Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:05, 31 March 2008

Welcome message

I know you've been around since November, but thought the standard welcome message might help you from getting into as much trouble as you have been with the community:

Welcome!

Hello, Electrobe, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Hope this helps, -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Heroes

Electrobe, please, *please* listen to the people who are trying to help you. You've been given a second chance in terms of 3RR violations. Please don't start up the Quinto/starring role edit war again. There is no point in getting yourself blocked over that as the information is verified through multiple sources. Introducing factually incorrect information - and fighting to reinsert it - is not a productive use of time. --Ckatz_spy 11:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me what have i done? (Electrobe (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

You have issued threats to other users on the Heroes Talk Page, you have ignored the obvious community feeling that your edits are inappropriate, you have violated wiki policies and so on. You seem to have good intentions but you're going about this the wrong way. Try to calm down. asyndeton talk 11:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

i have merly stated a fact and in no way treateded anyone. (Electrobe (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Tring College

I have undone your last edit because it removed a source, removed some useful links and red linked a misspelt Tring Library which seems unlikely to get a page. I have also removed the See also section. This is not needed at present since both the pages linked are included in the article - see WP:ALSO. TerriersFan (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make specific changes to the article it would be better to make them individually rather than just to revert back to a previous version. That way you will avoid undoing valid changes like spelling corrections. Thanks. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that you've edited the article again and removed a lot of legitimate material including references. It was impossible to work out what, if any, useful edits you were trying to make so I've had to revert to an earlier version of the article. If there is anything you are unhappy with perhaps you could discuss it on the school's talk page. If you make any further edits please ensure you don't delete any legitimate material. Dahliarose (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have reverted to an old version of the article, which reintroduced previously corrected errors. If you have specific changes to make please do them by editing the article rather than reverting to an old version, Thanks ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing guidance

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tring School. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. TerriersFan (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Welsh

Is it your contention that nobody born after 1800 can be Welsh? If that's the case, you have a whole lot of articles to edit and a whole lot of people to convince. Have you some personal motive here? PhGustaf (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Techinacally they cant and its the same with English and Scottish people to. (Note: People from ireland can still be irish) I have no motive other than to educate the world. (Electrobe (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

I would suggest you find a viable source that agrees with you before you continue. PhGustaf (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Grove Road Primary School

There is no point in repeatedly removing the notability tag from Grove Road Primary School. Unless you can find sources that demonstrate compliance with WP:N then sooner or later the page will be redirected back to Tring. I have had a good look and cannot find enough material. Your efforts would be better spent in seeking out sources rather than edit warring. TerriersFan (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Electrobe. The Notability tag was intended as constructive advice. Most primary school articles get deleted sooner or later unless they have some element of notability. With primary schools the material is normally merged with the town or village article. There are lots of Misplaced Pages editors out there who are actively going round and nominating school articles for deletion. I can see that you've started to expand the article but in its present state I very much doubt that it will survive if it does get nominated for deletion. I only have access to internet sources and from these there doesn't appear to be anything particularly noteworthy about the school. However, if you are local you might have access to local sources in books and newspapers that will prove the school's notability. You might find the current discussions at Misplaced Pages:Notability (schools) of interest to help put you in the picture. Dahliarose (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have reverted to an old version of the article, which reintroduced previously corrected errors. If you have specific changes to make please do them by editing the article rather than reverting to an old version, Thanks ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Barack Obamajpg.jpg

I've reverted your addition of Image:Barack Obamajpg.jpg to Obama's article and nominated it for a speedy deletion because the article is copyrighted and the author has previously requested that the image be removed from Misplaced Pages. See WP:OTRS ticket 2007041810014021 for confirmation. While the image is on a .gov website, since the image was not taken by a employee of the US Government the image doesn't fall under public domain. So this means the image is either owned by Obama, or the photographer, and Obama's people have denied ownership of the image, so ownership defaults to the photographer. You weren't around when this came up, so there's no way you could have known about it, so thanks for uploading the image, just sorry that it can't be used. I actually quite like the image and wish the photographer would release it under GFDL for use. --Bobblehead 19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it I completely understand. Thnakyou for informing me. (Electrobe (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

