User talk:Gracenotes/Archive 9

Welcome to Gracenotes's talk page! Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

---

Archives: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15

RfD nomination of WP:CREATEBOT

I have nominated Category:CREATEBOT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't mean to template you ;-). TW automagically notifies the creator. ~ Wikihermit 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooh! I wrote a template for such an occasion, {{templater}} :) Gracenotes^T § 22:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfB

Thank you, Gracenotes, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions. Most sincere regards, Húsönd 23:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Obrigado, Gracenotes, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3). Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 23:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

allegations of apartheid template

I like the helpfulness of a proposal, and I admit I didn't realize at first that the POV concerns are directed at the actual link choice. What about clearly labeling the navbox with something of the sort of comment like "This only articles on specific countries. The allegations are not limited to these countries. For a full list, please see main article". Or something along those lines. It will help with several things: 1) it will help flesh-out additional articles 2) it will keep the navbox form being redundant and huge before its time. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and efforts on sandboxing a template. I like two or three, I do think linking into the the countries is redundant. I am more concerned about navigation ease than POV, but I do understand the POV concerns so the comment and additional point to the main article should suffice.--Cerejota 22:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Haven't heard from you, are you still actively pursuing this proposals or waiting for the TfD to be over?--Cerejota 01:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW RfA

While you make good points and I thank you for your warmness, I must say that that is irrelevant. As Giggy is relying on WP:SNOW, the question here is whether WP:SNOW applies. It is very obvious that it does not. Not Wikipedia Administrator 05:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer

Hello and thanks for your answer, on my page. Your answer is just, but that I want is put an boite déroulante same on the special search, on my page : user Stef48.
And with the code <source lang="..."> .......... </source> and all the text, there isn't ok. There isn't a boite déroulante on my page ... I hope you understand me, best regards, Stef⁴⁸ 15:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

{{Sd-copyvio}}

Hey I liked that header! Seriously, it was useful in allowing easily to make the message more readable (since it is very long). Normally, it shouldn't show up if the header option is not mentioned, or did it? -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Expand template design

I saw your comment at the TFD and thought I would let you know I was thinking of a new design and have written the coding at User:Moe Epsilon/NewExpand if you would mind checking it out. Your free to criticize or make changes. Thanks! — Moe ε 21:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your kind words in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust the WP community has in me. Carlossuarez46 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA - my opposition to carlossuarez46

Gracenotes - you replied to my opposition of carlossuarez46 by indirectly quoting Jimbo saying that adminship is "no big deal". Jimbo is factually incorrect. Adminship is more than just a "mop" for cleaning up messes. It's also a license to beat other users over the head with the mop handle. While there aren't that many consistently abusive administrators, there are tens, if not hundreds, of admins who have abused their power in ways which have driven away new users and in some cases established users. This wouldn't matter that much if there were any recourse at all, but there effectively is no recourse unless an administrator starts abusing other admins. Until such time as that is fixed, I'm going to oppose most candidates, because I need a very high level of trust to support giving someone a perpetual license to abuse editors. User:Argyriou (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD

TfD nomination of Template:Blpdispute

Template:Blpdispute has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

USER RAUNET

Hello gracenotes . i don't understand Ali's message . 2 weeks ago i was in the same situation with ""aids"" page . right now , i will change my password .

Ali's message was :

July 2007 Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Gracenotes. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ali (t)(c) 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Actor"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Actor

email : raunet@losangeles.usa.com

sincerely

Patrice Raunet .

Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe

You adjusted the reference/note citation style for the article on Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe. I'm not sure that it's quite as readable as it previously was. There doesn't really seem to be a standard method of citing on Wikipedia, even featured articles have huge variations, but I just don't know about this method. Anyway, what do you think? --Midnightdreary 20:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done - I think having the titles there helps! I'll try to stick to this reference style if I add to that article. --Midnightdreary 14:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"wikinote"

Since it appears on talk pages, the appropriate place to put such a notice would be the talk page of the template, not the template itself. Thank you,--Urthogie 00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Both. The first for aesthetic reasons alone (it's redundant, as there's already a link at the top of the template), and the second because of aesthetic reasons and existing guidelines not to put talk page stuff on articles.--Urthogie 00:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Crime of apartheid

The crime of apartheid was motivated directly by the situation in South Africa and forms a key component of the international fight against apartheid. You'll notice it is covered in the template as one of the key pieces of legislation. I oppose removing the template, and before it actually fit fairly nicely together. (Please note I am the creator of the template, so I am a bit biased, but the crime of apartheid was a major result of the international movement against South African apartheid.) I don't support removing templates just because they are too big or the formatting isn't as nice as it could be. We are supposed to be creating an information resource, not succumbing to OCD-like impulses for form over content. --CGM1980 18:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand a bit why it was removed now, it was pretty unsightly. It wasn't like this originally though. Here is what the article looked like after I first added the template: [1]. Then someone came and changed the formatting on the quote/table and then it the template no longer could exist side-by-side properly. That's why it looked so horrible. I've put the template back in, but the new formatting for the table doesn't work properly and thus it is overlapping the template (although the text in the table is wrapping properly to avoid being obscured by the template.) Sort of strange. Personally, I would like to restore the original table/quote that was used in the version of the article prior to the recent edits. --CGM1980 18:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect. I'll do my best to not disappoint you or the community. - Philippe | Talk 06:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Lights has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Cheers, Lights 00:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! I can always use a smile. Especially after a day of arduous packing. (Well, it wasn't that bad.) Gracenotes^T § 02:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

White backgrounds

When you're back from your vacation, please see my reply at MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 3#White backgrounds, ignoring the last sentence. I think it's fairly uncontroversial, and should be proposed again, but you seemed to be the only one interested (the editor who brought it up has been blocked indefinitely). Have fun. –Pomte 20:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Marasmusine

That was one of the most (if you would pardon the pun) graceful changes of vote I've seen in an RfA. Nice. LessHeard vanU 22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

		Thank you
		Thank you for your support of my recent unsuccsessful rfa, which concluded today with a final tally of 22/15/3. The comments and suggestions from this rfa, combined with the comments left during my first rfa, have given me a good idea of where I need improvement. —TomStar81 (Talk) 05:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

{{HPref}}

I tried to use #switch (an #if, for that matter), but couldn't get it to properly work. If you know how to do it, by all means please don't hesitate. (I believe) I strictly followed the instructions at m:Help:ParserFunctions, but to no avail.

