Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Regardless of whether you were right or wrong with respect to policy, do you really think it's appropriate to template an editor like Phil? Toddst1 (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Please don't delink userpage references to deleted filesedit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
No problem. Feel free to revert it, but remember that it is a non-existant file. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 23:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hello, LikeLakers2/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
My instinct is telling me fairly strongly that whatever you are trying to accomplish on TreasuryTag's talkpage isn't worth edit-warring over. I also notice you didn't ask TreasuryTag if he was okay with your making the change before you made it, which would certainly have been a preferred practice.
That being said, I'm not expressing any definite opinion here because I can't really figure out what you and the other editors are disagreeing over. What exactly is the issue with the header (or whatever it is) that you are trying to remove, and why is it a significant problem? Thanks for your response, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Some comments:
LikeLakers2, if you do this again, you will be blocked for edit-warring. Repeatedly reinstating your change after three separate editors revert you is completely unacceptable.
This is being discussed on WP:AN here; it appears you weren't notified of that.
Newyorkbrad: TreasuryTag has set the title of his talk page to simply "TreasuryTag" instead of "User talk:TreasuryTag". Whether this is a problem is being discussed at AN. 28bytes (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.SnowolfHow can I help? 20:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Miscounted, it's 2 reverts, but avoid re-reverting please. SnowolfHow can I help? 20:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I suspect that the more tailored question I've posted just above may help resolve this issue more amicably than a templated warning. Hopefully, LikeLakers2 can identify what the specific problem is and, unless it is more serious than I had imagined, can agree to drop the issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, LikeLakers2. You have new messages at Larsona's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, LikeLakers2. You have new messages at Larsona's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, LikeLakers2. You have new messages at Larsona's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Really? Name one edit where I harrassed him. And besides, the edit that I made today was for something completely different than that revert thing. I wasn't going to, nor will I, make any more edits to his user talk page. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I can accept that you did not subjectively mean to "harass" TreasuryTag, but my personal view is that you used imperfect judgment in tinkering with his talkpage after it should have been obvious that your efforts there were not appreciated. It is especially important to avoid any appearance of "piling on" to this editor given his current status with the project. That being said, I was actually intending to ask you whether you would agree, going forward, not to edit this user's talkpage again. Now that you have made that promise, perhaps the blocking administrator would consider lifting or reducing the block, or you can post an unblock request here using the template. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I actually gave LikeLakers a very explicit warning on IRC that he needed to stop editing userspace in that manner, especially TreasuryTag's userspace, mere minutes before he went on to continue such edits. My exact words were, "Look, let me try to put this is a very black-and-white fashion: other people’s userspace is not your concern. You are becoming increasingly obsessed with policing what people do on their talkpages, and it’s becoming very, very close to being disruptive. You need to lay off. Edit templates, edit articles, but just unwatch userspace. Pretend it’s not there." He agreed to that at the time, and I'm very disappointed that he apparently chose to discount my advice shortly thereafter. If I had noticed him doing his latest edit on TT's talk before Sarek did, I would also have blocked. I'm not convinced at this point that LikeLakers is able to stop making edits like this to userspace, no matter how many assurances he gives here or on IRC. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean "continue"? I did one edit after, which was for something completely unrelated. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
LikeLakers2, please agree not to edit other people's userspaces at all (except of course for ordinary posts to people's talkpages). I think that if you make that commitment, and keep to it, that may help resolve the situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Not just user talk pages, LikeLakers. Userspace, period. User pages, user talk pages, user subpages, the whole shebang. To build on what Brad says, I'd hope to see assurance that you will not undo anyone's edits to userspace, that you will not refactor statements in userspace, that you will not take it upon yourself to say what may and may not be done in userspace, and that if at any time a user asks you to stay clear of their userspace, you do so. I would suggest you limit yourself to leaving comments on user talk pages regarding situations in which you are involved, and undoing obvious vandalism. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Just want to point out that I have three IPs (well, two, and my phones dynamic ip). One is 71.101.46.244(talk·contribs·WHOIS), (or at least, that is what it was when I was blocked; also that ip is the one for my dads house) and the second is 173.171.53.193(talk·contribs·WHOIS), which is my main home IP. (This is the one I am using right now) My third IP, which is my cell phone's IP, is dynamic, so I have no way of giving any one IP address. In general, I'll be logged into this account anyway. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 21:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Huh, I can't clear the autoblock - weird. If you're still autoblocked, ask someone else to try to clear it for you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "LikeLakers2". The reason given for LikeLakers2's block is: "Personal attacks or harassment: Continuing to m
