![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Thank you for bringing some reason, and perspective, to the page. I hope you'll watchlist it. Your voice is needed. -- Eleemosynary 07:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
{{unblock-auto|1=192.18.1.36|2={{ blocked proxy}}: Sun Microsystems Hosting servers |3=Ryulong}}
Thanks for your attention towards the Modchips page. I'd really like to contribute rewriting the article page, is there a Wikipedian way to do such major changes as a collaborate effort? I have already started rewriting in a local text file, but I'm not ready to commit the (quite radical) changes on my own.
Also thanks for correcting my archive edit, I guess I did it wrong even though I followed WP:ARCHIVE, especially with adding talkarchive templates to top and bottom. (BTW, when I tried, the auto-archive templates weren't working as intended.) -- Freddy Talk 16:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Removing the tag may not have been necessary but it was certainly satisfying. I am generally against almost all tags (except those, like the merge, which invite discussion), as well as several other recent "innovations" on this site. Tags and templates simply seem authoritative and impersonal to me -- and generally give me the impression that the editor "tagging" the article is either too "good" to do the work himself or too lazy. I do not believe tags promote "community" among editors. So, I'll probably end up removing the tag again, and trying to find the time to rewrite the section. These ongoing authoritative changes are probably a major reason why my edit count and time on Wikipedia has significantly dropped during the last year. WBardwin 03:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Thumperward! Earlier today, you reverted my edit to Template:Fourth Balkenende cabinet, with the edit summary "rv. per talk, until a better solution is devised, we need these or the template is broken on many screen resolutions. it's a hack, but a needed one". I was curious to see the discussion, but Template talk:Fourth Balkenende cabinet only shows a WikiProject tag. Which talk page discussion were you talking about? A ecis Brievenbus 13:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Why does there need to be an article in Wikipedia for this? The article is just a list of PC types.-- Mumia-w-18 15:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just thought I'd mention that with the current parenthesised version of ground capacity, any citation reference number is forced inside the brackets, which is inconsistent with the citation placement style used on most (English, anyway) football club articles. Of a sample of 6, 5 club articles do have a citation reference against the capacity. cheers, Struway2 11:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I messed up your pictures, tags, or prefs. The other night I did a huge copy edit....rewriting almost the whole thing and my PC went wacky the browser window went to Babelfish(thanks to some junk yahoo is hosing people with these days) and I lost all the stuff I had been editing. My apologies if I messed it up while trying to fix it. I think I've done what I can with it, but agree it still needs work if it needs to stay on wiki.-- Mike Searson 14:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Since you referred to your position in content disputes as being "our side" to User:Eleemonsynary, but seem to have no problem with correcting his violations of policy, I'd hoped that you would have some comment regarding User:Eleemosynary's behavior, either for Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_User:Eleemosynary or, if you don't feel like entering the fray, for me. It seems to me (although I didn't mention it in WP:AN/I), that his antics reached a fever pitch after the infinite ban on Bmedley Sutler, and have been rather unrelenting, though he's clearly tried (with limited success) to stay just on the right side of certain policies (especially WP:3RR). By the way, regarding User:Mattsanchez, is the assumption that he's actually Matt Sanchez proven, or just assumed? Since User:Eleemonsynary has been trolling for Sanchez through extraneous insults for weeks, it seem to me a bit too convenient that "Sanchez" should suddenly drop in just to attack Eleemonsynary, violating WP:NPA and the block resulting from WP:LEGAL at the same time. Sanchez's timbre was always a bit much, though, so perhaps it is him. Again, no need to bring this up on WP:AN/I — I have no reason aside from this to doubt it's Sanchez — but it was a thought I thought I might as well share here. Calbaer 18:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm as compulsive about references as you are. Good job on the article in cleaning up some of the references. It makes the article smaller and better when you can refer to the same reference with ref name. Thanks again. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi again— My impression is that these infobox templates are named "Template:Infobox [Subject beginning with capital letter]" as a surrogate for "Template:Infobox:[Subject...]" (itself probably a surrogate for "Infobox:[Subject...]"). Hope you won't mind, therefore, if I return the template to its previous name. Sardanaphalus 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You can't remove all criticism from the first paragraph of something almost defined by its criticism. But I did try to work it in better. Adam Cuerden talk 08:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't figure out how one could do OR on an old saying if you tried. I.e., I can't see how trying to find the origin of the saying would be OR. Historical research maybe, but that's permitted as far as I know long as you can cite your sources. Can you go into a bit more detail why you tagged the article? I might take a chance and update the article from the info on the talk page if you think that would be OK. (I am the guy who found the 1950 Eric Frank Russell story with the saying in it.) Keith Henson 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
List of Ubuntu-based distributions. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use
Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.
Theyain Riyu (
talk)
19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That was a very reasonable response, removing the phrase - it does read fine without it. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated this article for a second AfD. I've cited my reasons on the nomination page. Mind matrix 15:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Re the edit I made. I feel both scotland and brazil would be approppiate. (there is a {{ Brazil-footy-bio-stub}} which i'll add to the page. Waacstats ( talk) 14:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I was wondering about whether that was true. I was going to wait and see if the editor would provide a reference, but I should have removed it myself
.--
Mumia-w-18 (
talk)
17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It is because the project is not ready to begin any work that it should not have tags out, and as such it counts as advertising. The fact that the project was created arbitarily without any attempt to inform other editors, let alone get consensus for the need to create such a project, does not help the situation. Until the project is in a position to actually work on articles, or as in this case considering it's lack of pre-discussion if it actually survives, it shouldn't put out tags on the articles, especially when the project's page hasn't even been completed and the full intentions of the project haven't been established. -- Sabre ( talk) 19:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Thank you for bringing some reason, and perspective, to the page. I hope you'll watchlist it. Your voice is needed. -- Eleemosynary 07:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
{{unblock-auto|1=192.18.1.36|2={{ blocked proxy}}: Sun Microsystems Hosting servers |3=Ryulong}}
Thanks for your attention towards the Modchips page. I'd really like to contribute rewriting the article page, is there a Wikipedian way to do such major changes as a collaborate effort? I have already started rewriting in a local text file, but I'm not ready to commit the (quite radical) changes on my own.
