User talk:David Levy/Archive1

Active discussions

Archive #1 (3 April 2005 – 21 September 2005)

Welcome!Edit

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 08:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


AlliesEdit

If I did it was a mistake. I'm terribly sorry. I'll be more careful next time. I did have trouble uploading before. Can it be restored? Nobs 00:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


Talk:GasolineEdit

Thanks for getting this one off the dime (finally). I just didn't know how it should be done. hydnjo talk 15:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'm glad to help. I learned of this dispute via the request for comment, but I ended up becoming as passionately involved as many of the original parties. I'm glad that it (hopefully) has concluded. Now we just have to wait for an admin to move the article back to Gasoline. I can understand why some might be reluctant to do so, lest they invoke the wrath of the Petrol faction. (Of course, that applies to most situations of this nature.) Ideally, someone from the UK or another British English country (Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) will do the honors...er, I mean honours. —Lifeisunfair 18:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To see deja vu all over again take a look at Yoghurt. Yoghurts my eyes but maybe that's just me. Kind of the same thing happened there. Some user moved Yogurt to Yoghurt and nobody noticed for a while (about a month). And then when a user tried to move it back all hell broke loose. The difference being that not as much attention was paid to the vote as was in the Gasoline/Petrol debate and of course the organized (or is it organised) side won out, so it remains Yoghurt. I just don't like the stealthy way that it is being done. Cheers I mean regards of course,  ;-) hydnjo talk 21:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and take a look at the "See also" bs that's I seem to have triggered at Yoghurt. ;-) hydnjo talk 21:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been trying not to involve myself in the great Yogurt/Yoghurt debate, but my curiosity finally drew me in. It isn't quite the same as the Gasoline/Petrol situation, but it's very similar. See my assessment below. —Lifeisunfair 04:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My sincere congratulations. While some (including me) were becoming silly and frivolous, you held fast and especially held your (our) ground in the face of some pounding criticism. I'm impressed with your integrity and regard for this project. You have, by your example, shown more than you imagine. Thanks, hydnjo talk 02:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your praise means more to me than I can possibly express. It feels wonderful to know that someone appreciates my efforts and cares enough to convey such warm sentiments. Thank you! —Lifeisunfair 04:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, you certainly took poor Ed behind the woodshed today. Your point by point rebuttal of his comments were ... well, ... on point. I found myself feeling however, that you had him on the ropes long enough. On another topic, your editing skills and your "street smarts" here seem to belie your time on board. I really don't care on way or the other as to whether you are a reincarnation or not, I'm just happy to see someone being as constructive as you have been. And, if you're not a reincarnation then you're one hell of a fast study! ;-) hydnjo talk 19:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've never been able to allow standing arguments to remain uncontested. I don't need to have the last word, but I can't resist countering substantive (or even seemingly substantive) retorts.
Regarding the latter topic, this is my first and only Wikipedia identity. I have, however, contributed to various Internet communities (and occasionally dabbled in webmastery) since late 1996. And of course, before diving in, I attempted to learn as much about the Wikipedia editing process as possible (via observation). I still ended up making some silly mistakes in the beginning (such as "moving" an article by copying and pasting it), but I haven't done too much damage. :-) —Lifeisunfair 20:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well anyway your contributions from day one didn't appear to be the work of a neophyte but then I didn't realize/realise that you had the benefit of pre-study. I'm sure our paths will join and cross over time. Regards, hydnjo talk 21:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BTW, Who gets to remove this Pagename from WP:RFC, anyone or an admin? hydnjo talk 15:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I wouldn't feel comfortable removing it without some sort of mandate. —Lifeisunfair 15:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


De-listing from WP:RFC and WP:RMEdit

The following Q & A is from WP:HD:

How does an article listed on these pages (specifically: was Petrol (Gasoline) and is now Gasoline) ultimately get de-listed? hydnjo talk 20:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If there is no doubt at all that the dispute is over, you can just remove it. It is helpful when people do this, as otherwise RFC becomes very congested. You should list it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article content disputes archive. Cheers, smoddy 20:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Go for it! You deserve the satisfaction. ;-) hydnjo talk 22:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't honestly say that "there is no doubt at all that the dispute is over," so I think that we should leave the RfC in place for the time being. The page move has transpired, however, so I will remove that request. —Lifeisunfair 02:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How about pulling Uncle Ed's gasoline (petrol) and petrol (gasoline) listing from WP:RFC. It adds nothing but a little more confusion where none is needed. hydnjo talk 18:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Done. :-) —Lifeisunfair 18:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


GasolineEdit

When does it (if ever) end? WTF is wrong here. Does the agenda of the few dissenters require a lifetime of keystrokes to keep them (the dissenters) under control or will they (the dissenters) kind of die out after a while. While I continue to be impressed by you're patience in this matter, I'm also confident that you could be contributing in other more constructive ways. If I can be of any help here (short of kneecapping of course) please let me know, my patience is at a lower threshold than yours. However, I'm also committed to this project first and the community second so long as it supports the first objective. There are those, who in this matter don't seem to care about anything but supporting a pre-scripted agenda, no matter the merits. In fact they just recently show up saying Hey, I didn't know 'bout this so lets have a do-over. Clearly this is an orchestrated attempt to corrupt the process under which they (the dissenters) don't approve of the result. Cheers, hydnjo talk 03:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above, and I don't intend to continue investing time and effort in this discussion ad infinitum. There are some other articles that I'd like to work on, and I also have plenty of real-life matters to address. Hopefully, we're witnessing the debate's death throes. —Lifeisunfair 03:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK I'll be as optimistic as you are. You do have a calming effect with your strait-forwardness. With crossed fingers then, cheers and best wishes, hydnjo talk 04:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jeez! Are you confidant about the "death throes" part? I recall some time ago our Secretary of State Defense referring to a few dead-enders in Iraq. ;-) hydnjo talk 23:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, as you noted previously, I'm being optimistic (and perhaps unrealistic). If this nonsense continues beyond the immediate future, I'll try to pull myself away. (Again, that might be unrealistic, given my apparent gluttony for punishment.) —Lifeisunfair 04:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It seems that you are correct. Oh rats. I hope we aren't being "watchlisted". Cheers, ;-) hydnjo talk 00:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Yoghurt vs. YogurtEdit

After you review the discussion at Talk:Yoghurt, what is your gut feel. I'm hard pressed to discern a strong preference (except along the usual party lines) as to which is the more appropriate Pagename. Sorry to press you into service again but what do you think? We may not be as adept as you at fixing things but we'll give it a go if you if you think this article is misnamed. Thanks in advance, hydnjo talk 03:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, your words are too kind. Indeed, I do believe that the article is misnamed. Yogurt was the original title, and appears to be the far more common spelling. Even in the UK, it seems to be catching on.
I will say, however, that the move to Yoghurt was not entirely without merit, given the Turkish etymology.
On the other hand, it's obvious that the vote was unfairly stacked by members of the UK Wikipedians' Notice Board, who blindly supported Yoghurt because they were rallied to action on the basis of national loyalty.
If a new vote begins, you can rest assured that I'll make my opinion known on the Yoghurt talk page. For now, it appears that the formal debate has ended, and I wouldn't feel comfortable stirring things up (no pun intended). —Lifeisunfair 04:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Gasoline/PetrolEdit

Did you read my most recent replies to you, dated 01:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)? You responded to only one. —Lifeisunfair 04:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I haven't read them yet as I don't usually wiki on weekends, but before I read them I want to apologize for contributing to the animosity on Talk:Petrol. I'm saying this now just incase your new replies cause me to feel, shall we say , "less apologetic" :) If so, however, I understand your motivation. That page seems to bring out the aggressive side of me because I've already had to apologize recently to another editor (Yama). I have a strong belief in the doctrine of "encyclopedia first, community second" which puts me at odds with the original author "policy" (which is actually just a suggestion). I understand it's potential benefits for the community; that being the prevention of drawn-out debates over such minimally important things like spelling, however it is my belief (and many others) that it also has the potential to compromise the quality of the encyclopedia. While the original author of Gasoline happened to choose the best name for the article, the original author of Check didn't, which you know because you voted to move it to Cheque. There wasn't any opposition to that particular move, however anybody could have easily rounded up enough die-hard pure AE supporters to keep it at the "original" page no matter how well anyone proved the appropriateness of "Cheque". ...Wow, I didn't plan to write this much and now my apology seems like a soapbox, so once more; I'm sorry for possibly promoting hostility between us.   —TeknicT-M-C 08:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've read everything and am pleased to say that all is well. I respect your rebuttals and have replied to most of them (apologies included when necessary). Sorry about the "unfair" analogies; they were pretty juvenile.   —TeknicT-M-C 10:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Apologies accepted; please see my new replies. —Lifeisunfair 05:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the supporting words. :) The archive2 page has been deleted. --Golbez 22:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't let Yama bait me anymore. Isn't it obvious that since I don't have any drama in my own life, I fall right into it here? Just say, "Bastique, leave it alone. Just don't repond." I'm really a kind, loving, sweet and wonderful person. Yama is just the type that brings out the absolute worst in me. Thanks for letting me share. astiquetalk 02:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Good changeEdit

