. In effect, though, articles with the template tend to hang around for months, and even after they're transwikied, they aren't necessarily deleted. —Korath (Talk) 06:05, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
- You used subst! I considered doing so, but...
- In any case, I think we are finished with this. I tried to raise a point, not enforce a change now, prompto! ;-)
- /Tuomas 07:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
VFD Bot interm
The server that I run the scripts on has cron scheduled on a non-UTC timezone, and automatically updates according to PDT and PST. At the moment, I'm writing into the script a time checker which will quit if it isn't the correct time to update. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Also, thanks for updating and correcting the problems in the meanwhile. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Post a comment
Thank you for pointing out this feature. I use Cologne Blue, and other comments about [+] made no sense at all to me. I rarely use the quickbar, and preferences do allow for its ommission -- wise to omit, perhaps, since pages often seem to stall just before rendering it.
I have not the slightest intention of going to the mat on this one, though.— Xiongtalk 08:54, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
Main namespace edits
Just wondering where you get that info from - total edits come from Kate's Tools, but how do you determine main namespace edits? Just curious. Thanks. Guettarda 13:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- See #Edit counts at RfA above. —Korath (Talk) 13:38, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I see, thanks. Did skim your TOC, but somehow I missed that section. Guettarda 14:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Images and media for deletion votes
I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 01:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- In the future, you might want to limit your spamming to people who haven't already commented on the image. —Korath (Talk) 01:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I offended you, but I did make an effort to avoid people who had already voted on the new pages, or who had prominent messages specifically citing a disinterest in being contacted about matters of conflict, but simply did not have the time to check and cross check everyone fully. ~ Achilles † 15:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
{tfd} tag f**ks up display of tagged template
You, Sir, are 100% correct. Putting {tfd} on a template nominated for deletion -- any template nominated for deletion -- f**ks up display of the nominated template. Sometimes this is silly, sometimes this is destructive, sometimes this deprecates innocent content, sometimes it threatens to crash the engine -- it is all the same, really; the blanket policy that requires {tfd} be placed on nominated templates has no eyes; it cannot foresee the consequences.
So long as the tag and the policy which dictates its use is inflexible and may be upheld by anyone wishing to wreak havoc, {tfd} is a hazard to the project. It must be deleted, which is why I nominated it in the first place.
Now believe me, I sympathize with your POV. You think it is patent nonsense to tag Template:Tfd with {tfd}. But this is the logical outcome of slavish adherance to policy, of mindless or malicious resistance to any attempt to improve it. Like it or not, {tfd} is at this moment deprecated in advance of deletion, just the same as any other presumed-guilty template.
If you want to come into this fight, I ask you to do so even-handedly. I have stopped reverting tags off Template space into Talk, and now I have sided with Netoholic, reverting tags back on to template bodies. I am doing this with complete impartiality, no matter how I feel about the nominated template -- mine, yours, his, delete, keep, other -- no matter.
So, if you want to put yourself on the side of the Template-taggers, please go ahead and tag all template bodies with {tfd}.
If you want to put yourself on the side of the Talk-taggers, please go ahead and remove all {tfd} tags you see to Talk.
If you think this is a silly demand of a minor point in policy, hey, I agree with you, too. I thought it should be a matter of judgement. But Netoholic insists that policy is policy. I changed the relevant comment in policy (which AAMOF I wrote in its present form) to eliminate the requirement to tag in Templates, but not to completely rule it out, either. And I have written a lengthy and detailed demonstration of why Talk tagging is supportable, and Template tagging both unnecessary and foolish.
But for the moment, Netoholic and I are united in upholding current policy, which demands Template tagging. And I, at any rate, shall apply current policy equally and without fear or favor. — Xiongtalk 04:46, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
- Please do not put words in my mouth. I do not think it patent nonsense to tag Template:Tfd with {{tfd}}. I think it's disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and, given the display generated (which I've duplicated below) and presence of this template on at least five hundred (and possibly many, many, more) pages, tantamount to vandalism.
- {{tfd}}
- If you want to change policy, you discuss it in one of the appropriate places. You do not nominate the page or template itself for deletion, particularly when you want it changed, not deleted. This is identical to the much more common case of some anonymous dolt vfd'ing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Deletion pages are part of official policy and do not have the authority to change themselves through their own mechanisms. —Korath (Talk) 05:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, you're right. It's really very stupid to tag nominated templates within template bodies. That really looks dumb. I'm glad you pointed that out. I hope you will work with me to bring Netoholic around to our side of the table on this one -- you know, he was here only six months ago -- check it out -- and perhaps with a little encouragement, he might come back.