Right now, I'm trying to include another parameter that allows the template to be flexibly used with inline <ref> citations (the problem is that the ready-made references in the template are "pre-bulleted" and look awful when <ref>'ed. —AldeBaer 16:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deprecated and orphaned templates

This page is now active after little objection to its implementation. Any help clearing out Special:Unusedtemplates would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: User:Madman generated a report of unused templates for me because the Special page only lists the first 1,000 entries. There are about 25,000 unused templates; any help would be greatly appreciated. Only half of the report was generated, but its contents are located here: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah there have been issues with calling templates "deprecated" when in reality they're orphaned. The tag is {{deprecated}}, however, I tried to keep it clear that I'm after orphaned and deprecated templates. Redirects in the template namespace that have been around for a long time and have no uses (esp. misspellings) would be nice see deleted. E.g., Template:Football Webistes. However, I'm going on a case-by-case basis and trying not to screw-up too often : - ). Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you tagged Template:Latest stable release/Microsoft Office 2007. What do you think about a batch nomination of all the unused Latest stable release and Latest preview release templates, located here? Also, don't forget to add the date parameter when tagging articles with {{deprecated}}. Without it, the articles will never be marked for deletion. : - ) --MZMcBride 01:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm in favor of discarding the whole system. It was created out of irrational concerns that updating the entire page every time a new version came out would be too burdensome. And, as I'm sure you're well aware, the system isn't consistent among various pieces of software. A giant TFD would be nice. --MZMcBride 02:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. Thanks for all the hard work. --MZMcBride 02:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re

Hello, it's Stef48. Thanks for your answer. I know the inputbox, but i'd like obtain this template. It's a dream (perhaps), but, i hope i'll arive a day ...
And with the javascript, it's possible to obtain this template (boîte déroulante) on my user page ? Best regards, 82.252.135.227 15:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

TFD

–sebi has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Template:Maximage

A template you created, Template:Maximage, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 21:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Need help with my template

I'm making a template to make a "user page portal", but something is causing the wikicode to be sent without being processed. the ParserFunctions I used appear in the page source. You can find the template here. Any help you could give would be great. Thanks! — Andrew Hampe ^Talk 18:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet vs meatpuppet

You're right. I unlisted the SSP case I erroneously filed (I had actually intended to report to WP:AIV, not WP:SSP). Should I request (speedy) deletion for Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hypotroph? —AldeBaer 16:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree on your hopes regarding this RfA. Do you have any idea what CSD an SSP subpage would qualify for? —AldeBaer 17:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done and thanks. —AldeBaer 17:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping?

You accused me of forum shopping. How many forums did I shop? I am aware of only one, WP:ANI. Isn't that where we are supposed to report these things? You should probably refactor that comment. I've been accused of a lot of things by a lot of editors who fairly obviously did not investigate my edit history, and only copied off of other opposes, such as tenditious editing, pov pushing, etc., all of which has never been asserted with any credibility. Forum shopping is also an unproven charge. If you are going to let it remain, then I request that you add diffs to said forum shopping. - Crockspot 20:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to raising awareness about vectorsector's actions, both on the talk page of your RfA and on AN/I. The fact that you posted on RfA and AN/I without cross-reference appeared to be forum-shopping: seeing which page would hand out a block the quickest. Normally, raising awareness is a good thing, but raising awareness for the sake of getting another user indefinitely blocked (with whom you were previously in conflict) is not very reassuring. On the other hand, it is not exactly bad. The whole situation has been made ugly and complicated by a couple of factors beyond your control, and I need some time to consider if I should support. I've refactored my comment to explain its focus better. Gracenotes^T § 21:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, all I ask for is fair consideration. I think, under the circumstances, that my conduct is exemplary. Of course, I'm a bit biased on the subject of me. :) - Crockspot 21:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

lolcat

Thanks for restoring the hai world - I'd forgotten all about it when I saw that the LOLCODE article was redirected again. Btw, what are your thoughts on the second DRV on that article? MrZaius^talk 16:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

template "current" and its relatives

Following up on the conversation over at TFD: "Ongoing", which I had nominated for deletion -- Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 10#Template:Ongoing.

• I agree, that template "current" has had, and attracts a lot of the kinds of uses similar to my nominating critique of the likely uses of the deleted template "Ongoing." In the last month, most, but not all of those uses have been pared down. They'll be back, without management and monitoring. I am inclined to have the guideline for all of the various "current" templates be the original reason for creating the original "current" template: many editors editing an article on the same day. Your thoughts are invited toward narrowing down the use of the various related templates as well, like {{current sport}}. Is there much hope?

• And also following somewhat on the effort at Category:Deprecated templates. The template {{current}} has a dozen-plus redirects to it, and I am interested in extinguishing most or all of them, since each one is another invitation to (mis) use the "current" template. Your comments invited. (Compiling the list sometime soon.)
  -- Yellowdesk 19:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)