I have incorporated this into Template:Personal. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


About {{Tv-stub}}Edit

I saw you changed the scope of this template back to what it was originally. Could you consider tagging technical articles with {{Broadcasting-stub}} rather than {{Tv-stub}}? Differential use of Tv-stub vs. Radio-stub for "all topics" vs. "programmes" is quite confusing and I'd not gotten around to moving non-program items out of Tv-stub into Broadcasting-stub yet since the change of scope. A sub-template/category could be made {{Tv-bcast-stub}} (consistent with US-bcast-stub, Canada-bcast-stub, and UK-bcast-stub} for specific Tv-related technology, but that would need to be proposed at WP:WSS/C as a "proposed stub type". For a full discussion of the thinking and actions around the whole broadcasting/station stub type area, see the "Category:Station-stubs" section of WP:WSS/C.

I'm not going to revert your reversion of scope at this time until I've had a chance to do the re-stubbing of appropriate articles from Tv-stub to Broadcasting-stub, which won't be for a while (call it an eternity in Wiki-time).

Cheers.

I'm watching this page, so you can respond here to maintain conversation continuity.

Courtland 17:09, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)


I'm new to this discussion, so please bear with me. My attention was drawn to the {{Tv-stub}} template because EdwinHJ switched "programme" to "program." I was going to revert it (because spellings should not be changed purely for the sake of conforming to a particular variety of English), when I noticed several entries that didn't fit this description. (When these have been weeded out, maybe the word "programming" should be substituted, so as to accommodate readers of both British and American English. This applies to the {{Radio-stub}} template, as well.)
I recall that the TV stub templates were extremely disorganized (with {{Tv-stub}} and the defunct {{Tvseries-stub}} used interchangeably), and I agree that major reform is in order. There are, however, some issues.
Firstly, it's my opinion that radio and television broadcasts should not be lumped together. {{Radio-bcast-stub}} and the aforementioned {{Tv-bcast-stub}} would be a logical separation.
Secondly, some of the technical stubs to which I was referring do not belong in the category of "broadcasting." Examples are:
Boob tube, Digital cable, D-VHS, High-key lighting, Jib (television), SCTE, Television director, V-chip, VHS-C, VideoPlus, W-VHS
{{Tv-tech-stub}} (perhaps as a sub-template of {{tech-stub}}) would be more suitable.
Lifeisunfair 19:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


About lumping radio and tv broadcasting togetherEdit

The majority of the items under broadcasting are either stations, channels, networks, towers, or companies. My reasoning for not splitting radio and tv is that for many of these a person in a particular geographical area would be familiar with both a tv station and a radio station in the same area and I thought it best to serve the geographical axis over the transmission mode axis with respect to persons expanding stubs. Does this rationale for keeping them together seem reasonable to you? this did go by ths Stub Sorting WikiProject forum and was approved as it currently stands ... not that this stands in the way of changing it, just pointing out it wasn't a quick fix decision Courtland 00:52, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Only if the stub templates were very regionally specific (meaning that North American stations were divided by market) would that make sense to me. (Obviously, that would be highly impractical.) Even then, many people follow one broadcast medium and not the other. I, for example, know far more about television (including that of some other countries) than I do about radio.
I feel that {{Broadcasting-stub}} has been misnamed, because many elements of radio and television (such as production and some technologies) have little or no connection to broadcasting. A more suitable name would be {{Radio-tv-stub}}.
I also feel that national television networks and cable/satellite channels should not be lumped together with local broadcasters (in the United States, at least).
As I see it, we should have the following templates or ones similar to them:
  R {{Radio-tv-stub}} (Radio & television stubs)
  N    {{Radio-tv-tech-stub}} (Radio & television technologies stubs — also a sub-template of {{tech-stub}})
  N    {{Radio-bcast-stub}} (Radio broadcaster stubs)
  N       {{Canada-radio-bcast-stub}} (Canada radio broadcaster stubs)
  N       {{UK-radio-bcast-stub}} (United Kingdom radio broadcaster stubs)
             {{BBC-stub}} (British Broadcasting Corporation stubs)
  N       {{US-radio-bcast-stub}} (United States radio broadcaster stubs)
  N    {{Radio-bio-stub}} (Radio biographical stubs)      
  R    {{Radio-prog-stub}} (Radio programming stubs)
  N       {{Canada-radio-prog-stub}} (Canada radio programming stubs)
  N       {{UK-radio-prog-stub}} (United Kingdom radio programming stubs)
             {{BBC-stub}} (British Broadcasting Corporation stubs)
  N       {{US-radio-prog-stub}} (United States radio programming stubs)
  N    {{Tv-bcast-stub}} (Television broadcaster stubs)
  N       {{Canada-tv-bcast-stub}} (Canada television broadcaster stubs)
  N       {{UK-tv-bcast-stub}} (United Kingdom television broadcaster stubs)
             {{BBC-stub}} (British Broadcasting Corporation stubs)
  N       {{US-tv-bcast-local-stub}} (United States local television broadcaster stubs)
  N       {{US-tv-bcast-natl-stub}} (United States national television broadcaster stubs)
             {{PBS stub}} (Public Broadcasting Service stubs)
       {{Tv-bio-stub}} (Television biographical stubs)
  R    {{Tv-prog-stub}} (Television programming stubs)
  N       {{Canada-tv-prog-stub}} (Canada television programming stubs)
  R       {{UK-tv-prog-stub}} (United Kingdom television programming stubs)
             {{BBC-stub}} (British Broadcasting Corporation stubs)
             {{Doctorwho-stub}} (Doctor Who stubs)
  R       {{US-tv-prog-stub}} (United States television programming stubs)
             {{Buffyverse-stub}} (Buffyverse stubs)
             {{PBS stub}} (Public Broadcasting Service stubs)
             {{ST-stub}} (Star Trek stubs)
                {{ST-ep-stub}} (Star Trek episode stubs)
          {{Nickelodeon-stub}} (Nickelodeon stubs)
          {{Soap-char-stub}} (Soap opera character stubs)
  
  N = new
  R = renamed
And as a sub-template of {{Corp-stub}}:
{{Media-co-stub}} (media companies stubs — encompassing all aspects of media production and publication, which typically overlap)
{{Website-stub}} (Website stubs) should be moved elsewhere.
I've omitted redirects (for the sake of convenience) and the Hong Kong / Singapore stub templates (because I'm unsure of the extent to which these should be subdivided). Shouldn't some additional English-speaking countries (such as Australia and New Zealand) be included?
I might have gone slightly overboard with some of the subdivision that I did include, but you get the idea. This merely is a rough outline (and I'm not asserting any sort of authority). —Lifeisunfair 08:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

to continue conversation I would suggest we take this to WP:WSS/C, where I've put a link to this discussion under the heading Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#Suggested_changes_from_another_quarter. Courtland 16:32, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Understood. :-) —Lifeisunfair 16:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


{{spoiler-other}} templateEdit

The text {{spoiler-other|other [[Whedonverse]] entities}} produces the following:

{{spoiler-other|other Whedonverse entities}}

(Mentally replace "Lifeisunfair" with the name of a Whedonverse series or character.)

