Misplaced Pages

User talk:David Levy/Archive8: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:David Levy Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:43, 10 October 2008 editDrKay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators159,932 edits →Image:Queen Anne.jpg: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 22:10, 16 October 2008 edit undoBrewhaha@edmc.net (talk | contribs)1,265 edits →Barnstar: Take it easy, man.Next edit →
Line 286: Line 286:
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Since loves you so much, how can I not give you this to spread the love all around? --] (]) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC) |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Since loves you so much, how can I not give you this to spread the love all around? --] (]) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
|} |}

]
Okay, buddy. What's the point behind uploading a picture that obliterates a piece of clarification? Apparently, you didn't notice that the first obliteration was of the school from which the student came. So, the cops released a school ID photo, which means that's the best they could do, short of something ugly. Don't work too hard, man. ] (]) 22:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


== ATT Header == == ATT Header ==

Revision as of 22:10, 16 October 2008

Welcome to my talk page!

Please sign and date all entries with: ~~~~

Archive #1 | Archive #2 | Archive #3

April 1

Honestly, it's April Fools' Day. I know Misplaced Pages is serious business but lighten up a bit, only admins could see it, and they're probably most in need of a laugh 'round here. Also, don't WP:DTTR. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 02:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither Ryan's edits nor Viridae's edits were vandalism, and throwing a vandal template on their talk page is seriously inappropriate. I hate April Fools jokes more than anybody, but let's not lose sight of reality. - auburnpilot talk 03:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've responded on my talk page, but I think it's time you reread some of our core policies and guidelines. For one, Ryan is free to remove any content from his talk page at any time. There is nothing inappropriate about removing your misguided warning. - auburnpilot talk 03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I support your block here, David, despite the unblock request being granted. I've been looking through Viridae's edits, and they show a real lack of judgement. See my post on Viridae's talk page in a few minutes. Carcharoth (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't about to help this year. Good to see you kept on top of it. Given the users who acted up this time also did so last year, I certainly saw basis in your blocks. All the best, --cj | talk 13:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

re: VPR - check today's date

Aw come on! WP:DTTR. Did you actually read what I commented out? As the second comment says it works better without the stuff I commented out. I'll go back and explain in the comment what I did and hope you don't object. If you revert again, I'll leave it alone and assume that your adherence to guidelines (even on April 1st) takes precendence over your sense of humor. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Viridae

Hi David, I've undone your block of this user. He was given the bare minimum of warnings and his disruption was fairly limited. It seems discourteous to me to block a user in good standing under these circumstances. I will understand if you wish to contes this action. Best, ~ Riana ⁂ 12:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked Omegatron. See the button at the top right that says "log out"? Press it and don't press it again until April 2. John Reaves 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The only other way to stop the edit warring at MediaWiki:Tagline (or any other MediaWiki page) is to seek emergency desysopping and/or an arbitration case. If someone gets desysopped over using admin tools to play April Fools jokes, then that should put an end to it next year. David, I would make a statement like this at arbitration if you chose to take it there. Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
David, I wasn't aware of how far this had escalated or that the tagline was being edit warred over (things picked up since I last checked I suppose). I thought you were blocking based on the state of things about an hour or two ago, in which case I feel an unblock would have been appropriate. Feel free to reblock or have me do it. Sorry for being hasty. John Reaves 13:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, sorry this is a week late, I've been away. Just letting you know that while I continue to beleive that blocking an established user with a minimum of warning is inappropriate, I can understand how your actions were justifiable under the circumstances. You're absolutely right that my unblock was not based in policy, and you have my apologies. If you wish to pursue this further you are welcome to. once again, apologies. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I thinked you dropped this somewhere...

Here, I think you dropped this somewhere. Maybe a kitten will help turn that frown upside down! Viridae 12:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MediaWiki:Tagline edit warring, an ANI thread I started involving actions taken by you. Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The delete thingy

It was a one time deal, don't worry.

Plus, it's April 1st, how can you not prank someone? Kwsn (Ni!) 14:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Full protection on Grandfather paradox?

I know that it's being vandalized because it's linked to from Google, but so far, the vandals have been IPs or new members. I don't see why semi-protection isn't sufficient? No need to go into full blast full protection unless there's a dispute going on or for some reason, established users are vandalizing the article. Gary King (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed that the article was previously semiprotected first. Still, full seems a bit excessive since I thought that was usually reserved for articles where established users debated on an article so neither side was 'right' and had to resolve the issue before editing again. I would imagine the attention the article is getting is also beneficial in that people might want to improve it since it's really popular now, but again, I'm just an idealist :) Gary King (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Note