But for now, our inflexible policy is to tag all templates right on their bodies. No exception is made for templates that are highly visible. Indeed, it could be argued that in such cases, it is even more vital to be sure that the largest number of users become aware that the nominated template is, indeed, up for deletion.
Please do not remove the prescribed tag from the nominated template until a decision has been made to retain the template. Thank you. — Xiongtalk 09:18, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
- Our policies are not a suicide pact. It is ridiculous to compare tagging Template:divbox, which is instanced on (by my count) two pages, to Template:Tfd, which is on thousands, and where tfd does break formatting, as demonstrated above. Template:Sisterproject is precedent for the numbers argument. —Korath (Talk) 10:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Let it be
I have come to believe that {tfd} is entirely unnecessary and a menace to the project. I have not recently tried to alter the TfD process itself -- as you have done -- without the consent of others. I have merely nominated for deletion a template which I find is useless, dangerous, unattractive, and boring.
- Excuse me? I have nowhere attempted to alter tfd process. The only people I see trying to do so are you, with your ill-considered attempts to force change in {{tfd}} placement against widespread consensus, even going so far as to fork it and nominate it for deletion when your changes to it were reverted; and Netoholic, in reversing the workflow after extensive debate beforehand on talk without significant objection. —Korath (Talk) 10:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
How big is this fight to you? You have attempted to reopen debate on {divbox}. Shall the matter be permitted to fester indefinitely? We have a policy and a workflow, and thus far, it has not been subject to edit war or seriously rude debate. Thus far, discussion has revolved around the proper place for, and for that matter, need for, {tfd} -- the tag itself, not the process. And the debate over {divbox}, while not harmonious, ended without anybody screaming at anybody else that {divbox} was the anti-Christ, or its nomination for deletion equivalent to genocide.
- Closing a deletion debate on a template which you created and only you have used is blatantly in bad faith. Let someone else do it. There is no shortage of other editors. —Korath (Talk) 10:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Seven days is as long as a template is allowed to sit and stew; after that time, it is free to go peacefully. Do you want to call that into question, too?
As for tagging Template:Tfd, I'm sorry: {tfd} is not above the law. It is a template like any other, subject to all the same rules and the same level of scrutiny. You don't like what happens when it is tagged for deletion? Sweat it out like every other poor bastard with a dog in the fight. With any luck, a sudden surge of support for its deletion will not come in at the last minute, and you can then correctly remove the tag from the template, archive the discussion, and breath freely for another month.
- I've referenced you to WP:POINT several times before. Please stop and read it. You may want to read Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement as well, especially the part about filibustering. —Korath (Talk) 10:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Proposing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion itself for deletion is not relevant, or even illustrative. The action of nominating Template:Tfd for deletion does not call into question the page, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. I think it's obvious that they are two separate and independent pages. Nor does the process of TfD depend inevitably on the tag {tfd}. For one, I have offered a new tag, {{ttfd}}, which is far more suitable for our purposes, as well as more attractive; for two, I am hardly convinced any tag at all is desireable; I am now leaning toward direct notification.
- This has been discussed to death on WP:TFD, its talk page, and Template talk:Tfd. There's a large difference between being bold and being disruptive. That you have forked the template instead of trying to find consensus for your version speaks very poorly of you. —Korath (Talk) 10:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
I despise threats, and I do not begin with you. Please allow me to believe I have given you sufficient notice that I view your recent actions in the harshest light. Despite all appearances of solidity, Wikipedia is a tiny, fragile ship afloat on a raging sea of chaos. We do not need to begin to violate policy simultaneously with editing that policy. It would take only a small number of sufficiently angry users to drag this project to a screeching halt. This is not a threat of mine whatever; but something I fear the subhumans will do if you -- and I -- give them sufficient cause to believe that the rule of common sense in harness with customary procedure no longer holds.
To risk annoying you with repetition, I am not threatening you: I will do such-and-such if you keep fooling with the way things are done. I am sharing my fears that if we persist in slugging it out, then our fight -- together with the dozen similar feuds raging in one corner or another of this project's infrastructure -- will eventually corrode and bring down the entire project upon our heads.
- Oh, I agree completely. Trolling is the number one biggest long-term threat to Wikipedia. —Korath (Talk) 10:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Let it be. I'll bet Netoholic will, too, if you do. He's too smart to go that far out on a limb. Let {divbox} go; and when its seven days have expired, I shall allow {tfd} its freedom, too. Perhaps you and I can then work together on ways to improve the entire process, and perhaps avert this kind of damn silly thing in future. — Xiongtalk 09:18, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
TfD and Xiong
I wanted to inform you that Xiong requested me to talk to you about TfD, and he wasn't exactly flattering about you. You are welcome to check my talkpage as to the comments he made. I will not involve myself further in this issue.