Lifeisunfair 16:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Vote commentsEdit

I understand you have strong feelings on certain issues, but please stop commenting on every single vote. When you comment on votes you agree with, you're being remarkably redundant (essentially "me too!"). When you comment on votes you disagree with, you tend to just repeat your previous comments and also tend to be abrasive and condescending. I invite you to return your concentration and energy back to the encyclopedia articles, and not get so stressed about silly templates. -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my remarks seem abrasive and condescending. From my perspective, yours have come across as arrogant and dismissive, but I'm willing to assume that my interpretations are as inaccurate as yours are.
As for redundancy, the purpose of these discussions is not to list each viewpoint once, but to establish consensus. This occurs when most members of a group convey the same or similar opinions. Agreement should be expressed, not repressed. But of course, you're welcome to interact (or not interact) to the extent that you see fit. —Lifeisunfair 18:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


WikiquetteEdit

I'd like you to read the above page, because I fear you really don't understand how to interact productively.

On a public page like Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, you should be polite and "argue facts, not personalities". This means that you should probably direct your comments (like I have) towards the issue, not the people. These talk pages last for a long time, and comments directed at people are of low value.

On the other hand, on a User's talk page, like this one, it is entirely appropriate to refer to "you" more often, since that is the context. In the future, if you want to discuss my behavior or attitude, please do so on my talk page. On Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, please talk to the issue -- describe your position and don't challenge me.

If you want to move the conversation from the Spoiler talk page to my talk page, do so and then reply to my original message as I'm suggesting. -- Netoholic @ 23:36, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)


  • Netoholic, you're lecturing again. It doesn't become you. Courtland 00:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)


"I'd like you to read the above page,"
I read it before I made my first Wikipedia edit.
"because I fear you really don't understand how to interact productively."
Yeah, I'm the condescending one.
Since when is declaring the equivalent of "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong!" the gold standard of productivity?
"On a public page like Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, you should be polite and 'argue facts, not personalities'."
I am arguing facts. You engaged in behavior that I deem inappropriate, and I addressed this behavior. I didn't say, "I'm intelligent and Netoholic's a crazy moron!" (which is not my belief).
"This means that you should probably direct your comments (like I have) towards the issue, not the people."
1. Your idea of addressing the issue is to ignore a clear consensus, repeatedly state your minority opinion as though it's a widely accepted belief, impose this decision upon the community (while announcing your intention to revert any and all contrary edits), and dismiss all pertinent criticisms as personal attacks.
2. You dedicated your most recent Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning reply (in its entirety) to criticizing me, thereby disregarding the content of my previous reply that you claim is absent.
3. Your uncalled-for (in my assessment) editing is a relevant editorial issue. How am I supposed to discuss this without referencing the fact that you're responsible for these acts?
Lifeisunfair 01:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Please stop. You're going way too far in your "fight". I have some ideas, but your premature vote and attitude are really interfering. I removed your vote because there is no consensus even on the format of it (see Wikipedia:Survey guidelines). -- Netoholic @ 14:32, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that this explanation is probably the clearest you've described your position. I really wish you would do something similar on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, because, having just noticed it, I can see there may be some validity to it. I still think we can get by with just two templates if we tweak a bit. Are you willing to discuss? -- Netoholic @ 14:44, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

re:NetoholicEdit

see User:Netoholic/mentoring#Community_comments


Recommendation on TemplatesEdit

I recommend you and the other party (Netoholic) to initiate a mediation procedure. The other party has received the same request. I hope you will be wise enough to agree to collaborate. If you agree to undergo the procedure, please state so on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. Yours sincerely, Sikon 17:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • FYI, Neto was blocked for 3RR. I also had a lengthy conversation with him and one of his mentors. I hope that it'll have effect. Radiant_>|< 23:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


Template:Cleanup-dateEdit

Thank you for taking the time to so carefully update my tools page. Cheers, DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. After changing the template's name (to conform to all of the other cleanup tags), it would have been rather irresponsible for me not to have cleaned up the resultant redirects. :-) —Lifeisunfair 15:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 
Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

I hereby award you The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar for your efforts above and beyond the call. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much! You've helped to brighten my weekend. :-) —Lifeisunfair 15:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


An observationEdit

For someone who frequently complains about people "stalking" him, you've demonstrated an unusual propensity to revert my changes (on pages that you haven't edited before). A colored box and icon were first added to the {{merge}} template in May, but it wasn't until after I introduced my design (one month later) that you took an interest in maintaining the "longer-standing version."

Just today, you reverted my thirteen-hour-old changes to the {{split}} tag — another template that you hadn't edited before.

To be clear, you have every right to monitor my contribution log. Just stop objecting when others act in kind. —Lifeisunfair 2 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself. In order to see at a glance what the state of the Merge templates is, I monitor Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Merging and splitting. -- Netoholic @ July 3, 2005 14:45 (UTC)
"Don't flatter yourself."
You mean like this?
"In order to see at a glance what the state of the Merge templates is,"
You mean the merge templates that you never edited until after I did, despite the fact that others had implemented the types of changes to which you object?
"I monitor Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Merging and splitting."
Prove it. You can't, just as you can't prove that others are "stalking" your edits (as opposed to simply encountering them coincidentally.)
And if you're so familiar with that page, why are you disregarding the fact that almost all of the cleanup templates use colored boxes? —Lifeisunfair 3 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)
Also, the {{split}} tag had used a colored box since May (well over a month). If you've been monitoring Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, why did you never edit it until thirteen hours after I did? —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)


Merge templateEdit

Sorry, if it wasn't clear, I meant my comment for Radiant, and wasn't replying to you. As for reverting the page to the "consensus" version and then protecting it, that would be even more out of line. Violetriga was in fact only marginally involved, and hadn't taken part in the edit war. Anyway, this is no big deal, since the issue will presumably be resolved by the vote. — Dan | Talk 4 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)

It was clear that you were addressing Radiant. I was just adding my 2¢. And yes, the voting should take care of this dispute.  :-) —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)
This whole issue is just stupid. Why not leave well enough alone? --Zpb52 July 6, 2005 02:17 (UTC)
There exists significant disagreement regarding which design is "well enough" to leave alone; hence the voting. If you prefer my design, you can vote for it, but there's no sense in reverting back and forth. —Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 02:25 (UTC)


CSS alternativeEdit

Add this to your User:Lifeisunfair/monobook.css or equivalent based on your skin preference (see m:Help:User style):

#merge {
    margin-left: auto;
    margin-right: auto;
    text-align: center;
    background:#f5edf5;
    width:85%;
    border:1px solid #cf9fff;
    border-collapse: collapse;
    margin-bottom: 1em
}

Then go view Template:Mergeto and Template:Mergefrom, which I've converted to use open CSS styling. -- Netoholic @ July 4, 2005 03:44 (UTC)

That's interesting, and I sincerely appreciate your effort, but this doesn't replace the other design to my satisfaction. The images are missing, and I seriously doubt that many users are aware of this feature's existence. (I certainly wasn't.) —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)
Users can be notified via documentation on the template's talk page. Also, the loss of the image is minor, correctable, and a separate consideration. The vote already shows that there is a significant divide. Would you force your preference onto others, or consider an option which allows everyone to make their own choice? -- Netoholic @ July 4, 2005 04:03 (UTC)
What percentage of users do you think will ever see the templates' talk pages? I'd be surprised if it exceeds 1%.
The image is a major part of the design (not a minor, separate consideration). Please explain how its loss is correctable. (If you mean via CSS, the above objection applies.)
I'm not attempting to force my preference on others. I'm allowing the eventual voting results to determine the template's wording and style. If the options that I oppose prevail, so be it. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 04:40 (UTC)
You don't want an edit war, yet you start one on my talk page. If I want something deleted from my talk page, I'll delete it. I don't need you reposting it there. Zpb52 July 6, 2005 02:46 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't revert any deleted remarks on your talk page. I merely copied your comment from my talk page and added a reply (just as I'm doing now). —Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)


i'm sorryEdit

i'm being a jerk. sorry Zpb52 July 6, 2005 03:37 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Please try to be more careful in the future. :-) —Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)
Be grateful. Not everybody apologizes, though. Hey, you said it: life is unfair. Zpb52 July 6, 2005 03:44 (UTC)
What deleted material did you believe that I'd reposted here, and why? —Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. It's a dead issue. Zpb52 July 6, 2005 03:54 (UTC)


Recent changes on Template talk:MergeEdit

You made an edit with no edit summery. When i did a diff, it shownd the only change beign the removal of gkhan's remarks, it did not show them being inserted eslewhere. It also did not show any new commetns from you. Either the diff was in error or I mis read it badly, or possibly your edit didn't do what you intended it to do. Sorry. i should have checked with you and assumed good faith. DES 6 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)

This is the "diff" page that you referenced. Please scroll down.
I didn't include an edit summary, because I posted replies in two different sections. I'm sorry if this contributed to the confusion.
I accept your apology, but I was aware of the fact that you made an honest mistake (and didn't intend to remove my comments.) No worries.  :-) —Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)


Reordering votes on Template talk:MergeEdit

You wrote in edit summary: "I don't see how the reordering was a problem." I agree with Netoholic here. Reformatting the votes was unnecessary and whoever closes the vote can count the votes just as easily as the time it took to reformat it.