Accept reason: That should do it. The autoblock tool doesn't preload the autoblock anymore, which is a pain. —GFOLEYFOUR!— 23:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad to see that you were unblocked, and pleased to see that you've agreed to stop interfering with other editors' userspace, because it seems, however good your intentions, your doing so annoys the editors whose userspace you're editing. Anyway, thank you for your earlier message about TT. I was aware that he reverted my edit, but it was simply a crude method of preventing the archival of the block notification and declined unblock request; since TT solved the problem (albeit only for 48 hours), there's no need to do anything. Hopefully you can find an activity that doesn't involve other peoples' userpace—there's no shortage of backlogs if you're stuck for ideas. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello LikeLakers2. Regarding your recent edit: {{pp-protected}} is very sophisticated and it shows the right color of padlock on the article, echoing its actual protection status (semi or full). In a sense it is better than the individual protection templates. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A statement that an increase in African Americans has caused an increase in juvenile delinquency would need a reference to a reliable source, if any exist (which I doubt). (In the case of Euclid, how would anybody argue against the decrease in the percentage of Slovenians as the true cause!)
I am glad that you reverted your decision to include unsourced claims. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
But you may only unlink images that are public domain. Pretty much all other licenses demand attribution of the image author, and many of the licenses also demand that the name of the license should be stated. File:User-info.svg has the GPL license so it must be linked to the image page for attribution and for telling that it is the GPL license.
So I have re-linked that image in those system messages.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello LikeLakers2. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Ed Remson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. LoganTalkContributions 00:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding this, can you explain your edit summary? I see no backlog at RPP, or any other clear reason in your edit summaries for those articles to be, er... semi-semiprotected. Thanks. →Στc. 23:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Apologies for the slightly tangential intrusion, but during a slight state of craze, it seemed important you should see this image.
P.S. I notice your talk page edit notice takes an almost diametrically opposite approach to civility, to that of User talk:Nableezy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Heh. Also, I do understand that, and the uw-toppost thing was because I kept getting talkbacks added to the top of my talkpage, and it was getting annoying. Feel free to remove that part. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 11:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
The problem with making it a "/doc" subpage is that the interwiki links added to that page will be included on all the templates transcluding it. Although there are currently no interwiki links, there may be some in the future. See Template:stack documentation, template:user-multi/template and others for examples of this type of shared documentation. It's technically not a documentation subpage. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 21:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
The interwiki links can be placed in the noinclude section. Most interwiki linking bots check to see if there is a doc page, and if not, place the interwiki links in the noinclude section at the bottom of the template. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 21:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
(coming here as a (talk page stalker) of Plastik's talk page) As an example, Template:Merge/doc is shared by {{merge}}{{merge from}} and {{merge to}} - it has three sets of interlanguage links, the doc page detects which of the three templates is relevant. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I think we ought to adopt the German Wikipedia's idea of having a separate /meta subpage for categories and interwiki links. This would avoid all this kind of confusion. (You could share the /doc page but never the /meta page.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the German WP model is nice, and in fact, we could do quite a bit with moving meta data to subpages (e.g., all the persondata stuff). Unfortunately, that would mean more pages on my watchlist. The "merge/doc" example is interesting, but I am wondering how many bots actually understand it. Another idea is what Martin did with the automatic documentation generation in {{user-multi/template}}. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I am working on another shared documentation system at Template:Language with name/template now. And I would like to develop the /meta subpage idea for templates. In cases like this where no custom documentation should ever be needed, I don't think it makes sense to use the /doc subpage for categories and interwikis. And yet keeping these on an unprotected page is still important. I have an example at Template:Lang-crh and would welcome comments. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, LikeLakers2. You have new messages at Katarighe's talk page. Message added 23:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Just a courtesy notification that, while the userpage is not protected and I don't really mind so much that you made an edit there...it won't stay as the page will constantly be changing as tests for formatting only and is not sand boxing content changes. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I just didn't want you to think any changes are to revert your edits. I will probably forget now and then to remove the PP template or the fair use image so feel free to alter anything if it stay up after tests.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Meh, don't worry. I've had times before where I've had to remove a pp template from a single page more than once. It doesn't bother me, because I've generally patrolled Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates so much that I don't usually remember if I've removed a pp template from a page before or not. Since what I am usually doing for that is what I would consider maintenence edits, I usually don't mind if it is reverted. If its reverted and it appears at that category again, I usually just remove it again. Again, I don't mind, since it doesn't bother me. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 15:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have removed the PROD from Kunwar Amar. Articles may not be rePRODed - if you feel that this article is a candidate for one of our deletion processes, then you must now send it to WP:AfD. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violation of your unblock agreement at [1] to not edit the userspace of other users which you violated in alarming fashion at [2]. We were not kidding in that unblock discussion, at all, and your agreement at that time is binding on you going forward and further violations will lead to further blocks.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 01:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
You must not of been on IRC at the time when me and SigmaWP had discussed that. We eventually just left each other alone, and now it seems he is gravedancing me on IRC, like he did the first time I was blocked. ("have you seen the history of User:ClueBot NG/AngryOptin" is the basic idea of what he said) (not trying to blame anyone, honest)
Anyways, it was him apparently provoking me. He has done that before, and he didn't even ask me before removing my userspace entries. (not on-wiki (see history for proof), let alone IRC)
Again, I'm not trying to blame this on him, as I should have asked him about that first, and discussed it with him. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 02:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
LikeLakers2, the problem isn't about IRC, and I really don't care about IRC or Sigma. The problem is this... to get out of a prior block you agreed to a clear condition, a condition you decided to ignore. Many, many times. The condition you agreed to was binding. You decided to ignore it, and you've therefore been blocked for disruption. Courcelles 03:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
I actually was trying to keep it at a way lower level than usual. I've been trying to limit my actions in user namespace to reverting vandalism and commenting out protection templates for userpages that are not protected. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 18:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
A way lower level? LL2 you don't understand what you agreed to. You agreed to never edit the userspace of another user. Not to do so occasionally, not to do so only for "good cause", but to never do it. Full stop. Courcelles 18:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) See, LikeLakers, the thing is that you agreed to not tweak people's userspace, period. Not to do it less, but to not do itat all. And yet there are two diffs I found with ten seconds of checking your contribs, of you doing exactly what you swore up and down you would no longer do. You've even checked with me a bunch of times to see if something fit within your restriction, so I know you were aware of the restriction and knew that you were not intended to be making edits like that. It looks a whole lot to me, right now, as if you were just hoping that if you quietly resumed the stuff you'd said you wouldn't do, no one would notice. Your restriction was put in place for a reason, though, and people will and do notice if you start trying to dodge it (and get snippy with people like Sigma over userspace edits!). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) LifeLakers, you didn't agree to a "lower level," the only reason you were unblocked was because you agreed to a "zero level": Zero edits to userspace having to do with format, code, layout, content or comments on them, as in never. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Just a little note, please do not edit my page again without my consent. If you see/feel something is wrong, then notify me about it. The Catalyst (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
No problem. Mind posting at the bottom of talk pages, though? It helps keep things in order. :) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello LikeLakers2. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of File:113th Fighter Squadron emblem.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: F2 only applies to English Wikipedia description pages for files only on Commons - {{NowCommons}} is sufficient here. Thank you. LoganTalkContributions 21:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why dont you go ahead and see the talk page before you revert my edits. Everything was going ok with full consensus on Lumbini as the birthplace. Some of us also agreed with the Indian subcontinent word respecting other views. When in fact the word was quite misleading. But even then LUmbini was the consensus and all of a suddern User Sudoghost and Snowcream add all false information about orissa etc declaring their inclination to india and putting their own point of view.