- I was going to tell Xiong that I wanted no further involvement, but just found out he's removed his talk page and has apparently left the building. Radiant_* 14:29, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Xiong was apparently quite confused about who did what. I have nothing to hide, so you may wade through the TFD's history from 7:05 to 8:58 UTC today, or through the morass above, for the real story if you like; I'm not sure which would be less painful. (I happen to be
stalkingwatching your talk page, by the way, so I saw this conversation as it was happening.) —Korath (Talk) 20:22, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- 1. I did not remove my talk page; I think user talk page blanking is rather questionable, all by itself. I did blank it and provide a link to history, which is archival to history; I'd say I'm hoping to start a trend, but I saw Eloquence do it first.
- 2. Do you, Korath, contest my assertion that you did revert my removal of {divbox} from the TfD workflow?
- 3. Do you, Korath, contest my assertion that you did completely refactor the TfD workflow structure itself, including the preliminary process guidelines?
- 4. Do you, Korath, contest my assertion that you did cite the refactored workflow guidelines as justification for your reinsertion of {divbox}?
- Absolutely. Removing something that you created from consideration for deletion, citing guidelines that you yourself had recently written, when there is no shortage of other users performing maintenance on the page, is extremely questionable. That I reverted the workflow at the same time was for entirely unrelated reasons, cited both in the edit summary and above. —Korath (Talk) 05:16, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
- You contest, and I reply, in good faith. Perhaps you feel you are doing Good, but you have chosen to do so while another is doing Evil. You might have repaired my error without abetting his machinations.
- You say Netoholic performed the original reinsertion, and you may be correct. Why did you revert to his most confrontational action? He follows policy and guidelines when it suits him and violates them when convenient. If you do not wish to be tarred with the same brush, why support him?
- I do not follow your justification for reverting to Netoholic's destruction of TfD process guidelines. I find it coy to say that this has nothing to do with the violation of those selfsame guidelines, at the same time, via the reinsertion of {divbox} and the obliteration of my summary of the debate.
- It's true that I rewrote the process guidelines, but I did not merely touch that one section for my own advantage; I reworked the whole mess, and tried to make explicit what I thought to be the consensus of the group, without actually altering the substance of those guidelines. It's true that my words are less ambiguous, but that's a virtue. I did the refactoring of the workflow and the guideline rewrite before {divbox} was nominated, and despite my many thoughts on ways in which to improve those guidelines, they stood right up to the moment when another user found them inconvenient for his purposes. No user -- not Netoholic, not Korath, not Jimbo -- found reason to alter them until that moment.
- I find it sad that you think it "questionable" I should remove {divbox} from jail when its time is up. What would you have me do? Allow it to languish? Where would be my sense of responsibility? Many users may touch Template:Divbox, improve upon it, mold it into something better than it is -- all to the good. But I am its creator, and like any good dad, I went down to the lockup and bailed out my boy when his time was up.
- I was arrested one time by the Detroit Police, at about age 15; when my dad came down to the station, I looked exactly like what I was -- a hooligan, a violent degenerate roaming the night. My dad and I did not get along at all; he had nearly disowned me by that time -- but that did not stop him from driving down to the cop shop and getting me out. He said what he had to say to me in private, not to the assembled officers -- and he did not abandon me to stew there or "learn my lesson".
- When Template:Tfd survives its time in the crucible, and emerges -- as it appears -- eligible for continued survival, I will not throw a fit, attempt to hold it longer in its imprisonment, or heap further insults upon it. I may continue to work toward moving it to template talk pages, I may try to deprecate its actual use -- but my attempt to delete the template itself will have come to an end. Nor will I object to its removal, no matter who performs it -- not even my arch-enemy.
- If you wish to regain my respect for your substantive actions, then restore the process -- its guidelines and workflow structure -- to its state at the time I removed {divbox} from its clutches. If you want to work with me on improvement of that process, I agree it needs work, and I will gladly join with you, after seeing this evidence of your good faith. — Xiongtalk 09:18, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
- I have gone over the TfD history again, and I do see that Netoholic got in a revert on me before yours, Korath. I am not going to list here a blow-by-blow recount of what went on, since anyone can see it. But you do seem to have difficulty taking responsibility for your part in this disgraceful affair.
- In short, I reverted Netoholic's unmentionably hostile act; you reverted to his edit. Over the next half hour, the two of you together made a number of substantial changes to the entire page, including the process guidelines and the workflow itself; it would take some very patient work with the diffs to see exactly who did what when -- which I assume was Netoholic's purpose, if not your own. You certainly did not preserve my edits.