The vote was initially cast without "Xs here and Ys there" and should not be changed now. There was a little interaction from vote to vote agreeing or disagreeing with previous votes that loses it sense when reformatted. I think that loss is unhelpful both to the vote-closer and to others who want to follow the course of the vote.

Furthermore, monkeying with vote/discussion pages should be discouraged anyway. DoubleBlue (Talk) 9 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. As you may already realize, I didn't perform the reformatting (and certainly didn't think that it was necessary). —Lifeisunfair 9 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)


Talk pagesEdit

I'm sorry, I know you've spent a lot of time refactoring template talk:merge and mean well but you simply cannot change what people say on talk pages. You have done this many times and it is not appropriate. violet/riga (t) 21:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The first round of voting has ended, so I archived all the comments. For the sake of convenience, I copied over the votes for wordings "B" and "E" (leaving behind the comments that pertained to the other wordings), and I explicitly noted this fact (providing a link to the full remarks).
If you felt that this was inappropriate, why didn't you simply restore the full remarks? —Lifeisunfair 21:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Because the changes were so extensive. By all means you can archive old talk page comments, but you should never strip down what people have said. In doing so you can easily lose the original context that it was written in. If there is to be a second round of voting (which by all means you can arrange) then it should start again and not include comments from a previous poll that have been cut down. violet/riga (t) 22:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, the changes were extensive, but you objected only to a single section. You could have simply modified that section (by either removing the abbreviated remarks or copying the full remarks over), but you reverted the entire page (which I worked very hard to update).
The primary votes for wordings "B" and "E" are to be carried over from the first round. The point was to simply retain a list of such votes, thereby reminding the voters that they needn't vote again (unless they've changed their minds). In no way did I create the appearance that this list constituted the full remarks that were posted during the first round (most of which do not apply to the current round of voting). The original context was not lost, because readers were invited to view the full comments.
Nevertheless, I shall honor your opinion. —Lifeisunfair 22:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


"Merge" templates votingEdit

Don't copy the old votes. It's essentially vote-stacking. Do the run-off. My calculation shows A was only one vote behind B, and the closure was a bit early. A should be in the run-off. -- Netoholic @ 04:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Why shouldn't the round-one votes for "B" and "E" be carried over? Unless he/she makes a statement to the contrary, it's reasonable to assume that anyone who voted for a wording from among five options would continue to support the same wording when three of the non-selected options are removed.
2. How was the vote closure early? I didn't perform it until three hours after the announced deadline.
3. Wording "B" defeated wording "A" by 1 ½ votes, but the exact number is irrelevant. The terms of the voting (to which no one objected) indicated that "if one wording [did] not receive a majority of votes, a one-week runoff vote [would] be held between the two most popular wordings." The two most popular wordings were "E" and "B."
Lifeisunfair 04:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I think you forget... I objected to the entire vote itself, including pointing out that you did not solicit comments on how it was to be run. -- Netoholic @ 05:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I repeatedly invited you to supply any specific objections to the actual, final voting terms (as opposed to fact that I wrote them). You did not (nor did anyone else). Had "A" placed second in the voting, you wouldn't be complaining now.
By default, runoff voting of any kind is not customary in this situation; had I not introduced such a rule, wording "E" (for which I voted) would be the outright winner.
Please address questions 1 and 2.
Lifeisunfair 06:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
"outright winner"? You have a lot to learn. The problem is... you alone defined the format and the options given in the vote. A vote that was extremely premature because the best choice may be something entirely different than just the five+two options. -- Netoholic @ 06:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
1. Yes, the outright winner. Out of twenty-three respondents, eleven (almost half) selected wording "E" as their first choice . . . from among five options. Wording "A" was the first choice of only four people.
2. I was not alone in defining the format and options. While I drafted the initial RfC, Violet/Riga, DES, Dan and you contributed to its revision.
3. Violet/Riga protected the {{merge}} template and suggested holding a vote. The purpose was to resolve the edit war by determining the templates' general direction — not to etch their designs in stone, thereby precluding future discussion.
4. I'm still waiting for you to explain how the vote closure was early.
Lifeisunfair 06:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


I've updated {{merging}} and {{mergedisputed}} for conformity. Thanks again, Radiant! —Lifeisunfair 12:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • They show up as white, left-justified boxen on my computer (as opposed to centrified purple which I was expecting). Is the CSS okay? Radiant_>|< 12:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Your browser needs to reload the MediaWiki:Monobook.css file. Which browser are you using? —Lifeisunfair 12:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Same here. Try holding down the shift key while reloading one of the templates. —Lifeisunfair 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That works! Thanks. Radiant_>|< 13:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


Lifeisunfair screwed this up. "merge" is supposed to be a CSS "id" (designated with #merge), not a CSS "class" (which he gave as .Merge). Looks he just mistakenly copied the "Talk-Notice" class, but that is not technically right in this case. Please fix it by copying the CSS code from User:Netoholic/monobook.css and fixing MediaWiki:onobook.css. -- Netoholic @ 15:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not screw anything up. Your proposed code results in a significantly different appearance (with considerably larger boxes). The original code was directly based upon the aforementioned "Talk-Notice" class, so I asked Radiant to add an equivalent "Merge" class to MediaWiki:Monobook.css, which he did. I did this, by the way, purely for the benefit of users who wish to manually override the template's default appearance.
And I don't know where you got the idea that the image wasn't included in the vote. —Lifeisunfair 16:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you did screw it up by having a basic misunderstanding about CSS usage. "Class" refers to an generic range of similarly formatted text. They are "general rules". In my latest version of Template:Merge, class="notice noprint" means simple that this is a text notice and that it shoudn't be printed - they each have their own "rules" defined that apply very broadly. "ID" on the other hand refers to a specific usage. So id="merge" refers to the merge-based templates. This is used for a more narrow scope of changes. In CSS, class characteristics are applied before ID, so you go from general settings to specific ones. -- Netoholic @ 16:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I understand that there are differences, but your id-based code failed to duplicate the template's appearance. If you can modify it to correct this problem, that will be fine. Otherwise, mine is the only CSS implementation that will function properly. The other option is to simply hard-code the template (as was voted upon), but I honestly want to accommodate those who dislike the colored box to the greatest extent possible (within the boundaries of the consensus). —Lifeisunfair 16:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Mine works perfectly, or at least will once an admin copies it to MediaWiki:Monobook.css. -- Netoholic @ 16:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Your code does not display properly (at least, not in Firefox). I went out of my way to accommodate you (which is not a requirement of the consensus), but that simply isn't good enough for you. You'd rather "screw up" the template's appearance for others. —Lifeisunfair 17:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you try describing what you see is the problem rather than continuing to be rude? -- Netoholic @ 17:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier, your code causes the box to be considerably larger. It's taller, and spans the entire page width (instead of 85%). Here's a direct comparison (viewed in Firefox at the default text size). I removed the image from mine (on top), for the sake of parity. —Lifeisunfair 17:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. I was experimenting earlier. You must have copied by monbook.css when I had the width removed. Use the current version (17:20, 11 July 2005). -- Netoholic @ 17:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
The height remains more than 1/3 greater, as seen here. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
The one that seems to look best in Firefox and IE, as Monobook stands now, is Talk-Notice. see User:DoubleBlue/Sandbox. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Aside from the coloring and margin-bottom, the "Talk-Notice" and "Merge" classes are 100% identical. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Netoholic's personal version of Notoce noprint seems fine but it would need to be added to MediaWiki:Common.css. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
The height is over 1/3 too great. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
That height fits with most other boxes. Are you really so picky? -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Your coding causes the box to be nearly 34.5% taller. This significant difference throws off the templates' aesthetic balance (and wastes space in the process). If you can find a way to eliminate this disparity, go right ahead. —Lifeisunfair 18:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Not hard at all. Use my now latest User:Netoholic/monobook.css (18:55, 11 July 2005 version) -- Netoholic @ 18:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, your new CSS code displays properly. I support its use in the templates as soon as an admin has added it to MediaWiki:Common.css.
I've prepared the code for the various templates. I omitted the icon from {{Merging}}, because I couldn't figure out how to add it properly (no big deal).
Thanks very much for addressing my concerns. —Lifeisunfair 21:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