Thank you for your "warning", but we are trying to have a little holiday humor here, so please remember that nobody cares that you don't have the holiday spirit and would like to remind you that you need to get out once and a while. Our community is looking for a good laugh and will not find overly stick-in-the-mud individuals pleasant or welcome. Remember, millions of people read Misplaced Pages, so once a year it's custom to ease back a bit and relax. If you'd like to have a little more humor, I suggest trying to enjoy the holiday rather than oppress it. Thank you. --Charitwo 17:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your links to Uncyclopedia perfectly illustrate the correct "community" for such nonsense. At Misplaced Pages, your edit was patent vandalism. If you do it again, I hope that you'll find the same degree of "humor" in your block. —David Levy 17:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You'd think so wouldn't you? You need to get the block out of your head and worry about more serious offenses like affecting the entire site as a whole or blanking the entire ANI (it happened twice). Rather than worrying about a simple find/replace in notepad that makes people think they're dyslexic for an April Fools prank, a diff that I was watching mind you. And you're trying to scare me with block threats, you have more important things to worry about David. Go do something useful for a change and stop bothering me.
Another thing, your talk page is 344 sections and 332kb long, you could stand a good archiving, how about having some consideration for those who choose to contact you and allow some decent page loads.
And before I leave this huge page, I ever so humbly request you keep conversations on the same page. If I leave you a message on your talk page, I will be watching for a reply on your talk page, not my own. Goodday, sir. --Charitwo 18:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
1. I don't recall accusing you of failing to contribute productively to our community or of contributing primarily to Uncyclopedia (which I didn't even know that you'd edited). I merely noted that "such nonsense" belongs at the latter, not that you belong there.
2. What makes you think that I'm ignoring more serious offenses? I've issued numerous warnings (including one to Kwsn for the "Nuke this page" edit) and two blocks (of sysops involved in the tagline vandalism) today.
I don't know what leads you to believe that I've singled you out, as I merely reverted your vandalism and issued a polite warning used in such situations every day of the year.
3. No, I'm not trying to scare you. I'm warning you that if you continue to vandalise pages, you'll be blocked. Again, this is standard procedure. If you don't want me to "bother" you, simply refrain from committing vandalism. It's that simple.
4. I thank you for the reminder to archive my talk page (which I shall do shortly), but I'll also note that because the page that you vandalised was so large, my first attempt to revert the edit actually caused my browser to freeze.
5. I'll gladly respond here if that's your preference, but given the fact that I initiated our communication on your talk page, shouldn't you have followed your own advice? —David Levy 18:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
1. It was a diff that I was actually watching and was going to revert in due time, I was never intending on leaving it like that. It was a fast swap and a fast fix.
2. I'm saying my dyslexic swap was trivial to warn for, it did actually fool a few people. You merely got to it before I did.
3. I'm not vandalizing anything, it was limited to one edit on one page, it was controlled. I can understand if I replaced a certain word with something offensive, like what was in the tagline or something.
4. haythx, the length of AN/I wasn't an issue for me, it was the edit conflicts.
5. A warning template isn't exactly the start of a conversation.
ok bye --Charitwo 01:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
1/2. I believe you, but that doesn't make it okay.
3. I'm sorry, but your edit was vandalism. Was it the worst vandalism imaginable? No, of course not. It wasn't even close to that. But it was vandalism, and I responded accordingly (with a polite warning).
4. Yeah, I also encountered a couple of edit conflicts, but that happens quite often.
5. Your initial post to my talk page certainly appears to be a direct reply, but that's fine. I'll gladly post wherever people prefer. —David Levy 02:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Main Page

If you can find one person who got confused and/or offended because of a changed link that was up for 11 minutes, feel free to block me. --Merovingian (T, C) 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. While I don't find April Fools jokes to be amusing or constructive, your blocks were completely out of line. A simple friendly note asking them not to do so, not a canned template and then an against-policy block would be fine. Your blocks were are completely unacceptable behavior. Are you open for recall? If so, I would start one. Nousernamesleft 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I only know about the Viridae case, and one out-of-line block is quite enough, so that addresses your first point. I can't really tell you anything about the other two blocks.
About your second point: Your cited claim was disruption. According to Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Disruption, the policy for vandalism disruption was "persistent vandalism," which was clearly not, at least in the case of Viridae, the case. As I said, a friendly note asking for them to stop would have been enough. Additionally, the edits were clearly meant as good-faith humor. About your point on vandalising millions of articles, so now if a new user vandalizes a single mainspace article, (s)he should be warned lightly, but if (s)he vandalizes a template, (s)he should be indef blocked immediately for vandalizing the probably large number of articles that the template is transcluded onto? Nousernamesleft 02:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Too much has already been said on the matter. As was pointed out on my talk, my edit was, in relation to others, particularly unobtrusive. Also, I can assure you that I would have reverted myself if the edit had not been noticed for, say, an hour. I'm surprised it survived for 11 minutes. Anyways, I appreciate your commitment to hard work on Misplaced Pages, even on silly days. --Merovingian (T, C) 10:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the timeline of events, so there was no need for that. Please tell me where this polite warning you mentioned was. All I saw was a template intended for new users that was not likely to be taken seriously. Merovingian, it's not that I don't appreciated David's work, it's just that I think he showed exceptionally poor judgment on this case. Nousernamesleft 22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I now realize I overreacted. While I still disagree with what you did, you have your own opinion,; I shouldn't have posted such an inflammatory message. Thanks for your well wishes on my illness; I'm feeling a bit better now. Nousernamesleft 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent blocks

I just wanted to drop a note saying that fully support your blocks earlier today. Screwing with the Tagline was simply unacceptable, as I clearly told Omegatron when he did it the first time. Viridae also went far overboard with these ridiculous "pranks." I'm disappointed that both John Reaves and Riana unblocked. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to echo MZMcBride's sentiment, especially since I noticed you've been getting beaten up pretty badly for the past couple days. It's nice to see that some people still take the encyclopedia with some degree of seriousness - hang in there. east.718 at 06:44, April 2, 2008

Yeah, I am sorry about that

Yeah, I am sorry about that. I know that I sometimes make a mistake. Please excuse me on that one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fools' Day guideline