- When I returned to the page -- less than 2 hours after I thought I'd fixed the matter -- I simply reverted everything to the state where I had left it. I flagged that as rv sneaky renomination of closed debate on {divbox}, plus undebated refatoring of workflow -- note that neither of you two mentioned {divbox} in your edit summaries -- not one of them.
- Less than half an hour later, you reverted the page -- again, to your own view of how things should be, including restoration of {divbox} and radical redesign of the process and workflow. Your edit summary: rv. He did not sneakily renominate; *I* did. Workflow debated extensively on talk. So you, in your own words, accepted my description of Somebody's actions as "sneaky", and indeed shouldered the entire burden yourself. Hey, what are friends for?
- Of course, there has been nothing like "extensive debate" leading up to the entire rewrite of process. I did ramble on at length on the subject, and you weighed in with a line or two -- but even I am not arrogant enough to think a monolog and a comment is a debate. I was hoping to push other users into joining in by threatening unilateral action, but you notice I did not dare take it.
- It was at this point I gave up trying to fix things myself -- if nothing else, I'd run out of reverts. Perhaps I should get somebody to be my cat's paw, but somehow I'd rather do what I can on my own.
Thanks
Thanks for your vote for support on my Admin nomination. --nixie 02:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Gaming Horizon
I didn't realize you had removed the hyperlinks on Gaming Horizon. Someone said "You forgot the link" on the vfd page, and I thought that meant I'd forgotten to add links to the site this whole time. I didn't mean to go around the sytem and steal a few more precious hits. I thought I was de-stupidifying.
And I wouldn't consider it bilking, but then I don't consider articles about real websites to be advertising. But then, it's all about how you look at it.
For the record, I think you're being a tiny bit to militant here. You said you'd "keep an eye" on the article, then you spontaneously vfd'd it the next day after. I don't care for your acusations and your tone. If you want the articles gone, state your case and shut up.
--Asriel86 22:50, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Bah, Wikipedia firefox extension fails me again. Sig added
- It's polite to sign your posts when you're being deliberately rude, Asriel86. In any event, I "spontaneously" vfd'd it after seeing the statement on your user page that you'd made articles about yourself and your employer. The notice to "please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business" was right there in front of you when you wrote the articles, and, given the inordinate amount of external links in the articles in question and that some hundred thousand web sites are more significant according to Alexa, they can't be taken as anything but promotion. —Korath (Talk) 22:30, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't make the article to promote the site, I did so to explain its history. If I wanted to promote it, I would have put links to the site on any page I could get my hands on. I thought this was a place for people to find out about subjects. Like, if someone wanted to find out about GH, they would have to type it in themselves.
- If that article had the exact same content but I did not openly admit that I work there, would there be such a problem? Doubtful. Who better than the experts to contribute information?
- Moral of the story? I should have lied about who I was.
- --Asriel86 22:50, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) Got it that time
Contribs count
Hi there! I was wondering where you got those neat summaries of a user's contribs by category; the tool I know of only lists total attribs. Yours, Radiant_* 14:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Edit counts by namespace, or #Edit counts at RfA above. —Korath (Talk) 14:50, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Welcome Tab
Now, if I wanted to add some more tabs that have my admin, bureau, tests1-4, etc. (see my user page for details) messages, what variables would I need to change when copying the code for the tabs to work? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've generalized the script; to add tabs for arbitrary messages, duplicate the
tabs.appendChild(addlilink('javascript:edit_summary_watch("{{" + "subst:User:Ilyanep/Wel}}", "Welcome!", true);
line, either within the same set of braces (to appear only when editting user talk pages) or outside it (to appear on all pages). The first argument is the text to add to the edit box, the second is is the summary to use, and the third should be true if you want Watch this page checked and false if you don't. Strings containing {{ have to be added together as above, or they'll be interpreted as you save your js file; you can't use <nowiki> as usual since it'll be passed verbatim to your browser. —Korath (Talk) 03:35, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Preserved Deleted pages in the user space
Here's the articles that were deleted and preserved in the user space. I'm not sure what to do with them (I don't know if you just VFD them or what) so I'll list them here and you can do (or not do) with them what you will. If you reply, I'd appreciate at least a note on my talk page.
- User:.0/Roy LeRoi
- User:.0/Elona Bojaxhi
- User:Vagrant/Eric Bruno Borgman
- User:.0/The Deserter
- User:.0/The Man in the Movie
Kevin Rector 05:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)