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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
Thanks for the fixes to {{ infobox crater}}. It was a first attempt at an infobox so pretty quick and dirty. -- YakbutterT ( talk) 00:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Question as subject line.
I came to Wikipedia today for the 1st time in a long time and found a number of messages regarding the vandalism of pages. We find Wikipedia an invaluable tool for research but unfortunately some of our students apparently find it more appropriate to vandalise pages rather than do the research tha they are supposed to. If you need to me create an account or contact you by some other means then please let me know, I would rather the students did what they are supposed to do instead of wasting their and your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.84.117 ( talk) 09:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, the end result was a 1 year ban although I was surprised at the tone of some of the messages during the discussion. Not sure what is wrong with my grammar other than I can at times be a little informal but that's because I'm a lecturer, not a lawyer. As a suggestion maybe a decision could be made (Even if it's "No, we won't block editing access at your request, only at our own discretion") and that decision could be made known to the administrators so the next time somebody asks (Which will happen at some point) they can be told straightaway. I was expecting to be asked to complete an online form, send an email or maybe send a fax on headed paper, any of which I would have been happy to do. Equally, had the end result been that you will not ban editing access on request I would have accepted that as well - it was just a question that I couldn't see answered anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.233.99 ( talk) 14:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thumper, the changes are first of all, unnecessary and if a style is already established, why change it. There is nothing in Wiki world to mandate that templates should be used. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 19:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC).
Avic enna sis @ 06:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chris, further to our previous discussion at Footy I have put up a stub renaming request at [1] which you may want to comment at. Thanks. Eldumpo ( talk) 10:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Avic enna sis @ 22:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The infobox religious group template was good. You, perhaps mistakenly, changed something and the religious group name now appears outside the infobox. Kindly, please fix it. — Hamza [ talk ] 15:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok. my bad that i didn't watch the talk page. But it would've been courteous of you if you'd put a reminder on talk pages on people who edited that template most. But anyways, what's done is done. Ta Ta. — Hamza [ talk ] 10:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you confident about the link on the "Wear Sunscreen" article that refers to the song being played at every graduation at the University of Zagreb? I don't read croatian (do you?) but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they don't actually play this song every year. Maybe they played it once, but even then i can't find real evidence that this is true. Apizzaiolo ( talk) 06:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there THUMPER, VASCO here,
Have you got any news on this topic? Last time i checked, the links are still dead, and i am pretty much at a loss... :(
Keep on thumping, good work, cheers,
VASCO, Portugal - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I am requesting a re-evaluation of the unfounded deletion of my personal space page about Arabic Wikipedia template. The request for re-evaluation can be found here. I would greatly appreciate your input in this matter. Thank you in advance. -- λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ [talk] 00:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Thumperward, On March 7th Ekindall revised the photo caption in Commons and added: A scleral shell (prosthesis), not a scleral lens . based on this revision I moved the photo to the relevant article. Are you sure the photo serves Scleral lens as well? Etan J. Tal 12:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal ( talk • contribs)
Hi Thumperward. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete The Holy Bible, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion G6 because of the following concern: the history merge or move is controversial. It appears clear that when typing "The Holy Bible" readers will be looking for the Bible more oft than the music album. Since this is the opinion of myself and at least one other editor, G6 is not appropriate. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards Kingpin 13 ( talk) 19:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
In this edit, you changed, for example:
<code> |- class="note" {{#if:{{{depth|}}}| {{!}} '''Depth''' {{!}} {{{depth}}} </code>
to:
<code> |- {{#if:{{{depth|}}}| {{!}} '''Depth''' {{!}} class="note" {{!}} {{{depth}}} </code>
The effect of this is to change the value of the note attribute in the emitted microformat from the intended value of, say, "Depth 500m" to "500m". Please be mindful of this, when editing templates in future. Are you aware of any similar instances? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