The Wheel of Time Merge noticeEdit

I carefully customized the merge templates used in this proposed merge so that all the discuss links pointed to teh section of the talk page where discussion is already in progess. your recent change undoes this. I also discussed what I did and why on Template talk:Merge. Please revert your recent change or otherwise alter it to restore the section link. DES 18:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


ID eNTITYEdit

Would you mind explaining why you believed that this article (which you deleted) qualified as "nonsense"? Thanks. —Lifeisunfair 04:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the content was:
"ID eNTITY is a manwha about a young boy who is a master of a virtual reality computer game. After his character expired and he needed to renew it (a lengthy process), he decided to use a different character (using an identification card he found on the floor), instead. He then amuses himself by using his new, female character to talk to people with a whole new light. However, the original player wants her character back..."
Not only does it read like nonsense (CSD criteria), but its about the master of a VR computer game who's character expired, and he had to renew it. Isn't that vanity too? If its notable, then recreate freely, but so that it makes sense. Hedley 15:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm unconnected to this article’s creation (and entirely unfamiliar with its subject), but it makes perfect sense.
And no, the article is not vanity. As the text plainly states, it describes a manwha (Korean graphic novel), not a real-life person. You might have been unfamiliar with the word "manwha" (as I was, prior to reading the undeletion discussion), but that isn't a valid reason to assume that something is "nonsense."
Without consultation, you deleted a stub pertaining to an internationally published story. I suggest that you immediately undelete it and apologize for your error on the Votes for undeletion page. —Lifeisunfair 19:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I was not familiar with the term "manwha". But, it read like nonsense also, and that needs to be addressed. I got the impression it was about a person who plays video games, who had to renew his character, only to have it stolen by somebody else. Now, thats CSD criteria. I'm not sure if the new criteria passed yet, but articles on a notable subject which read nonsensically can be speedied under it. Thats why a speedied it, and even if I was familiar with the term, I may of considered doing so. Hedley 21:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
The article began with the sentence "ID eNTITY is a manwha about a young boy who is a master of a virtual reality computer game." This was followed by a brief (but presumably accurate) plot summary, the syntax of which was fairly decent. No offense, but the author is not to blame for your false "impression." —Lifeisunfair 21:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


"Merge" templatesEdit

The new code causes the icon to always remain in the upper left-hand corner of the box (a trait that's especially visible when viewed with a text size larger than the default). I recently realized that my sample versions contained this problem, but I was under the impression that you had corrected it. (Your previous revisions looked fine.) I wish that I could help more, but I really don't know very much about this type of coding. —Lifeisunfair 21:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

At most resolutions, everything looks fine being that is just one line. Even at small resolutions or with large text, the effect is minimal (compared to many other things that look bad) and I think that top and left aligning it is good. Removing it from a table is a trade-off for those of us that will want to remove the box and colors in our personal CSS settings. I think it is very workable. -- Netoholic @ 21:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this is far from unacceptable, and I realize that there are other factors in play (which is why, after noticing this flaw in my examples, I didn't ask you not to implement the changes). I was just hoping that you might be able to somehow eliminate this issue without compromising anything else. If not, I understand. —Lifeisunfair 21:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I am going to work on it. Just gotta find all the right balances. -- Netoholic @ 21:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for investing the time and effort. —Lifeisunfair 21:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


Template:ReqimageEdit

If you took a moment to read all of the comments and discussion I had left on User talk:Netoholic, you would see I was plainly trying to avoid a revert war. This template is still in discussion, and the reason for the discussion was becuase users were just changing and removing templates without any discussion. I proposed the redesign of the template, as well as proposed going back to the old version Wikipedia_talk:Template_locations#Design_and_layout_issues. He had not even responded to any of the comments I made. I am only attempting to let the community decide. This is not an ownership issue, as I plainly stated. The point is, the template will be edited again to conform to template standarization, and my last RV was to that original proposed version, currently the template does not conform. I do not appreciate the comments he made, and was polite and consise with my reasoning. The fact that I am not an admin should not effect waiting for a consensus and reverting back to his version. I have followed all the policies and am now being punished for it? Please review the history and the links I provided. Thank you Who?¿? 08:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You were trying to avoid a revert war by reverting the template four times in less than seven hours (in violation of the three-revert rule)?
That's why I reverted to Netoholic's design. No matter which of you is correct, you violated a policy (and in a rather hypocritical fashion).
Indeed, the fact that aren't an admin (yet) has no bearing on the issue. Who claimed otherwise?
And FYI, not only did I read your comments on Netoholic's talk page, but that's how I learned of this dispute. —Lifeisunfair 09:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
As I commented on 3RR, I was not in violation. The first edit, I just listed as a RV, as it had nothing to do with the template or design, but in order to fix a link. If you do not believe me, you can make a copy and test the version I fixed, and you will see it did not work. It was merely a fix. Also, the version I reverted to last (3rd) was to a version that is actually in proposal, you reverted to a version that is not part of the Template standarisation, my proposed version was different because I had proposed it, I did not make the change drastically. Who?¿? 09:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The first edit was a revert, as is clearly indicated here.
It doesn't matter why you reverted, or to which version you reverted. You made four reverts to a single page in less than seven hours, and that's a violation. —Lifeisunfair 09:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


DiggEdit

I would sincerely appreciate a reply to the message copied below:


Why did you exclude Jkf6030's vote? It appears that the correct tally (after all anonymous votes and votes from new accounts are disregarded) is 5d–4k (hardly a consensus). Combine that with the fact DaveTheRed's nomination and vote were based in part upon a misunderstanding of Google's hit count system, and this is far from a "valid VfD." And as I mentioned earlier, the website subsequently has become unquestionably notable. In voting for deletion, Wyss stated that it would be worthy of an article "maybe later on, when their user base is bigger and there's some verifiable cultural impact somewhere." A top-10,000 Alexa traffic rank and a top-25 podcast (out of over 3,000 selections) at Apple Computer's iTunes Music Store certainly qualify. —Lifeisunfair 08:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


(View in context.)


To be clear, I never saw the Digg article (which might not have been worthy of undeletion), but the situation calls for the page to be unprotected (allowing users to author a non-ad, NPOV article). —Lifeisunfair 20:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I see that the Digg podcast has climbed to #16 at Apple's iTunes Music Store. —Lifeisunfair 20:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, like I said on that VFU discussion, I was just going by the vote, I hadn't double-checked the edit history of all those involved. Since User:SimonP closed that VFD, you should ask him what his reasons were. The reason I removed the VFU was that, despite your good arguments, after ten days, the majority of VFU votes was to keep it deleted. Radiant_>|< 22:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Despite my disagreement with the outcome, I'm not contesting the vote closure. (Your assessment was accurate.) I'm requesting that the Digg page be unprotected (not for the purpose of restoring the previous, deletion-worthy text, but to enable users to author a legitimate article). —Lifeisunfair 22:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Given its lengthy history of being deleted and undeleted ([1]), I thought it best to defer your request to User:SimonP, who originally closed the VFD vote. Yours, Radiant_>|< 10:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


User talk:12.144.5.2Edit

You are of course right about my string being unbreakable. I misunderstood your point. Peace and friendship! Oleg Alexandrov 03:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

No worries! That was just a harmless and silly misunderstanding. :-) —Lifeisunfair 03:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