David, given what happened this year, I don't think the current guidelines or policies go far enough. It would be nice not to have to do this, but what happened this year didn't encourage me - and since the Misplaced Pages community continually grows and changes, there will always be some people willing to engage in this sort of behaviour. I'm thinking of gathering some evidence and links to discussions about this year, and the last few years, and then proposing a guideline for community approval. Would you be able to help with this, or suggest the best places to advertise this? Does anything already exist? Would this be best handled as a new page or sections or notes in existing guidelines and policies? Also, is this best done now (while the iron is hot) or in a month or so? Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! I just noticed that discussion of this nature already is underway at Misplaced Pages talk:April Fools' Day, though I'm thinking that it might be better to wait until everyone's a bit calmer. —David Levy 15:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Some good discussion there, great poems, and a link to a nice collection of gags. Now, if only the more irresponsible gags can be avoided next year, it should be fine. Carcharoth (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Gerbil

David, an editor can do with their userpage more or less as they wish, within bounds of policy. There isn't any policy forbidding a person from removing a warning from their userpage. Even the guideline on the issue clearly says "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user" David, you're out of line. Being tempted to revert the removal is your problem, not Ryans, and you're out of line for making it a problem for Ryan since you would be acting outside the bounds of policy and guideline. There's been a long history of hijinx on Misplaced Pages on April Fool's day. It's tradition around here 2004200520062007. You know this. Templating Ryan was completely unnecessary, when a polite message asking him to stop would have sufficed. Instead, you're issuing warnings, demanding promises, and the like. Shame on you. SHAME on you. Ryan deserves an apology from you. Your insensitivity and actions outside of the bounds of policy and guideline have lead to his announcement to the effect he's quitting Misplaced Pages. This was entirely avoidable had you acted in a more appropriate manner. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree think warnings were excessive, since Ryan should already know not to make edits like this. But, Hammersoft, I think you're being too harsh on David. Nobody should have to spend time cleaning up nonsense added by other admins to protected pages, and I can sympatize with the frustration of running into that sort of thing.
In any case, it may be better to let the matter pass, instead of complaining at either the admins who made blocks or the admins who were blocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan

This is a very big event; we have commitments made with Columbia University, and there are reporters coming from the The Wall Street Journal, WNYC New York Public Radio, and maybe The New Yorker. Last time we postponed, and the weather was just fine. Anyway, if there is a bit of rain, it will be light. And you can't really predict the future: if there is at all a possibility of your coming, you and your friend must register here before 8 PM EST.--Pharos (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's even a small chance you can come, you should still register. There's no downside to registering and not coming, but there is a distinct downside to coming and not registering on time (we'll have trouble letting you in).--Pharos (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. If you'd like to participate in drafting it, please feel free. Cla68 (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

I've informed an administrator. I'm not too sure how vandal control works on Misplaced Pages, but I hope he'll take appropriate action. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FreeContentMeta and derivatives

Best take this up with you instead of the mostly unwatched Template talk:FreeContentMeta - there's really no reason for the boxes to be that shade of green. It's immediately eye-grabbing against the faint blues, greys, and whites of normal backgrounds. I know the need to disambiguate sister projects and free wikis, but this is the wrong way to do it: we should be advertising our wikis first. I've edited the DW wikia box as a bold test to make it look different but not too different: see Template:TardisIndexFile. Thanks, Sceptre 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