Catherine Zeta-Jones

Hello, I see you reverted my edit to "UK" as a "Redirect". That is not correct. I abbreviated "UK" as per Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style (see WP:ABBR), so that the entry "Swansea, Wales, UK" would fit on one line in the Infobox, instead of "United" on one line and "Kingdom" spilling over to the next line, as it appears now on some browsers. When a bracketed entry is followed by a vertical separator, that is a "pipe" not a Re-Direct. Thus, ] appears to the reader as "UK", but in fact links directly to United Kingdom. You might want to look over WP:PIPE for when and how to use pipes when editing. JGHowes - 18:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Misplaced Pages and its quality! Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Walter_Rothschild-Zoological_Museum.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Walter_Rothschild-Zoological_Museum.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:KTM XBow.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KTM XBow.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sweyn

Good job moving that. It's needed to move for a while! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin

Hello Electrobe. Acording to the Russian Constitution, the President nominates a person for prime minister (that person needs cofirmation from the Duma). Medvedev hasn't nominated Putin, 'cause Medvedev is not the President . Also, you're crystal-balling - Medvedev and/or Putin could be dead, before May 7, 2008. Please be patient. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It says Delegate Prime Minister of Russia as that is what the world has been infromed is to be his new job and Medvedev is the one making the decision as President-elect. (Electrobe (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

According to the Russian Constitution, only the President can appoint a prime minister. When President Medvedev appoints Putin, then Putin will be pm-designate; he'll become pm, when the Duma confirms him. Again, please wait until then, afterall both men could be dead before May 7th, 2008. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to AGF. But, your refusal to discuss this at talk: Vladimir Putin (which is where you're suppose to discuss this) & choice of 'edit warring' over it? gives me the impression of uncivil behaviour, on your part. Again, will you discuss this at 'that' article's talk-page? GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay is quite correct here. Medvedev is not yet President, therefore he has no authority to delegate anyone as his prime minister. Your argument, Electrobe, is analogous to Prince Charles now nominating Keanu Reeves as his future Prime Minister for Canada, and calling Reeves "Prime Minister-designate" until Charles ascends the throne and appoints Reeves as PM. --G2bambino (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not really the same thing as the Queen isnt going to resign. (Electrobe (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

Putin isn't going to resign either, what's your point? GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Queen resigning is the equvilent of Putin being forced to stand down by th econstituation. (Electrobe (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

The Queen dosen't have a 'fixed term' as Head of State, where's as Putin does. Putin is not going to 'resign' on May 7, 2008 - he's simply going to cease being President. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's the same thing. You're arguing that a person can be a prime minister-designate simply because someone who may become head of state in future has already mentioned that upon becoming head of state he will apppoint that person as PM. Basically, you're saying a civillian can nominate a PM-designate. Sorry, but that simply is not the case. --G2bambino (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Even the Queen and Putin are civilians. (Electrobe (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Template:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3APrime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=199116451&oldid=199067511

No edit summary?
Also, do you realize at least one feature of the template is now dysfunctional? Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Above with some subtext:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3APrime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=199116451&oldid=199067511

Follow the link above. You undid someone's work and left no edit summary let alone contact them to inform/discuss.

Also, do you realize that the way in which you've undone the work means at least one feature of the template is now dysfunctional? Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Above with some subtext including wikilink pointers:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3APrime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=199116451&oldid=199067511

Follow the link above. You undid someone's work and left no edit summary let alone contact them to inform/discuss.

Also, do you realize that the way in which you've undone the work means at least one feature of the template is now dysfunctional? Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't want to appear to be lecturing you on how to suck the proverbial eggs. But, if you don't understand the hints above, I hope the following will be useful. Don't make edits, especially significant ones, without including an edit summary (see Help:Edit summary). If the edit is reverting/undoing someone else's work, leaving some indication why in the edit summary is the least that should be done. What's usually better is to resist the desire to revert/undo the editor's work and contact that editor with your concerns first. (Imagine your and that editor's role reversed; see Misplaced Pages:Etiquette.) As regards your edit also introducing some dysfunctionality, the template's name parameter needs to be the same as the template's name if all the v·d·e links in the top righthand corner of the template are to work. Also, reintroducing the " •" dividers within the template's lists can lead to overlaps at the righthand ends of lines, depending on the size/resolution of the screen/window in which the page is being displayed. There're two potential problems.