Who's discussion pageEdit

"As Kbdank71 says, there are times and users where conflict avoidance is impossible, it's just unfortunate it had to be now."
Edit warring is unavoidable? Three-revert rule violations are unavoidable?
"Just steer clear of one or two users for 6 more days..."
...and then resume edit warring? I'd like to think that a potential admin's ordinary participation would be sufficiently upstanding (without the need for special effort to be on his/her best behavior until it's too late for people to change their votes). —Lifeisunfair 06:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your concern over my current RFA. However, if you have comments you wish to make to users, please do so on their discussion page. I monitor other users pages to revert vandalism, and do not think it polite to constantly hound someone on an issue that is past. If you have further concerns, please take it up with those particular users or at RFC. Thank you. Who?¿? 06:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"Hi, I appreciate your concern over my current RFA. However, if you have comments you wish to make to users, please do so on their discussion page."
I was replying to a message on your talk page. For the sake of context, that's where I posted. (I also left a pointer on Splash's talk page.) This is a wiki, and that generally isn't considered inappropriate.
"I monitor other users pages to revert vandalism,"
Your point being...?
"and do not think it polite to constantly hound someone on an issue that is past."
"Hound"? You accepted a nomination for adminship, and then proceeded to violate a Wikipedia policy. This is highly relevant to the RfA. If you can't stand the heat...
And as you noticed, I was replying to Splash, whom you thanked for raising the issue. Evidently, you only welcome agreement. —Lifeisunfair 06:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I indeed notice you were replying to Splash on my talk page. I just ask that you please, reply to other users on their talk page, as our conversation is ours. If you wish to have a conversation with that user, please do so on their talk page, whether or not it pertains to me is irrelevant. Thanks. Who?¿? 06:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I will avoid replying to others on your talk page in the future (now that I'm aware that you object to this), but that isn't all that you wrote. You accused me of "constantly hound[ing]" you, simply because I discussed your misdeeds. No offense, that level of sensitivity to constructive criticism is not an admin-like trait. —Lifeisunfair 07:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I appologize that I was not clear on the reasoning. You asked what my point was about monitoring users pages. If you were not monitoring my discussion page, you would have not known that he had left me a message, although it is Wiki and everything is open, your response was to Splash. The only reasoning, I could see atm, for you to leave it on my page, is to continue to state your concern over my RFA, on my discussion page. I feel you have conveyed that to me quite effectively, and to further to state those concerns on my talk page, in response to another users comments, does not solve anything. So I kindly asked you to voice your concerns to them, as I need not be a party to your conversations, as I feel a personal note I left for Splash and vice/versa, other Wikipedians need not to be involved. If those notes had pertained to some type of vandalism or wrong doing, then I would have welcomed other users involvement. I hope this explains my reasoning. If you wish to discuss other matters with me, that is quite acceptable, but the issue of that particular revert war is past. Thank you. Who?¿? 07:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I always check the "Watch this page" box when posting to a talk page, in case I receive a reply there. I noticed the "RfA" subject on my watchlist, and read the discussion (because it pertains to a topic that interests me). I replied to Splash on your talk page because:
1. I felt that this was the most contextual, least confusing method.
2. I felt that it would be rude to reply to a message addressed to you behind your back.
3. As I said, I didn't realize that you objected to this.
And no, the issue of the revert war is not past. You're a candidate for adminship, so such incidents remain relevant for significantly longer than a day. —Lifeisunfair 07:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I understood your reasoning after you explained it in the last comment, thats why I replied and said "at the moment (atm)". As far as the issue being past, I merely meant, you stating the same thing you stated on the other discussion pages, is not further discussing the issue, I saw no "constructive criticism", just a re-iteration of the topic. I in no way feel that the issue is past with any other Wikipedian that has not yet had a conversation, or even you, as long as its covering new ground. So at this point, I feel our discussion on that topic is past, unless there are other areas you wish to discss that have not already been covered. This is the reason I asked you to respond to the user, rather than my page. It is not necessarily because I completely object to discussions on my user page, it just seemed there was nothing more to discuss with you on that topic, so using my talk page, was in perceived as you hounding me on the subject. Who?¿? 07:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Splash's recommendation that you "just steer clear of one or two users for 6 more days" is new ground. Your apparent proclivity for rushing to judgement is another. —Lifeisunfair 08:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


DiggEdit

Hi there! After the VFD discussion, some recreation and a failed VFU request, the Digg article is now protected on {{deletedpage}}. User:Lifeisunfair asked me to undo this so that he could write a new article on the topic. Since you originally deleted the article I thought it best to leave that decision up to you (see also [2]). Yours, Radiant_>|< 10:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Please see the VfU discussion and my discussion with Radiant for justification.
To be clear, my familiarity with the Digg website is not as strong as that of several other users who have attempted to resurrect this page. I am, however, qualified to contribute some information to such an article, and I volunteer to monitor it for any illicit activity (such as insertion of the type of POV content that has been deleted on more than once occasion). —Lifeisunfair 12:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
As the person who deleted the page I have no special power to undelete it. I stand by my original VfD decision, but since the page was deleted its Alexa ranking has passed 10,000 and there is very much a legitimate argument for undeletion. The most recent one likely failed because it was begun by someone obviously close to the subject in question, was subject to repeated sockpuppetry, and it took some time for the actual facts of the case to be brought up. My suggestion is to wait a few weeks then relist the page on VfU. Hopefully by that time the people at Digg.com will have lost interest and we can have a clean vote without sockpuppets and the inevitable backlash against them. Contact me at that time and I will vote for undeletion, but I do not have the power to unilaterally undelete a page that has failed two VfU bids. - SimonP 14:07, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not requesting undeletion; I'm requesting unprotection (thereby enabling an entirely new article to be authored). I never saw any of the deleted versions, but it's my understanding that they were comprised primarily of POV content that needn't be restored. (Perhaps you could verify the accuracy of this claim.) —Lifeisunfair 14:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this impression is correct. The version deleted back in March, while not a model of neutrality, was not overtly POV. With its long history (it has been deleted on twelve separate occasions) any new version of this article is certain to be listed on VfD, if it isn't speedied as a recreation. I feel it is important that this page should go through VfU before it is unprotected. Wait a few weeks or months for the situation to calm down and the page can then hopefully be given a fair hearing. - SimonP 14:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that there was any substantive content. (A comment by Mysidia led me to believe that the page consisted of nothing more than a brief "advertisement" that had been restored repeatedly by persistent newbies who didn't know any better.) Knowing now that there was a semi-appropriate article at some point, I agree that the best course of action is to wait a while, and then relist the page for undeletion (hopefully without the participation of sock puppets). Thanks very much for your advice. —Lifeisunfair 15:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


Continued discussionEdit

As you're well aware, I posted precisely one reply to another user on this page. You requested that I refrain from doing so, and I've complied (even when Kbdank71 posted a reply to me here). Therefore, I don't know why you claimed that I have been "continuing to reply to other users on [your] discussion page."

Were you attempting to discredit me by deliberately conveying false information? If not, why haven't you issued a retraction?

And out of curiosity, why was it perfectly okay for Kbdank71 to reply to another user on this page?

(For the record, this is the first time that I've ever addressed you via a talk page message that wasn't a direct reply to a message that you posted on my talk page.) —Lifeisunfair 21:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