TardisIndexFile

Please stop edit warring with this template. First, the link is internal as Wikia is a sister site; it is run by the WikeMedia Foundation, so there is no misleading involved. Why would the wikiasite: prefix exsist otherwise. Second, a revert should always be marked as a minor edit; please refrain from acusing my af "abusing" it. — Edokter • Talk • 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Please read our Wikia article. Wikia is not a sister site, nor is it run by the Wikimedia Foundation (a non-profit organization). It's an independent, for-profit venture operated by Wikia, Incorporated (a separate company co-founded by Jimmy Wales).
Like various interwiki links to non-Wikimedia wikis, the "wikiasite" prefix exists in the MediaWiki software (used by many sites with no connection to Wikimedia or Wikia) as a matter of technical convenience, not as a policy-based decision by the Wikimedia Foundation.
2. No, the reversion of an intentional, good-faith edit usually shouldn't be labeled "minor." (I haven't the foggiest idea of what led you to believe that. It certainly wasn't anything on the page to which you linked.) I've already referred you to Help:Minor edit, on which it's explained that "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."
No offense, but I'm taken aback by the fact that an administrator could be under the above misconceptions. —David Levy 23:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Edokter is mistaken about the sister site thing, but I must clear up something else for you, David. These templates are all supposed to use the interwiki link format, but were temporarily switched to full links when something had broken on Wikia's servers. We just forgot to change them back. There's no real meaning behind it, nor is there any policy that says you must do one or the other. It's a purely technical thing. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of the above, and it has no bearing on my edits. I also removed the "plainlinks" class from some of these templates, as there is no valid reason to exclude the external link icon.
This was discussed somewhere a while back (long before these templates were created). As was noted at the time, the existence of an interwiki prefix (and this applies to the "wikiasite" prefix as well) does not mean that such sites have any special status that sets them apart from other sites; it's merely a means of making it more convenient for people to link to them, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Misplaced Pages uses external link icons when linking to external sites. That we possess the technical capability to avoid doing this is irrelevant. We can easily do this with any link (via the aforementioned "plainlinks" class), but that doesn't mean that we should.
On the English Misplaced Pages, it's widely understood that external links (those to non-Wikimedia projects) bear the icon and that those lacking the icon are internal (links to Wikimedia projects). In this case, these templates have been somewhat controversial. This is due to the concern that the linked sites might be mistaken for sister projects, so making the links appear internal is ill-advised. —David Levy 06:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You want an icon to show that it's an EL, even if it's in the EL section of the page? Fine, but what about just adding the EL icon manually, instead of changing the link? Does anything change if that icon is there or not? No. Do I care if it's there or not? No. The m:interwiki map isn't just there for kicks, and it's actually meant to be used, and for good reason. If it makes you feel better then I'll add the EL icon manually to the templates. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be fine. I don't care about the technical method used to display the links; I merely want to make it as clear as possible that these aren't Wikimedia sites. —David Levy 06:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Shweet. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikia and Wikimedia do have a connection. Adding the icon manually is equally convulted; why not just add the link in the most convenient method available, and not resort to any weird external link construct or extra images? I am trying to keep everyting as simple as possible and the two of you are not helping; roughly half (if not more) wikia linkboxes are broken due to the 'wikia:' links not working anymore. Whenever I come accross any of those, I intend to fix them, and do so in a foolproof way. So no, I'm not happy. That icon suggests it is an external link, while in truth it is a valid wikilink. — Edokter • Talk • 09:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're complaining about. The above solution breaks nothing and serves an important purpose. I don't know what you mean by "valid wikilink" or what "connection" between Wikimedia and Wikia you believe justifies referring to them as "sister sites." (The fact that Wikia was founded by people affiliated with Wikimedia?)
Again, Wikia is a separate company that is not "run by the Wikimedia Foundation." This should made be clear to readers (who don't care about what type of code is used or how this impacts what they see). Why do you object to that? —David Levy 09:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It has shown that link without an icon for years, and Wikia is (was) regarded as an informal sister project, as it was founded by Jimbo. That is one of the reason the 'wikia:' interwiki map existed in the first place. However, I'll drop the icon subject. — Edokter • Talk • 16:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; I'm glad to hear it. Just for the record, I'll direct your attention to the interwiki map. Note that my friend's (non-Wikia) wiki is on that list, and I assure you that he isn't named Jimbo and the wiki isn't regarded as an informal sister project.  :-)
On an unrelated note, what is the status of the "minor edit" issue? —David Levy 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, not worth bickering about. Reading WP:MINOR again, I may have erred on the revert/dispute part, but it's just a little "m" I myself usually ignore. Calling it prone to abuse is overrating it's purpose. — Edokter • Talk • 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It isn't just a little "m." When a user hides minor edits (via the "Hide minor edits" link) on his/her watchlist or the recent changes list, edits labeled "minor" are omitted.
In other words, while this presumably wasn't your intention, you were partially hiding your reversions from review. That's why "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." —David Levy 21:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

btw

I just wanted to note a few things:

  • According to WP:SRD, soft redirects are a guideline and not a policy.
  • I can feel free to remove comments from my talk page after I've read them, I am in no way obligated to reply to anyone should I not feel a reply is warranted. It may be considered rude to do this, but by doing so, it acknowledges that I have infact read said messages, so to speak.
  • You're making a mountain out of a molehill, my talk page is not disrupting the project in anyway having it like that. I'm pretty sure there are better things you can do with your time, or are there not? (I don't know, I'm not you. Only you know what you do with your time.)
  • Borderline stalking me by keeping tabs on my edits, kinda creepy especially when I'm not doing anything wrong. The invisible text and edit summaries were a little uncivil, but that was mainly out of frustration. That has since ceased.
  • It was not intent to "abuse the minor edit functionality", my preferences have the "mark all edits minor as default" box ticked, because I'm a wikignome-type. If I feel an edit is a "major edit" I uncheck the box, but sometimes I may forget to do so.

You can reply here, because I certainly won't be reading /Messages, just like you said. :) --Charitwo 02:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The soft redirect issue is purely peripheral. The problem is that you've deliberately attempted to prevent users from communicating with you via your talk page. As that's the sole legitimate primary purpose of said page, anything else constitutes abuse.
2. Indeed, you're allowed to remove messages from your talk page (which is why I didn't restore any). And indeed, you aren't obligated to reply to anyone, but you aren't entitled to hinder people's attempts at communication.
3. "Keeping tabs on edits"? I have your user/talk pages watchlisted (along with those of every of user whose talk page I've edited over the past three years).
4. Thanks for the explanation regarding the "minor edits." Please try to be more careful. —David Levy 02:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Welp, you just removed just about the only reason I visit Misplaced Pages for cause I get bored at work. So much for countervandalism! --Charitwo 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to roll back edits, you must be willing to receive messages from the users whose edits you roll back (and anyone else who takes issue). —David Levy 23:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a shame because I watchlisted the messages subpage. --Charitwo 00:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you intend to read the messages and respond if/when appropriate? —David Levy 01:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course. --Charitwo 02:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay then. I've re-enabled rollback. —David Levy 03:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Note

I'm pleased to inform you that RyanGerbil has apparently decided to return. :) Enigma Review 13:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Image space templates

Hi, David - I'd definitely appreciate any help you can give me. Yesterday I found the sorry state of WP:TMIN as compared to WP:AMBOX. Also, the categorization system for image maintenance is a huge mess, with overlapping and redundant category for templates and maintenance subcategories - for example, we had both Category:Images without source and Category:Images with unknown source, as well as duplicate categories for image renaming and multitudes of other problems. Most of the problematic categories are caused by duplicate and/or redundant imagespace templates. Most of the templates lack documentation subpages and many are protected. The templates also often do not contain links to the applicable Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. I'm hoping to start a standardization effort, and I guess you saw that I started yesterday with {{Rename media}} (to which I redirected {{ifr}}) and {{Convert to SVG and copy to Wikimedia Commons‎}}.