For example, it would be great if the following actually worked (it doesn't due to the whitespace stripping of the if statement)
<code> {{#if:{{{depth|}}}| {{!}}- class="note" {{!}} '''Depth''' {{!}} {{{depth}}} </code>
but this does work
<code> {{#if:{{{depth|}}}| <tr class="note"> <td>'''Depth'''</td><td>{{{depth}}}</td> </tr> </code>
but it's not wikified. The following also works well,
<code> {{#if:{{{depth|}}}| {{!}} class="note" {{!}} '''Depth''' {{!}} class="note" {{!}} {{{depth}}} {{!}}- </code>
but is it correct? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Only really three words unless you count "don't" as two. One advantage of keeping the template is basically what was expressed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 2#Template:Oldafdfull - I assume the same "one AfD, two lines" issue occurs (if this is not the case I apologise, my mistake). Another is just personal preference - not merging doesn't mean that the new template can't be used or shouldn't be used. If you want to revert then that's fine, I didn't start a talk page discussion because it's not something that I'm really that interested in I just thought I'd be bold and see if it stuck. As a side point I think if you revert you should also update the documentation so it matches, otherwise the page is quite confusing. Regards, Guest9999 ( talk) 21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Please note: Template talk:Infobox person#Mergers, redux. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I've added the what I think is an example rugby infobox to your test area. Hope this is what you were after. FruitMonkey ( talk) 09:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. This template seems rather unsatisfactory to me. All the documentation should be inside the green box, really. I'm wondering about the best way to improve it. Any thoughts? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 17:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Your redirect was reverted and I restored it, but it was reverted again. I suppose we have to go back to AfD, however, I am wondering how to word the nomination. When I nominate an article for deletion, I usually argue why the article should be deleted. I realize that editors may conclude that a redirect is a better solution, but I've never started out a nomination asking for a redirect. How should I word this or is AfD the wrong venue? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 22:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
please do not delete info especially on subjects that are unfamiliar without discussing your actions on talk pages. this one is a sensitive topic requiring extra care. thanks. Mcnabs ( talk) 00:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article A-10 Thunderbolt II you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 10 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
You added a {{
tooshort}}
tag, but it's not immediately obvious what the shortcomings are. It's short, but appears to follow the
KISS principle pretty well. Could you add something to the
talk page with some more details so that people have some hope of bringing it up to snuff and (more importantly) will know when it's safe to remove the cleanup tag? Thanks.
71.41.210.146 (
talk) 06:15, 2 April 2010 (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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
Thanks for the fixes to {{ infobox crater}}. It was a first attempt at an infobox so pretty quick and dirty. -- YakbutterT ( talk) 00:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Question as subject line.
I came to Wikipedia today for the 1st time in a long time and found a number of messages regarding the vandalism of pages. We find Wikipedia an invaluable tool for research but unfortunately some of our students apparently find it more appropriate to vandalise pages rather than do the research tha they are supposed to. If you need to me create an account or contact you by some other means then please let me know, I would rather the students did what they are supposed to do instead of wasting their and your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.84.117 ( talk) 09:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, the end result was a 1 year ban although I was surprised at the tone of some of the messages during the discussion. Not sure what is wrong with my grammar other than I can at times be a little informal but that's because I'm a lecturer, not a lawyer. As a suggestion maybe a decision could be made (Even if it's "No, we won't block editing access at your request, only at our own discretion") and that decision could be made known to the administrators so the next time somebody asks (Which will happen at some point) they can be told straightaway. I was expecting to be asked to complete an online form, send an email or maybe send a fax on headed paper, any of which I would have been happy to do. Equally, had the end result been that you will not ban editing access on request I would have accepted that as well - it was just a question that I couldn't see answered anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.233.99 ( talk) 14:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thumper, the changes are first of all, unnecessary and if a style is already established, why change it. There is nothing in Wiki world to mandate that templates should be used. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 19:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC).