As you're well aware, I posted precisely one reply to another user on this page. You requested that I refrain from doing so, and I've complied (even when Kbdank71 posted a reply to me here). Therefore, I don't know why you claimed that I have been "continuing to reply to other users on [your] discussion page."
First, I am not sure, are you stating this from what Pavel Vozenilek had posted on my talk page? I merely thanked him for voting on my Rfa, his comments were his own and not spurred by anything I said. If not, the only other remarks I made about you continuing to reply, was I believe about your responses to me responding directly to other users on my Rfa. I have not further continued to discuss anything with you or anyone else, so I am curious at why you bring this up again.
Were you attempting to discredit me by deliberately conveying false information? If not, why haven't you issued a retraction?
I was not trying to discredit anyone, I stated what a summary of what occurred, and gave each user involved the opportunity to preview everything for themselves. I have the right to respond to users comments, concerns or questions on my Rfa.
And out of curiosity, why was it perfectly okay for Kbdank71 to reply to another user on this page?
I also said in our discussion, that I didn't necessarily mind the further discussion on my page, what I did not appreciate was you continually to defend/offend/etc. the 3RR with other users on my discussion page. So I kindly asked you to take your conversation to their page, as you had already made your point clear to me, and I no longer wished to continue to discuss it with you.
(For the record, this is the first time that I've ever addressed you via a talk page message that wasn't a direct reply to a message that you posted on my talk page.) —Lifeisunfair 21:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I did not reply to you on my Rfa when I addressed a users comment, I replied to them, whether or not your name or other users names were mentioned, did not mean I was addressing you, only answering a concern to the user who asked it. So therefore you did reply when not directly responded to. As it is, I have been attempting to move on from the situation and again have not even discussed you with other users if they mentioned it. I am attempting to continue with my daily routine. I am sorry if this does not address your concerns or questions fully, but I feel I have nothing else to discuss with you on this topic. Who?¿? 22:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
"First, I am not sure, are you stating this from what Pavel Vozenilek had posted on my talk page? I merely thanked him for voting on my Rfa, his comments were his own and not spurred by anything I said."
I directly quoted you. What would give you the idea that this pertained to Pavel Vozenilek in any way?
"If not, the only other remarks I made about you continuing to reply, was I believe about your responses to me responding directly to other users on my Rfa. I have not further continued to discuss anything with you or anyone else, so I am curious at why you bring this up again."
In your reply to Idont Havaname (posted 22:23, 18 July 2005), you claimed that I have been "continuing to reply to other users on [your] discussion page." I noted that this is entirely false, and I've patiently awaited your retraction. You haven't issued one, so I'm replying to you here.
"I was not trying to discredit anyone, I stated what a summary of what occurred, and gave each user involved the opportunity to preview everything for themselves. I have the right to respond to users comments, concerns or questions on my Rfa."
Of course you do, but you should do so in an honest, factual manner. Your "summary of what occurred" contains a patent falsehood. (I'm trying very hard to assume good faith, by not referring to it as an "outright lie.")
"I also said in our discussion, that I didn't necessarily mind the further discussion on my page, what I did not appreciate was you continually to defend/offend/etc. the 3RR with other users on my discussion page. So I kindly asked you to take your conversation to their page, as you had already made your point clear to me, and I no longer wished to continue to discuss it with you. "
Kbdank71 discussed the very same topic with another user (id est, me) on your page. Evidently, you're willing to tolerate this infraction when the offending party happens to agree with you.
"I did not reply to you on my Rfa when I addressed a users comment, I replied to them, whether or not your name or other users names were mentioned, did not mean I was addressing you, only answering a concern to the user who asked it. So therefore you did reply when not directly responded to."
I explicitly said, "via a talk page message," so why are you citing a project page message?
My point was that almost every message that I've posted on your talk page has been a direct reply to a message that you've posted on my talk page. The two exceptions are my reply to Splash and my post from earlier today.
"As it is, I have been attempting to move on from the situation and again have not even discussed you with other users if they mentioned it. I am attempting to continue with my daily routine. I am sorry if this does not address your concerns or questions fully, but I feel I have nothing else to discuss with you on this topic."
I merely ask that you retract the aforementioned defamatory claim. —Lifeisunfair 23:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
At this point, it is hard to describe to you, I am not the type of person that jumps to conclusions, or argumentative. If you disagree, I understand, and wish not to argue over any differing point of views, I am just offering this to you in good faith. We have both written very long and topic wild discussions, and keeping precise track of mis-wording issues is sometimes difficult. I did not understand why you did reply to any of the comments, it was not until your last reply on my discussion page, that you worded it in such a matter, and we were not discussing many other issues, that you mererly wanted a retraction from what you fealt was a demeaning comment towards you. This is the reason I stated in the first lines, that I am not that type of person. Even if you or someone had "pissed me off", to be blunt, I would not resort to demeaning a user. I am sorry you fealt that way, as I was truely only trying to summarize. My wording could have been chosen better, but that states nothing about my character. I attempted to clarify the reply to Idont Havaname, to better represent the discussion and quotes I left on your page. As far as the other users commenting on the same situation, I did not respond to them about any of the issues, as to not encourage further discussion, I fealt it better not to respond to anyone in this reguard. I explained this better on the modified Rfa page. I am replying to these comments, only because you approached me in good faith, not to say the other times were not, but during the heat of a discussion, all things can have a skewed view, as some of the reasoning for my request to end the discussion. Who?¿? 03:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing my concern. My initial belief was that your incorrect statement probably was unintentional, but the fact that you hadn't amended it (after I originally brought it to your attention) was beginning to generate some doubt on my part. Thanks also for recognizing that my replies to you were good faith efforts to communicate (for the purpose of resolving the issue), and not attempts to fuel a petty feud.
Not to nit-pick, but you haven't corrected the wording to which I object the most. The phrase "continuing to reply" conveys that I did so more than once ("continuing" after you asked me not to). If you could please change this to "replying", I would sincerely appreciate it. Thanks again! —Lifeisunfair 03:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Did not consider it a nit-pick, you only wish to be viewed impartially, as I. I am glad to clarify the discussion. Thanks for the catch and your comments. Who?¿? 03:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


Guy Montag BanEdit

Thanks for chipping in - it does seem very unfair to me too. 62.253.64.15 07:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


Template:MoveEdit

I've changed this layout to match {{merge}} and such. Do you know where to get a suitable icon? Radiant_>|< 14:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to create a similar icon when I have the time, but this is a talk page template, and therefore should use ClockworkSoul's "Coffee Roll" scheme, along with indicative wording. —Lifeisunfair 15:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Why exactly is this a 'talk page template'? It seems to have the same purpose as {{merge}} ("this article should be moved here" vs "this article should be merged here"). Radiant_>|< 17:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
It's a talk page template because that's how been implemented (aside from a handful of misplaced instances). Note that the wording explicitly refers to the proposal listed "below."
Perhaps the setup should be changed, but this is something that would need to be discussed. IIRC, the main argument against this is that casual readers needn't be informed of (and distracted/confused by) such a message. Merge notices, conversely, provide useful information to readers (by linking to related articles that they otherwise might miss), and notify users of a considerably more significant potential occurrence (given that it impacts the article's actual content, rather than merely its title). —Lifeisunfair 18:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


WP:IAREdit

WP:IAR was cited to me last night by Kimm B as a reason or basis for the action involved with the policy page deleteion and the removal of content from VfU. I have posted on the relevant talk page arguing that this page need to be modified to make it clear that IAR does not apply to the kinds of "rules" violated last night. DES 15:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Ah, but it does. WP:IAR is the exact spirit of the Wiki. A good Wikipedian can do as he thinks best, as long as he judges that it would be beneficial to the wiki, and that the consensus would agree with his actions. The definition of a good Wikipedian is one that is almost always correct in judging where consensus would lie. That is the spirit of progress, and the spirit we need. Radiant_>|< 17:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


Blocking for 3RREdit

This is to stop revert wars. The revert wars had ceased, I wanted some help to contribute to Wikipedia. I unblocked Kim after securing a promise not to continue the edit war. Based on their previous actions, I accepted this. Any admin can do this, if they feel that the problem is resolved. This is all I have to say. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Any admin can do this, but it's widely considered inappropriate for admins who are directly involved in the relevant conflict (or any other conflict with the user) to do so.
You seldom remove intentionally imposed blocks for substantiated infractions, so it certainly appears as though you gave Kim special treatment. Perhaps this isn't the case, but the appearance of impropriety is precisely why involved admins should recuse themselves from such decisions (even if otherwise 100% legitimate). —Lifeisunfair 00:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey... didn't know you could restrict the search like that... Anyway, I realise what it looks like, but in the case of Kim B, we know that he is not an intentional vandal and we also know that it was just a misguided attempt at sorting out a "ForestFire". I don't see any real need to penalise them for the full 24 hours. Especially when they could be contributing to this site in a productive manner, and also he is now fully aware that we want him to continue reverting and will no longer be doing this! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
It's absolutely true that Kim is not a vandal, but the same can be said of most other users who are blocked for violating the 3RR. As in Kim's case, the usual cause is an overzealous (but well-intentioned) desire to leave a page in a particular state — one that the user honestly believes is superior. —Lifeisunfair 00:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Requests for comment/12.144.5.2Edit

I've seen you have some issues with Louis Epstein before, so I thought I'd invite you to comment on the RfC I've set up. He's crossed the line into edit warring over the em-dash thing. — Phil Welch 01:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


CITGO vs. CitgoEdit

Hi Lifeisunfair. I noticed you reverted my Citgo->CITGO changeover, even though I can't find one shred of proof "Citgo" was ever used (did you look at their corporate website? They use CITGO)