I'd like to standardize the imagespace cleanup templates with a metatemplate...I'm not particularly attached to {{Ambox}} for any reason, but it's already used by {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and was more convenient than writing a new metatemplate. I noticed you immediately reverted my changes with an edit summary that stated they weren't article space templates - I understand this, can you point me to a more appropriate metatemplate and/or to a place this has been discussed before? I had searched extensively and couldn't find anything, and imagespace isn't even listed at the Template Standardization Wikiproject. Also, if I need to raise this proposal in another forum, would love a pointer there. WP:TMIN has the feel of an abandoned or extremely low-traffic page and I doubt a posting there would attract any visibility.

Also, I noticed that you also reverted my transclusion of a {{documentation}} page (which undid my attempted recategorizations) and wikilinks to applicable policy in the text - why was that?

Thank you for any advice you can provide! With respect - Kelly 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David. Regarding Template talk:Imbox: Could we change the heading of your "Proposed changes" section to something that can be used as a name when it is later discussed? How about "David L's proposal" or perhaps "Levy's proposal"? I changed my suggestion to "David G's colours". (Your family name is much better as a proposal name than my "Gothberg"...)
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

admin blocking

I noticed after you blocked admin User:Viridae that User:Riana unblocked him and said he didn't get a warning. First of all, this was blatent vandalism, no need for a warning. And it was very sexual in content. Although wikipedia does not cater to children, it also shouldn't throw sexuality into their faces if they aren't looking for it. I think both editors should be punished severly. The first editor was way out of line, and totally got away with it. The second editor is his friend, and was clearly unblocking him because of this, which is a total conflict of interest and also out of line. They should both be punished for this. Please do something, we shouldn't allow users (ESP admin!) get away with things like this. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Infosphere link

I saw your edit on the Into the Wild Green Yonder article, that you changed the article link from an interwiki link to an external domain. I originally forgot to check the history and assumed that someone was tired of the old domain (futurama.overt-ops.com) I assume someone have precision'ed the link. However, since that was not the case, and I did not feel like making a "ninja" edit to explain that in a new summary, I am explaining myself here. While some of our content may non-free (such as images from the show), our text content are released under a Creative Commons license, something which an encouraged part of an interwiki link.

Remember that in order for our wiki even to become an interwiki link, it must fulfil some requirements (as described here and here). Since it went through that due to (A) it had content of relevance to the Wikimedia Foundation, (B) it was regularity updated and had a moderate amount of content, (C) had CC license and non-profit and (D) did not (and does not) contain anything illegal, it can be considered a useful Interwiki link for anything Futurama related. Your summary suggests that it is not a Wikimedia site, which is true, but so isn't Wikia, and they are linked to quite often (through interwiki links), among other sites.

Consider this my defence for "reverting" your edit. --Svip 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a follow up for you, we have recently changed our license to a free license. I have linked you to the conversation there, you can also read our copyright statement. I give credit to you for the motivation. --Svip 11:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's the right thing to do...

Why not do it? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit late, probably, but wanted to commend you on your handling of this. From what I could see, you were quite fair to both sides of the dispute and managed to be utterly and intelligently persuasive while doing so. I'm impressed. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica‎

Hey, no problem. I'm not the kind of person who gets upset when someone fixes my mistakes. Thanks for stepping in. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bold watchlist items

See here, specifically Brion's three bullets.

Also, using &nbsp; usually causes unsightly space, so I prefer <p></p>. I just filed bugzilla:14176 for a consistent way to disable MediaWiki messages. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sidebar search

Howdy. Two things.

Thanks. Your advice/opinion is as always appreciated. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks. (1 more time at Image:Light-gray-border search box at top.png please, it still had the g7 tag and has been redeleted before I could update it!) Ta. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot approved: dabbing help needed

Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. PLease also pass on the message to anybody else who you may think might be willing to help. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 12:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

Bloody hell, how could I have forgotten to do that? Shame on me - walk away from Misplaced Pages for two years, and your memory starts to go. Let this be a lesson to us all :) Páll 08:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ad subdirectory

What does that mean exactly? Did I screw up in replacing the image? --Stephen 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, learnt something new. --Stephen 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

problems with docs for one signature template

See Template_talk:Unsigned#the_example_for_User12_is_broken --Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Asistance with formating

Hello, I would like to ask you for some help. Is there a way to evenly spread the text in two columns, across their height? See here. I'm trying to reproduce the bottom of this document for Wikisource. Also, I can't understand why the signature images on the right place themselves under the text line, and not next to it. Please help me if you can. Thanks in advance! diego_pmc (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please help...

I'm really sorry to bother, but I need your help.

This is a little embarressing. I changed my password yesterday, and I can't remember what it is. My username is Gladiator2 and now I can't get back in.

I have no idea how I can prove I'm Gladiator2, and I never gave wikipedia my email address...