When UNESCO is clearly saying Lumbini as the birth place, you cannot bring govt of orissas view here. Should the USA say canada is in USA, would you put that info on wiki? Or would you put something from UN. You should know better! And for your info. Sudo is the one reverting not me. I just edited the article once today.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Ah yes, but that does not give reason to edit war. I see more than one edit from you on that article, y'know. Both you AND SudoGhost were reverting, so that rules out your claim that you were not reverting. If you disagree with what they added, you can revert and discuss it with them, so long as you are doing so in a nice manner. (not to say you aren't, but I'm just pointing that out.) See WP:Bold, revert, discuss.
Also, I am of course not partial to anyone involved. This means that SudoGhost and Snowcream are not exempt from the rules. If you reverted because you disagree with them, feel free to let me know, and I'll undo my revert for you. Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 16:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for again violating your unblock agreement with this edit.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —GFOLEYFOUR!— 00:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sigh. LikeLakers, this is ridiculous. Your restrictions could not be clearer, and you have repeated them back to me enough times that I know you know what they are. You're extremely lucky that Gfoley caught this infraction before I did, because I wouldn't have been nearly so lenient as to only give you two weeks. Let me put this plainly: if you repeat his behavior after you're unblocked, you will be indefinitely blocked until you mature enough to edit Wikipedia in a constructive manner. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Apparently I don't even get a warning that that was in violation of my unblock restrictions? You ever think that maybe I FORGOT ABOUT IT?! Apparently I can't make a good faith edit to HELP WIKIPEDIA without being blocked. And to think I was helping revert vandalism. Today is just not a good day for me. (not trying to get an unblock, but I am not really in a good mood today) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 02:46, 15 November 2011 ((UTC
LikeLakers, your unblock conditions are that you will not edit the userspace of others, with the exception of normal posts to user talk pages, and it was suggested further that you only post to user talk pages for situations where you are involved. Any page beginning with "User:" is by definition in userspace. So how could you believe that editing User:ClueBot NG/AngryOptin would not violate your restriction? N419BH 07:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Just for clarity's sake, let me add that I had a conversation with LikeLakers on IRC last week explicitly explaining to him that the Cluebot optin page(s) were most definitely off-limits to him. There was literally no ambiguity here; he knew for certain that he wasn't allowed to edit that page. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
The warning you're looking for was your first block for this nonsense. The purpose of a warning is to ensure you are aware of the rules - you are clearly aware and blatantly, persitently violating them in a disruptive way. I'm with Fluffernutter. I think you're testing boundaries and then wingeing when someone notices. You're extremely lucky you're not dealing with a long term or indef block for this BS. As far as your moods, you're responsible for them - deal with them. Toddst1 (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I noticed the argument you are having and I thought you might like an outside opinion. Clue-bot will continue to watch your pages whether you are able to opt-in or not. Opting in to the angry opt-in only helps stop persistent vandalism. I have checked your user page and other pages that you tried to add and I do not see any vandalism on those pages, let alone persistent vandalism. Adding your pages to the angry list can also be dangerous towards your receipt of information if an editor was actually making non-vandalism edits which cluebot was reverting as false positives. Finally, if someone does choose to persistently vandalize your page, you and other editors can revert the editor and report him/her to an administrator. It is not worth it on Wikipedia to fight for an issue that really doesn't give you a lot of benefit.RyanVeseyReview me! 04:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, LikeLakers2. You have new messages at WP:RFPP. Message added 02:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It appears that you made a request to protect this article at WP:RFPP. The request is now sitting at the bottom of the page and seems to have got truncated in the editing process. I suggest you fix the request, refile it or remove it, whichever is better. Also, it is unclear how BLP can come into this. Perhaps you can clarify. And, the full protection has been completely removed since you made the request. Do you still think semi is needed? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
And you are not an administrator ... so what am I missing? Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
The fact that I am not an administrator. I can't protect or unprotect. I can request protection, but that neither means I am doing it, nor that it will indeed be done simply because I requested it. I came across and did that edit on the page both times because it was listed at Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I was only making sure the protection templates used match the settings. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 12:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Ok. Thanks. I am fairly new here and am still hitting some bumps in the learning curve. I appreciate the explanation.Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You're welcome to put your opinions there, but please refrain from using the {{RFPP}} template, as Rami R's clerking script may file it to the bottom before an admin looks at it. Thanks. →Στc. 00:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
When subst'ing on a page protected in both moving and editing, the pp-move template is added and covers up the semiprotected lock. Is this intentional?