Also thanks for correcting my archive edit, I guess I did it wrong even though I followed WP:ARCHIVE, especially with adding talkarchive templates to top and bottom. (BTW, when I tried, the auto-archive templates weren't working as intended.) -- Freddy Talk 16:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Removing the tag may not have been necessary but it was certainly satisfying. I am generally against almost all tags (except those, like the merge, which invite discussion), as well as several other recent "innovations" on this site. Tags and templates simply seem authoritative and impersonal to me -- and generally give me the impression that the editor "tagging" the article is either too "good" to do the work himself or too lazy. I do not believe tags promote "community" among editors. So, I'll probably end up removing the tag again, and trying to find the time to rewrite the section. These ongoing authoritative changes are probably a major reason why my edit count and time on Wikipedia has significantly dropped during the last year. WBardwin 03:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Thumperward! Earlier today, you reverted my edit to Template:Fourth Balkenende cabinet, with the edit summary "rv. per talk, until a better solution is devised, we need these or the template is broken on many screen resolutions. it's a hack, but a needed one". I was curious to see the discussion, but Template talk:Fourth Balkenende cabinet only shows a WikiProject tag. Which talk page discussion were you talking about? A ecis Brievenbus 13:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Why does there need to be an article in Wikipedia for this? The article is just a list of PC types.-- Mumia-w-18 15:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just thought I'd mention that with the current parenthesised version of ground capacity, any citation reference number is forced inside the brackets, which is inconsistent with the citation placement style used on most (English, anyway) football club articles. Of a sample of 6, 5 club articles do have a citation reference against the capacity. cheers, Struway2 11:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I messed up your pictures, tags, or prefs. The other night I did a huge copy edit....rewriting almost the whole thing and my PC went wacky the browser window went to Babelfish(thanks to some junk yahoo is hosing people with these days) and I lost all the stuff I had been editing. My apologies if I messed it up while trying to fix it. I think I've done what I can with it, but agree it still needs work if it needs to stay on wiki.-- Mike Searson 14:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Since you referred to your position in content disputes as being "our side" to User:Eleemonsynary, but seem to have no problem with correcting his violations of policy, I'd hoped that you would have some comment regarding User:Eleemosynary's behavior, either for Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_User:Eleemosynary or, if you don't feel like entering the fray, for me. It seems to me (although I didn't mention it in WP:AN/I), that his antics reached a fever pitch after the infinite ban on Bmedley Sutler, and have been rather unrelenting, though he's clearly tried (with limited success) to stay just on the right side of certain policies (especially WP:3RR). By the way, regarding User:Mattsanchez, is the assumption that he's actually Matt Sanchez proven, or just assumed? Since User:Eleemonsynary has been trolling for Sanchez through extraneous insults for weeks, it seem to me a bit too convenient that "Sanchez" should suddenly drop in just to attack Eleemonsynary, violating WP:NPA and the block resulting from WP:LEGAL at the same time. Sanchez's timbre was always a bit much, though, so perhaps it is him. Again, no need to bring this up on WP:AN/I — I have no reason aside from this to doubt it's Sanchez — but it was a thought I thought I might as well share here. Calbaer 18:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm as compulsive about references as you are. Good job on the article in cleaning up some of the references. It makes the article smaller and better when you can refer to the same reference with ref name. Thanks again. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi again— My impression is that these infobox templates are named "Template:Infobox [Subject beginning with capital letter]" as a surrogate for "Template:Infobox:[Subject...]" (itself probably a surrogate for "Infobox:[Subject...]"). Hope you won't mind, therefore, if I return the template to its previous name. Sardanaphalus 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You can't remove all criticism from the first paragraph of something almost defined by its criticism. But I did try to work it in better. Adam Cuerden talk 08:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't figure out how one could do OR on an old saying if you tried. I.e., I can't see how trying to find the origin of the saying would be OR. Historical research maybe, but that's permitted as far as I know long as you can cite your sources. Can you go into a bit more detail why you tagged the article? I might take a chance and update the article from the info on the talk page if you think that would be OK. (I am the guy who found the 1950 Eric Frank Russell story with the saying in it.) Keith Henson 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
List of Ubuntu-based distributions. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use
Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.
Theyain Riyu (
talk)
19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That was a very reasonable response, removing the phrase - it does read fine without it. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated this article for a second AfD. I've cited my reasons on the nomination page. Mind matrix 15:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Re the edit I made. I feel both scotland and brazil would be approppiate. (there is a {{ Brazil-footy-bio-stub}} which i'll add to the page. Waacstats ( talk) 14:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I was wondering about whether that was true. I was going to wait and see if the editor would provide a reference, but I should have removed it myself
.--
Mumia-w-18 (
talk)
17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It is because the project is not ready to begin any work that it should not have tags out, and as such it counts as advertising. The fact that the project was created arbitarily without any attempt to inform other editors, let alone get consensus for the need to create such a project, does not help the situation. Until the project is in a position to actually work on articles, or as in this case considering it's lack of pre-discussion if it actually survives, it shouldn't put out tags on the articles, especially when the project's page hasn't even been completed and the full intentions of the project haven't been established. -- Sabre ( talk) 19:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)