If you like, I'll revisit the template later and repair anything unrepaired without undoing the layout you've introduced. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Have sorted out template per the above. Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why do you keep putting 'Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom United Kingdom'? Why did you remove a category from Template:Great Offices of State? --Philip Stevens (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• And why have you undone again the editing that made the title visible against the dark purple background -- also in {{Great Offices of State}} and {{Chancellors of the Exchequer}} -- and that also set up effective linewrap handling?? Please collaborate with people! Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

Your template

please make sure your newly created template(s) do not have bug!! And please do not put Archbishop of Canterbury and Archbishop of York into the your template as they have their respective templates used consistently for all Archbishops of Canterbury and York. (Ngckmax (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

{{Great Offices of State}}

Why do you keep reverting my edits to {{Great Offices of State}}? Look what your edits are doing to the pages the template is linked to. --Philip Stevens (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with you!? Why do you keep reverting my edit that doesn't change the appeance of the template but fixes the code? --Philip Stevens (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:Electrobe

Okay, the first advice from the above is that I / User:Philip Stevens try harder to communicate, so for starters I'm curious to understand why you seem to be insisting on black text against a dark purple/mauvey background -- can you see how that can be near illegible? If It's all part of some scheme, how about lightening the purple/mauve across all affected templates -- say, to "thistle" (see Web colors#X11 color names)?:

...and any others. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Archbishop of Canterbury

Please do not use the Template:Infobox Archbishop on Archbishop of Canterbury because there is the Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury used for so many Archbishops of Canterbury since AD 600, Thank your for your cooperation. 59.149.32.77 (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to {{Great Offices of State}}

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Template:Great Offices of State. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please look at any page to which this template is attached. --Philip Stevens (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please

Please add your template (Archbishop) to those other than Archbishop of Canterbury! OK? 59.149.32.77 (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but why? (Electrobe (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Because there has been a proper Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury applied for ALL Archbishops of Canterbury since the first to the latest. Your template is for the GENERAL Archbishops who do not have a specific template like Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury. Thanks for your cooperation and considering. --59.149.32.77 (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul Kwong

Paul Kwong is an Anglican Archbishop. So he shall use the Template of Anglican Arcbsihop. 59.149.32.77 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising my page with offensive messages (which have now been removed). You edits are illigitement and I am merely doing my job as a wikipedia editor to stop them. {Electrobe (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

How and why illigitement? 59.149.32.77 (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Because they are vandalism. {Electrobe (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

So yours are not? 59.149.32.77 (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I am reverting vandalism obviously. {Electrobe (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Since the earliest time. Paul Kwong is using the template of Anglican Archbishop, and that is fine and OK, the template archbishop can be used for those outside Anglican Communion. 59.149.32.77 (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are but here we go with the lying again. Only on your last two edits was the Angliacan Archbihop template used. {Electrobe (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)}

OK, from now on I will only care those of the Anglican Archbishops. All others is up to you. We can be friend on wikipedia! OK?59.149.32.77 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paul Kwong. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -Jéské 18:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the three-revert rule however I believe that rules should sometimes be brokern if an edit is taking place which is obviously vandalism. {Electrobe (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

What I see are two users making good-faith efforts, actually. You're adding a template, and he, believing the template is incorrect, is removing it. -Jéské 18:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's sit down and talk

Please appreciate and look into details / history of what i contribute. Not only Paul Kwong but many articles of Hong Kong Anglican Church as i am a local anglican in Hong Kong.

• Version before I join editing Paul Kwong
• In the course, if you compare the two, you will see it is NOT vandalism, i am improving the article.
• Version before Electrobe join editing Paul Kwong

I see you are editing in good faith and contributing on templates. That's great. But please, at least, left Paul Kwong use Template: Infobox Anglican Archbishop in the WikiProject of Anglicanism. And please listen to the reasons of others in editing or really look into details of others' editing.

I will have no opinion for your edits to Archbishops (1) outside Hong Kong and (2) Archbishops of Canterbury.

I see you are from England and I am from Hong Kong, I want to make friends on Misplaced Pages, not enemy. I am sincerely looking forward to your kind reply.