If there's any way you could help me, I'd be really grateful. My email is

thanks,

Gladiator2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.54.126 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Since this user loves you so much, how can I not give you this to spread the love all around? --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Cho Seung-hui 3.jpg Okay, buddy. What's the point behind uploading a picture that obliterates a piece of clarification? Apparently, you didn't notice that the first obliteration was of the school from which the student came. So, the cops released a school ID photo, which means that's the best they could do, short of something ugly. Don't work too hard, man. BrewJay (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

ATT Header

David, I don't so much oppose ATT as I oppose trying to create a new process e.g., a non-consensus summary of policy pages. If you want to consolidate several policy pages into one at ATT you would likely have my support. But adding an additional layer of instruction creep is in my mind a flawed direction. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To better days

David, I can see that you've worked really hard on ATT and trying to get a consensus built there. I am sorry that we got off badly today in our relationship. I know that we both have a strong dedication to the project and probably have more in common than we have differences. I hope to work together with you in the future. Cheers and a pleasant evening. Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Our discussion at ATT

David, I've removed the section containing our dispute from yesterday. If you want ot return it, I won't object, but it seems to distract people from the more important issues and serves no purpose. I'll suppport your choice in the matter. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Nutshell

Hi, thanks for reverting me, didn't know that that edit would break anything. Thanks again! Cheers! Mww113 (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Confusing

Ah, sorry, my bad. But amusingly appropriate for Template:Confusing... Klausness (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Video games

Don't mean to harass your template knowledge, but would you mind having a look through User:Kariteh/Sandbox? It is intended as a replacement for Template:WikiProject Video games, incorporating ideas from the talk page and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games. Mainly, that non-mainspace are automatically assigned appropriate tags (Category: gets Category-Class, etc.) as well as incoprorate the new C-Class. Can you just take a quick look at it and make sure it won't explode? JohnnyMrNinja 03:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Today's POTD

Was there some logical reason you removed the emboldened article from today's POTD blurb? Why should this one NOT have one, while the others this month do? It really does not help when you do not provide a clear explanation in the edit summary. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the image is primarily being used on the John W. Geary article, which is why that article is emboldened in the blurb. Hiester Clymer is also a possibility, but that page is currently a stub. I do not know any other article, in the words of WP:POTD/G, "is best represented by the image". Do you have a suggestion? Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Orange

I don't think that people are interested in horse trading, swapping article spellings or whatever and I'm certainly not in any kind of a position to make any kind of deal. I don't have a problem with inconsistency on this level. I have to cope with American idioms and spellings every day. It's a pity that some people who can't live with cultural standards outside of their own experience demand homogeniation. You might perhaps see some hypocrisy there, I dunno. To be honest I've totally lost faith in this project to deliver a product of any credibility given the current state of WWII article. Jooler (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Watchlist-details

Deletion

Yes... I am uninstalling twinkle... thank you for restoring it, I didn't see that it deleted anything... --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

When you're right

The watchlist notice for the main page redesign proposal was a serious mistake. Instead of holding a discussion to determine if the proposed process has support to move forward, the watchlist notice has done nothing more than draw people in who all seem to be assuming the process was approved (and thus implemented). You were right; the pump is where the discussion should have started. - auburnpilot talk 02:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page Redesign

Hi David, you really got into some heated discussion on the Main Page Redesign talk page. If you've got a moment, please take a peek at my current submission and let me know your views - I'd love to hear your opinion of it. My submission » Kind regards - Pretzels 15:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

XXbox Template formatting

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Cmbox ... showing you were up to your ears in this project.

Would you take a look at the "#if: {{{small}}}" coding parameter effects/code on Template:Tracking category(edit talk links history) (It's right at the tip top... though a matching if may occur later as well) and see if you can figure how to work such into these damnable XXbox templates. You all have made no provision for floating them left and allowing some other long element to there right, and that my friend is a frequent need. They scrunch up horribly when squeezed by such elements that have prior claim to their right margin.

This would be of particular use on category pages, where various portal and interwiki templates COULD peacefully share the same vertical space, were these better designed. Forcing such correspondence with a table give the unpleasant... Geology blah look.

My wish would be for you to have width, margin, float and padding styling parameters available to the tag-hanging editors. ASSUMING one knows all the factors that goes into a page so relying on .Css defs alone, is a weakness in the design, imho. Passing alternatively capitalized or all-lower parameters works well template to template, so I suspect your core templates would need all CAPS like {{catlist}} to {{Catlist-up}} or {{cms-catlist-up}} variants. The typical messagebox is a front-end like those later too, if I'm tracking this all the way.

Oh, the "small" quick shift mode is also desired as well as the style overrides... small may be made to change icon size too, and that usually is good "safe" planning.

I'll leave a "small=1" line in the geology call, so you can test using a replacement of tt0-tt3 or whatever, then revert that when installed. Thanks // FrankB 16:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the edit line reads: (An alias/redirect name) 

{{catdiffuse|small=1}}

// FrankB 16:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Hello! This falls outside my area of expertise, but I suspect that David Göthberg would be able to assist you. He knows far more about this sort of thing than I do. —David Levy 17:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
What! Huh! You mean I can't hold you responsible?!! <g> Have to confess I'm a tad confused for I figured you know enough to tack in style={{#if:{{{margin|}}}|margin:{{{margin}}}}} and suchlike... but at least I knew you for anther old hand... I'll give him a holler later, or maybe AzaToth. Should really do the RFA thing one day. Sigh. // FrankB 17:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu

Was there a competition last time round for the Main Page redesign? That must have been before I got involved. Any links? Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented on some of the threads on the design project's talk page as well. I do rather like this one, and some of the other "tabbed" designs. Are there arguments against tabbed designs? I think people are more likely to click between tabs than to scroll down off the screen. I rarely scroll down on the current Main Page - normally only if there is a link there I might need, and then I go "ooh, nice picture!! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Rollosmokes

I couldn't care less what that bozo calls me or says to me. But someone else in the "vulture squad" might. In fact, indef-blocks usually get their talk pages wiped. Baseball Bugs 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, the blocking admin took care of it. No hay problema. Baseball Bugs 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikipediaOther

I really don't understand why you are so insistent on keeping this table in. It's not proper wiki markup and it's not the correct way to create a margin. Nobody ever intended it to be like this - it is clearly a mistake. It's stupid to keep it in just because it's been like this for years. --- RockMFR 03:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How can you say this is not a mistake? It has text-align attributes. It was clearly intended to center the text. --- RockMFR 05:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I would change it to the correct implementation, but I do believe there should be extra space there at all. I'm going to bring this up on Talk:Main Page, as I do not believe there is consensus for this to be there. --- RockMFR 06:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILM's style guidelines

Hello, at WP:MOSFILM, {{Subcat guideline}} seems to show a red-linked "style guideline" in the "Shortcuts" box within the template. I think that your recent edit is related. I notice that WP:MUSIC also has a similar problem. What can be done to fix this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response and quick fix! :) Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page --> Main page_Main_page-2008-07-23T15:08:00.000Z">

Just curious, is this style correction overdue too?  :-) RichardF (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)_Main_page"> _Main_page">

Re: Essay:When the Sournes' Accuracy Is Disputed

Thank you for updating my Essay header. WPFactRef must be a newly-organized Project that came along on or around my last addition to the Essay (as I'm still locating Sources for the discussion therein). B. C. Schmerker (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ken Griffey

We should see what other people say about it at WP:Baseball, I'm betting most people agree with me--Yankees10 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont feel like wasting my time with this, even though I know i'm right, and there are other Jr, Sr. situations like this that are the same way, which I am not going to tell you about because you'll do the same thing to those--Yankees10 18:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Because both of the players names are KEN GRIFFEY--Yankees10 18:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriousley, just bring it to WP:baseball, see what other people say--Yankees10 18:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we just put this to rest, theres just no reason why Ken Griffey should go straight to Griffey Sr.--Yankees10 18:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I saw the list and noticed that the only players that dont have it the way you think it should be are all Hall of Famers or All-Stars--Yankees10 20:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In the Unqualified name (no "Sr." or "Jr.") leads to one of the players' articles (usually the father's) section, it leads to the fathers because he is usually more known and were All-Stars and Hall of Famers, and in the Unqualified name (no "Sr." or "Jr.") leads to a two-article disambiguation page, they are both known the same and neither were better than the other--Yankees10 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still just not seeing the point in having it go to Griffey, yes I have read you and Wknight94's reasons, but I'm just still not convinced, I mean havnt you heard people call Ken Griffey, Jr, Ken Griffey, hes still a Ken Griffey--Yankees10 20:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've heard him referred to as "Griffey" but I have to say almost every time I've heard the full "Ken Griffey", it's always followed by "Jr." Maybe that's changed lately, I don't know. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have, sometimes on TV, CBSSportsLine.com, and even when you type in Ken Griffey on google, its brings you to stuff about Griffey Jr and barely anything about his father--Yankees10 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that's easy. His father didn't play during the Google Age. I've heard Griffey, Jr. referred to as "Junior Griffey" more often than I've heard him referred to as "Ken Griffey" with no Jr. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Shortcut

I've reverted your change to Template:Shortcut. This wasn't discussed anywhere and the exact same change has already been reverted by a different person before. --- RockMFR 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean by having all talk pages have the same color so users know what templates can be used there, but I don't think many people are actually going to see this connection intuitively. Also, why is the color for the other namespaces being changed? --- RockMFR 18:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have copied this discussion to Template talk:Shortcut#Colours and added my comments there since I think this discussion needs input from more users.
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

Instead of wikilawyering me with a 3RR flag, why dont you answer my points on the hatnote talk page. -Zahd (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just about to post a reply there. —David Levy 04:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Weasel at ANI

Hi. I've opened a conversation about the situation at Template:Weasel, and specifically my decision to fully protect the article to encourage consensus, at the administrator's noticeboard. It can be found here. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl 14:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I ask you to confirm votes that I hav already registered for you on that administrator's noticeboard. I am not sure of one abstention. BrewJay (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FA