I figured I would ask you why you reverted before we end up in a revert war by accident... ;) RealMontrealer 08:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Michael! Thanks for inquiring before reverting. :)
As I noted when performing the page move, the Wikipedia Manual of Style indicates that we should "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." (Note the "REALTOR" / "Realtor" example.) —Lifeisunfair 09:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! I didn't even think to check the history to see the reason you gave (which I should have), so I didn't see the excellent explanation.
That's what I get for looking up My Contributions so late in the night! -RealMontrealer 13:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Nah, the confusion is entirely understandable. The problem is that the MediaWiki software inserts the comment only in the source location's history (and not in that of the destination location). I hope that this is changed in a future version. —Lifeisunfair 14:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


thanksEdit

Thanks for the revert :) Www.wikinerds.org 14:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. :)
I don't know what Ed's problem is, but he's been pulling some bizarre stunts of late. —Lifeisunfair 14:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


TV icon.png imageEdit

  • In reference to Template:Tv-stub-- I'm absolutely willing to drop my objections to File:TV Icon.png if you're willing to privately send me a 300-pixel-wide version of your photograph to prove that it's not based on the copyrighted image. But as far as I can tell, it's a pixel for pixel duplication of the original image, which I've been using for eight years now on my own site in a licensed form, so I'm pretty familiar with it. Now, if you managed to reconstruct that yourself from new sources, I've just got to tip my cap to you for an excellent job. If it's not an exact copy of the original, it's a perfect reconstruction. But I have to admit it seems less likely to me that you made an original shot using a TV model that looks pixel-for-pixel identical to the infringing image. Hence my assumption. If it is based on a real source photo, it should be easy for you to clear up any doubts. Jsnell 04:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


"In reference to Template:Tv-stub-- I'm absolutely willing to drop my objections to File:TV Icon.png if you're willing to privately send me a 300-pixel-wide version of your photograph to prove that it's not based on the copyrighted image."
Had you privately and politely requested such evidence in the first place, I might have been willing to oblige. At this point, my principles dictate that I adamantly refuse to bow to your demands. To do so would be tantamount to condoning your reckless accusations, and would reinforce the notion that the onus is on me to disprove them.
"But as far as I can tell, it's a pixel for pixel duplication of the original image, which I've been using for eight years now on my own site in a licensed form, so I'm pretty familiar with it."
Have you actually tried reducing the image in question (minus the rabbit ears) to 30x22 pixels? I just did, and it did not turn out "pixel-for-pixel identical" to my icon. It's close, but the same could be said of any photograph of a similar TV model (which I deliberately selected) when reduced to such a small size.
One especially notable difference is the fact that my icon contains two "pixel-for-pixel identical" dials; the bottom dial (which doesn't exist in real life) is an unaltered copy of the top one.
"Now, if you managed to reconstruct that yourself from new sources, I've just got to tip my cap to you for an excellent job. If it's not an exact copy of the original, it's a perfect reconstruction."
I used precisely one source image. Aside from the aforementioned copy-and-pasted dial and standard cleanup, I did nothing to alter the actual appearance of my grandmother's television set.
"But I have to admit it seems less likely to me that you made an original shot using a TV model that looks pixel-for-pixel identical to the infringing image. Hence my assumption. If it is based on a real source photo, it should be easy for you to clear up any doubts."
What if I were to publicly accuse you of plagiarizing one of your Macintosh articles and lying about its origin (without warning or prior discussion)? How would you feel if I were to subsequently demand that you submit proof of authorship, as though you were on trial (and had unilaterally been deemed guilty until proven innocent)? Would you comply? I certainly hope not. —Lifeisunfair 07:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Sorry about not bringing this to your talk page, by the way. It's so long that I thought you would miss it. In any event, don't worry about the image -- I have generated a new TV icon which will hopefully defuse the situation altogether. Jsnell 05:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


"Sorry about not bringing this to your talk page, by the way. It's so long that I thought you would miss it."
You believed that I would be more likely to notice your message on a talk page to which I'd never posted a single remark? Does the orange "you have new messages" notification banner seem inconspicuous to you?
"In any event, don't worry about the image -- I have generated a new TV icon which will hopefully defuse the situation altogether."
Why would removing my icon (while maintaining that I'm a thief and a liar) "defuse the situation"? —Lifeisunfair 07:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


  • I'm sorry you've gotten so upset about this. The image you posted is essentially identical to the one that was replaced. It was replaced almost immediately upon the old one being deleted. The old one was clearly posted with utter disregard to copyright regulations, in an abuse of Wikipedia's policies. My assumption was that you were attempting a quick-fix alteration of the image and vouching for it on Commons simply to shut me up about the copyright violation of an image I am extremely familiar with. If you refuse to provide me with greater proof that the image is yours, you're right -- I will just have to take you at your word and trust that your image is a remarkable replacement for the original image, in which case I have to congratulate you, because it's almost pixel perfect.
(By the way, if I wrote a story that was identical to the topic that another person had written a day before, with the same quotes from the same people, people would accuse me of plagiarism. Even if I claimed to have gone back to those sources and asked them the same questions and gotten the same answers. Because that would be extremely suspicious.)
Finally, I apologize for not bringing it to your Talk page. Frankly, nobody's ever posted to my talk page before -- I wasn't aware that Wikipedia sent up a flare when someone posted to it. Jsnell 18:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


"I'm sorry you've gotten so upset about this."
Yeah, being branded a liar and a thief tends to have that effect on me.
"The image you posted is essentially identical to the one that was replaced."
Again, that was the idea (to closely match the appearance of the original, while eliminating the copyright violation). Here at Wikipedia, this is not an uncommon occurrence.
"It was replaced almost immediately upon the old one being deleted."
1. The infringing icon has not yet been deleted. (Not enough time has elapsed since you filed your report.)
2. I uploaded my icon more than two days after you removed the infringing icon from the template. How is that "almost immediate," and how long do you think that it takes to photograph a TV set and create an icon? (How long did it take you?)
"The old one was clearly posted with utter disregard to copyright regulations, in an abuse of Wikipedia's policies."
You must truly enjoy hurling baseless accusations. Jennifer Godwin (a respected Wikipedia administrator) obviously mistook the image for a NASA creation. It was an honest mistake.
If you wish to be a member of the Wikipedia community, you need to assume good faith.
"My assumption was that you were attempting a quick-fix alteration of the image"
Again, such assumptions are frowned upon here.
"and vouching for it on Commons simply to shut me up about the copyright violation of an image I am extremely familiar with."
On the contrary, I took your report very seriously, and responded by rushing to create a suitable replacement image.
"If you refuse to provide me with greater proof that the image is yours, you're right -- I will just have to take you at your word and trust that your image is a remarkable replacement for the original image, in which case I have to congratulate you, because it's almost pixel perfect."
Thank you, but there's nothing remarkable about the similarity. Don't you realize that such television sets are extremely common? Don't you also realize that reducing two similar images to a tiny display size leaves very little room for disparity?
"Finally, I apologize for not bringing it to your Talk page. Frankly, nobody's ever posted to my talk page before -- I wasn't aware that Wikipedia sent up a flare when someone posted to it."
Apology accepted, but Craigy144 posted a standard "welcome" message on June 23. —Lifeisunfair 19:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Replied in my own User Talk page, and dropped copyright complaints for your image. (In addition, added reference to your image in the original infringing image, so that people know to use yours instead.) Jsnell 01:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


double redirectsEdit

When you move templates, such as your move of Template:Importance, update the redirects to the old name, because when double-redirected templates are transcluded, it looks completely SNAFU. --Joy [shallot] 23:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


LatelineEdit

Thanks for your response, I've set up some discussion at Talk:Lateline --Brendanfox 11:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


G4 (television)Edit

Stop being a G4 fanboy. The CEO was fired and the network is be revised. Listen to episode 23 of This Week in Tech, www.kevinrose.com and even the forums on g4tv.com. (comment unsigned by 67.165.72.137)


"Stop being a G4 fanboy."
I was ZDTV/TechTV fan from the very beginning. I never even saw G4 until the merger occurred, and I dislike the changes as much as anyone.
"The CEO was fired and the network is be revised."
Yes, and I didn't remove this information; I cleaned up the wording and moved it to a different location in the article.
By "inaccurate information," I was referring to the claim that G4 stands for "games, gear, gadgets and gizmos." Firstly, the word "gizmos" never appeared in the G4techTV/G4 advertising. (The fourth "G" word was "gigabytes," and later "girls.") Secondly, this was merely an advertising slogan; it isn't the origin of the channel's name. —Lifeisunfair 03:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "David Levy/Archive1".