Could you change the template so that if the protection level for moving and editing were both autoconfirmed+, the template would not add the pp-move?
I already told you, the template DOES NOT add add a move protection template unless the move protection is set to sysop. And I'm not the one managing the lock pictures. Also, the small=no thing was a result of me forgetting to include some parameters for the yesno template. Use |movesmall= for the move template. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 01:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and I have a couple alternative redirects to the sync-pp template you can use. The first is User:LikeLakers2/spp; the other is User:LikeLakers2/sync-pp. As they are pure redirects and not copies of the template themselves, you can still specify parameters and it will act as if you typed in the full path to the template. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 16:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Wonderful; I'll be requesting approval shortly. On another note, what happens if I subst' the template on a page in Template: namespace? Will it automatically noinclude it? →Στc. 03:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, as the template itself may happen to be put in already existing noinclude tags. If you put it on a template page, put noinclude tags, or place it in existing noinclude tags. The best way I would think to see if it is a template is if it is in the template namespace, or if it has the {{documentation}} template in its wikicode. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 03:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
hey can u help me to improve my article about this actor? Carmy Carrick -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobie89 (talk -- contribs) 02:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
What cases would there be where the difference in the wording would come into a effect? SnowolfHow can I help? 02:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well, the way both you and him worded it, it seems as though it is saying that userspace is completely exempt from G8, when I see that the discussion was about exempting one thing from being G8 applicable, not all userspace. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 02:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sure, but I just can't think of a case where G8 would apply in userspace that isn't covered by either the subpage or the user talk page exception. I'd greatly appreciate if you could enlighten me, 'cause I really am missing something here. Cheers, SnowolfHow can I help? 02:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well, could you just add it? I'm sure there is something in G8 that can cover userspace. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 02:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Could you add a parameter that prevents the addition of any {{pp-move}} templates, and another parameter that does the same for edit? It would be useful when the bot encounters a page and then does this. Thanks. →Στc. 04:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
I would, but I can't right now, as my computer is with Geek Squad, and I can't login with my PS3. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 16:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Poke my talk page when you're finished. Thanks. →Στc. 06:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor reviewedit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 8 February 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
As I stated there, why bypass MuZemike's decision without asking him why he extended the block? Anyone can see from the article's edit history why he extended the block. There has been persistent WP:Sockpuppetry on that article, with the sockpuppet coming back to make the same or close to the same (disputed) edits soon after obtaining another IP address or registered account, or soon after the lock on the article has lifted. Setting it to late April is too short. There is no doubt that this sockpuppet will be right back there socking not long after the 24th. But if he has to wait most of the year to edit the article, he might just get the point and give up thinking he can rule the article. Having the article full-protected for so long will not hurt the article, seeing as it is not high-traffic in views or editing. So we might as well full-protect it for a significantly long time instead of having to put up with the same sockpuppet every other day, week or month. 107.22.58.115 (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
has the GPL license so it must be linked to the image page for attribution and for telling that it is the GPL license.