Avic enna sis @ 06:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chris, further to our previous discussion at Footy I have put up a stub renaming request at [1] which you may want to comment at. Thanks. Eldumpo ( talk) 10:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Avic enna sis @ 22:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The infobox religious group template was good. You, perhaps mistakenly, changed something and the religious group name now appears outside the infobox. Kindly, please fix it. — Hamza [ talk ] 15:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok. my bad that i didn't watch the talk page. But it would've been courteous of you if you'd put a reminder on talk pages on people who edited that template most. But anyways, what's done is done. Ta Ta. — Hamza [ talk ] 10:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you confident about the link on the "Wear Sunscreen" article that refers to the song being played at every graduation at the University of Zagreb? I don't read croatian (do you?) but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they don't actually play this song every year. Maybe they played it once, but even then i can't find real evidence that this is true. Apizzaiolo ( talk) 06:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there THUMPER, VASCO here,
Have you got any news on this topic? Last time i checked, the links are still dead, and i am pretty much at a loss... :(
Keep on thumping, good work, cheers,
VASCO, Portugal - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I am requesting a re-evaluation of the unfounded deletion of my personal space page about Arabic Wikipedia template. The request for re-evaluation can be found here. I would greatly appreciate your input in this matter. Thank you in advance. -- λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ [talk] 00:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Thumperward, On March 7th Ekindall revised the photo caption in Commons and added: A scleral shell (prosthesis), not a scleral lens . based on this revision I moved the photo to the relevant article. Are you sure the photo serves Scleral lens as well? Etan J. Tal 12:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal ( talk • contribs)
Hi Thumperward. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete The Holy Bible, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion G6 because of the following concern: the history merge or move is controversial. It appears clear that when typing "The Holy Bible" readers will be looking for the Bible more oft than the music album. Since this is the opinion of myself and at least one other editor, G6 is not appropriate. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards Kingpin 13 ( talk) 19:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
In this edit, you changed, for example:
<code> |- class="note" {{#if:{{{depth|}}}| {{!}} '''Depth''' {{!}} {{{depth}}} </code>
to:
<code> |- {{#if:{{{depth|}}}| {{!}} '''Depth''' {{!}} class="note" {{!}} {{{depth}}} </code>
The effect of this is to change the value of the note attribute in the emitted microformat from the intended value of, say, "Depth 500m" to "500m". Please be mindful of this, when editing templates in future. Are you aware of any similar instances? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
For example, it would be great if the following actually worked (it doesn't due to the whitespace stripping of the if statement)
<code> {{#if:{{{depth|}}}| {{!}}- class="note" {{!}} '''Depth''' {{!}} {{{depth}}} </code>
but this does work
<code> {{#if:{{{depth|}}}| <tr class="note"> <td>'''Depth'''</td><td>{{{depth}}}</td> </tr> </code>
but it's not wikified. The following also works well,
<code> {{#if:{{{depth|}}}| {{!}} class="note" {{!}} '''Depth''' {{!}} class="note" {{!}} {{{depth}}} {{!}}- </code>
but is it correct? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Only really three words unless you count "don't" as two. One advantage of keeping the template is basically what was expressed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 2#Template:Oldafdfull - I assume the same "one AfD, two lines" issue occurs (if this is not the case I apologise, my mistake). Another is just personal preference - not merging doesn't mean that the new template can't be used or shouldn't be used. If you want to revert then that's fine, I didn't start a talk page discussion because it's not something that I'm really that interested in I just thought I'd be bold and see if it stuck. As a side point I think if you revert you should also update the documentation so it matches, otherwise the page is quite confusing. Regards, Guest9999 ( talk) 21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Please note: Template talk:Infobox person#Mergers, redux. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I've added the what I think is an example rugby infobox to your test area. Hope this is what you were after. FruitMonkey ( talk) 09:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. This template seems rather unsatisfactory to me. All the documentation should be inside the green box, really. I'm wondering about the best way to improve it. Any thoughts? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 17:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Your redirect was reverted and I restored it, but it was reverted again. I suppose we have to go back to AfD, however, I am wondering how to word the nomination. When I nominate an article for deletion, I usually argue why the article should be deleted. I realize that editors may conclude that a redirect is a better solution, but I've never started out a nomination asking for a redirect. How should I word this or is AfD the wrong venue? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 22:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
please do not delete info especially on subjects that are unfamiliar without discussing your actions on talk pages. this one is a sensitive topic requiring extra care. thanks. Mcnabs ( talk) 00:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article A-10 Thunderbolt II you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 10 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
You added a {{
tooshort}}
tag, but it's not immediately obvious what the shortcomings are. It's short, but appears to follow the
KISS principle pretty well. Could you add something to the
talk page with some more details so that people have some hope of bringing it up to snuff and (more importantly) will know when it's safe to remove the cleanup tag? Thanks.
71.41.210.146 (
talk) 06:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)