--59.149.32.77 (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I see you have a point of few however as you can see I am also improving wikipedia and so you reverting improvements is classified as vandalism. Also on a different note I'm not English. {Electrobe (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)}

I see you mainly contribute to articles relating to England, so I think you are English. Then would you mind telling me what nation do you come from? --59.149.32.77 (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE PUT YOUR REPLIES IN A LOGICAL ORDER. {Electrobe (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)}

fixed --59.149.32.77 (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Before I continue I would like to get your consent first to avoid edit war. I want to use back the Template:Infobox Anglican Archbishop towards Paul Kwong only. All the other archbishops are subject to you and I will not revert them. OK? --59.149.32.77 (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

NO. {Electrobe (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)}

The deal favour you most. Can you accept it? --59.149.32.77 (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I may not be English but I only speak Enlish (and a little simple German and French and no i'm not them either) but I only speak English. {Electrobe (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)}

{{Great Offices of State}}, yet again!

I'm not going to revert your disruptive editing any more, I'll let others do it. I hope you'll listen to them more than you've listened to me. Why can't you just look at any page this template is included on, you'll see a rogue </noinclude> that your edit causes? --Philip Stevens (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Interstingly i'm the only person here trying to fix this problem so don't blame me for trying to do something abojut this problem. At least i'm trying. {Electrobe (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)}

What are you talking about? I did fix the problem several time - you kept reverted the fix. --Philip Stevens (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean what am I talking about? your fix didn't work. Your the one who created the problem of the rouge </noinclude> I was reverting your vandalism and then trying to work out how to fix the page. I only recently started doing that kind of edit and so I didn't know how to fix the problem. However despite your vandalism I have managed to fix the page. {Electrobe (talk)}

Converting navboxes

Why are you changing some navigational boxes away from the Template:Military navigation to Template:Navbox without any discussion. I see no need to move away from a standardised template and colour scheme which helps reduce clutter. You are creating mammoth navboxes such as the First sea Lord one. Also, how do you define a "military colour", the idea behind the Military navigation template, is the defined colour for the heading. Woody (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The military colour bit is referring to your edit summaries. Woody (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please Rephrase your point because that makes no sense apart from the bit about First Sea Lords being to big and thats hardly my fault and actually have only increased the size of the box by three lines. {Electrobe (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}

Okay then, it makes perfect sense, but lets try again. Stop converting templates that use Template:Military navigation to use Template:Navbox. You have not discussed these changes and you are moving away from standardised colour schemes and settings. There is no reason to be doing this. Unless an explanation is forthcoming I will revert. Woody (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Basicually I think that the colour sceme should be changed however as i am not an admisinstor I can't do anything about this and so have made them navbox instead. Anyway whats so important about them being military navigation boxs anyway. {Electrobe (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}

You have obviously missed the point about talkpages, they are there to discuss changes instead of trying to circumvent the issue. It is important so that we can have a standardised and uniform structure to navboxes. On pages where we have several boxes, if they each have their own wonderful colour scheme, then we have a mess. The military navigation box is intended to standardise these boxes. If you disagree with this then by all means bring this up on the Template talk:Military navigation or WT:MILHIST. Woody (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made a solution I have created a new navbox called Navbox Military for use on pages like this. I believe that this would make a new standard box to use. {Electrobe (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}

That is not a solution, it is another problem. Why do you avoid discussion? All you had to do was open up a thread on Template talk:Military navigation about your issues, which, as far as I can see, is a simple dislike of the colour scheme. I am considering putting Navbox military up at TFD unless you can give me a reason not to. Woody (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Becasue I have just created a very adaptable easily workable navbox which works much better than its preddessecor making Misplaced Pages a easier place to edit. And excuse me if this next bit sounds a little offensice but what do you think is going to happen if I go on to another navboxs page and start a discussion about getting rid of it and replacing it with a new one when so many people have made a lot of effort to create it. It would be like discussing how the best way to break into Grodon Browns office is with the man in question I mean come on is anyone going to actually say yes. {Electrobe (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}

I have only advocated getting rid of your navbox, and no-one elses. Nor have I suggested that you ask for the mil navigation navbox to be deleted, simply adjusted. Misplaced Pages is built on discussion, if you don't want to discuss changes, and can't accept when discussion does not go your way, then you need to rethink your attitude. Woody (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 28#Template:Navbox Military. Woody (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this an indicator that you want the template deleted under the WP:CSD#G7?

Please don't take this as a them versus me situation. That discussion is what Misplaced Pages is all about, WP:CONSENSUS. Please try to learn from this and discuss changes you want to make on the talk page instead of creating your own new template. Woody (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Your templates are not bad and you are editing in good faith.

And I encourage you to participate in more discussions. --59.149.32.77 (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)