User talk:Froth/Archive 1

Image copyright problem with Image:CurveBall.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CurveBall.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your request

In principle, maybe. In practice, no way. Arbitration should be used as a last resort, when all else has failed. In this case, I think that you should in the first instance file an article RfC. --David.Mestel 05:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter edit

No, I was not vandalizing. I thought it a more direct headring. Sorry . -- Jason Palpatine 13:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Award

		XP
		I, MacGyverMagic, hereby award you the barnstar of good humour for your comment: "It symbolizes the face you make when it fails on you :)" on the reference desk. A very funny and accurate answer to the question that was being posed.

Thanks

I didn't realize there was such a term as Systemic bias until you told me, so thanks for pointing that out. It seems that both terms are used to mean basically the same thing, though "systemic" is probably better to describe what I refer to, and it is also the term used to describe the WikiProject that I support.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Aoe 2 maps" question you answered

Sorry if I'm being a bit too persistant, but you said

Unzip to c:\program files\microsoft games\age of empires 2\

What's that mean? Mongol Man 22:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

See my response at the original page --froth^{T C} 05:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey back...

Nope. It's the rather rare "Phineas". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your good advice on Reference:Computing. It was really helpful. Robinoke 10:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

RefDesk

You've made a few comments, so I'll try to address as many of them as I can.

Colors: Judging by the design of the Main Page, it doesn't seem like anybody cares at all for consistancy in color design on Wikipedia. Using solid grey seems a bit bland, don't you think? I could go a bit more low-key, but to tell you the truth I was more going for a style that would work independant of the external WP appearance, but at the same time not contrast with it. Either way this can be changed easily if there's a few people who feel the same way.

Specifics: Do you really think biology is too specific, and people won't know how to use it? I don't really feel like we're dealing with small, specific desks here, even with 15 or 20 desks it still seems to me like we're dealing which huge categories. Though saying that, it's very likely that I will remove a few of the less obvious desks (like pop culture), and slim down the proposal to about 9, because we don't seem to be developing a consensus here.

Jutting out: I imagine that this is just temporary. There should be some other content to fill in the bottom of the page.

Misc.: It is my opinion that the misc./general desks seem to cause the worst problems here; not only do they become bloated with questions because many questioners are too lazy (not confused) to put them in their correct place, but the kind of response they recieve from editors is sub-par, because there are many editors (especially on the science desk) that don't pay attention to the misc. desk at all, presumably because they think that science questions don't end up there.

Thanks for your input, it helps.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  00:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I might just propose a revised design first, and the bot would work fine as well. I honestly was expecting more support, judging by the kind of response I was getting on the RD talk pages. I don't think I'll be bold on this one, people will clearly see my vertical desk orientation as a conspiracy to implement desk splits in the future, so I'll want to cover my ass on that.

Funny that you mention a template for moving questions; I'm actually working on a script that would be able to handle that automatically (similar to an AfD script). It's not really needed as the desk is now, but it could definitely be recommended if we were to have to deal with any more desks.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer...

...it's not that bad... 68.39.174.238 05:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what's not that bad? The price of a static IP address? Which is nothing from some ISPs? Who said anything about it being bad? --froth^{T C} 06:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

copied from RD talk

....If he used a normal smiley I'd be dead fooled :p --froth^{T C} 03:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeesh Bri, when you make posts that makes us pee laughing it seems also to be a thread killer.  ;-) --hydnjo talk 20:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC) --hydnjo talk 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Unhelpful help desk comment

While I appreciate that you took the time to comment, this really missed the mark. I am not looking to give the work of fixing the article and its affiliated articles to someone else. I don't know what the best route of fixing it is, and I'd rather get some input from a wider audience about it. Telling me I should "just to do it [my]self" is somewhat of a slap in the face when I'm trying to find out where to ask how I should fix it. For this and in the future, I'd like to know where to spark discussion about a group of articles to help me decide the best course of action for fixing them. BigNate37_(T) 01:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you were just reporting the article as "yet another that needs serious work". There are thousands of those articles and my answer still stands- there aren't enough editors to keep up, and the best way to reform an article quickly is to do it yourself. If you were asking for suggestions on how the article can be improved, I belive mgm replied to your original post, and I'd add the link WP:RFC. --froth^{T C} 02:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought of RfC, but upon reading the first sentence I gave up on the idea. Afterall, dispute resolution isn't what I'm after. However I took another look after reading your comment; you're right, it is not obvious but I think an request without a disagreement (other than perhaps me with myself) is still appropriate for RfC. Thanks for the prompt reply. BigNate37_(T) 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bot archiving question

Hi - there shouldn't be any problem, as the bot doesn't edit the archival listing pages, nor will it touch the page you linked to. Thanks Martinp23 19:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fellow ticalc member

I am indeed a fellow member of ticalc! It's always nice to meet another calculator enthusiast! --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)