Why are you moving featured articles and based on what discussion or consensus are you doing this? I won't be able to promote or archive FACs until this is sorted; please discuss at User talk:Raul654. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm also perplexed. The discussion you cited in the edit summaries as a reason for the moves was inconclusive, and there was no activity in the last 7 months. --Orlady (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What are you doing, I see absolutely no consensus for this anywhere, not least in the discussion you cite??? Woody (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The main featured content page actually was moved to the portal namespace (because it's a reader-oriented portal, not an editor-oriented page). In addition, two of the other featured content pages already were in the portal namespace, so the previous setup (prior to my moves) was inconsistent and confusing. —David Levy 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:Raul654; I won't be able to promote/archive until this is sorted, and I've noted that Raul doesn't often post on Sundays, so we wait. Not happy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow. How does this affect your ability to promote/archive? —David Levy 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Because I don't like to complicate messy or unclear situations, meaing I wait until it's resolved before adding to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I still don't follow. All of the subpages can be automatically moved at the same time, so how would this have any effect on promotion and archiving? —David Levy 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Since I don't have admin tools, and I don't know what it takes to move and unmove these pages (over redirects), and since I'm the only non-admin who promotes/archives/demotes FAs, I won't add to these pages until it's sorted by others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but you're addressing a nonexistent problem. —David Levy 21:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Probably so, but since I'm ignorant of admin move tools, it's best for me to keep hands off until things are sorted. As I understand it from others who have tried (unsuccessfully, perhaps because I don't see the move tabs admins have), moving over a redirect is easier if the page hasn't been subsequently edited, but harder if there have been subsequent edits. That's my reasoning for hands off while I wait ... it may be faulty reasoning, based on my ignorance of admin tools, but it's safe :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was that you didn't have to worry about the titles when performing these tasks, as any subsequent move would have included the pages in question. Even this, of course, has been rendered moot.  :-) —David Levy 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, you just moved about 200 pages, including some move-protected pages, without notice or discussion. (The referenced discussion ended January 2008). Next time please be careful with the "move subpages" box. Gimmetrow 20:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, the page actually was moved and remained in its new location since then. That seems like consensus to me. —David Levy 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
If the pages were already moved, you wouldn't have had to move them. But you did, including pages that were move-protected, without any notice or discussion on the pages in question. Had you bothered to ask, you might have been told why this was a problem. Gimmetrow 20:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the move from Misplaced Pages:Featured content to Portal:Featured content, which took place months and months ago without controversy.
To what problem do you refer? I've yet to see anyone cite a reason why the status quo is superior. —David Levy 21:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Uh, regardless of whether that discussion had consensus or not, it's seven months old. That and this is an issue that should be discussed at length outside of that isolated discussion by the entire community. All those pages are move protected for a reason. sephiroth bcr 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The discussion in question was about moving Misplaced Pages:Featured content to Portal:Featured content. This move took place back then and was not reversed. Additionally, prior to my moves, two other featured content pages were located in the portal namespace, so we had a confusing, seemingly random mishmash. Why, in your opinion, does it make sense to leave some of these pages (but not others) in a namespace intended for editors instead of having all of them in a namespace intended for precisely this type of reader-oriented page? —David Levy 21:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't care either way. If consensus comes up to support such a move, then I have no problem with it. The substance of the argument is irrelevant here though. I'm simply noting the fallacy in your logic that a seven month old discussion gives you carte blanche to move all of these pages that have 1) screwed up coding for several of these processes 2) no consensus outside of that isolated discussion to move to what you want 3) move protection. Does the notion occur to you that moving two hundred pages needs more discussion? sephiroth bcr 21:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
1. Again, I cited that discussion as a reference to reason behind the move from Misplaced Pages:Featured content to Portal:Featured content, which occurred many months ago and wasn't reversed. How is that not indicative of consensus? Or are you suggesting that there is consensus to have three of the featured content pages in the portal namespace and the rest in the Misplaced Pages namespace?
2. I apologize for messing up coding, but I'm certain that it could have been fixed in a matter of moments.
3. Regarding the move protection, you aren't equating my moves to vandalism, are you? —David Levy 21:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* Again, does it occur to you in the slightest that you need consensus outside of a localized discussion on a portal talk page that hardly anyone visits in order to move two hundred pages, many of which are among the most prominent in the Misplaced Pages space? That the move to Portal:Featured content wasn't reversed was because no one cared, and Misplaced Pages:Featured content is not very prominent. Misplaced Pages:Featured articles is very prominent and moving that with a grain of consensus on an isolated discussion is not appropriate. As for the coding, no, it cannot be fixed in a manner of moments. It involves fixing the coding on the bots that maintain that space, fixing thousands of redirects, and whatnot. As for the move protection, no I am not equating it to vandalism. The point is that if pages are move protected, you better have a damn good reason for moving them, and be backed up by a clear consensus that is visible to most of the community. In any case, this has basically been cleaned up. If you still want to pursue this (which I don't mind), open a discussion at WP:CENT. sephiroth bcr 21:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
1. I cited the discussion to point out the reason why the original move was performed back then. I based these moves on the fact that the page in question remained in place for all of these months without controversy. I'm taken aback by your claim that a page linked from the sidebar and the main page "is not very prominent."
2. Such bot code can easily be fixed, and you'll have to explain what redirects would have required repair. (The double redirects were to have been handled by the redirect fixer, of course.)
3. Obviously, I was mistaken in my belief that these moves were uncontroversial, and I have no intention of reinstating them. —David Levy 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There were four in Misplaced Pages space (articles, lists, topics, and pictures), and two in Portal space (portals and sounds). Regardless of the outcome, I'm surprised you would edit war over this, considering the amount of concern raised on your talk page and Raul's. Certainly, discussion would have prevented this confusion. Disappointed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Struck, my mistake and apologies (I thought it had been moved twice.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
That's quite all right. I mistakenly regarded these moves as uncontroversial and wouldn't have carried them out if I'd known otherwise (and of course, I have no intention of reverting). —David Levy 21:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
My apologies as well for any confusion ... I was preparing to promote/archive so I could enjoy the rest of my Sunday around the house and with my family, so this unannounced change did throw a loop into the planning for my day and cause some frustration. Discussion in advance helps :-) I don't have an opinion yet as to how it should be sorted; I rarely venture into Portals, so need to do some homework before forming an opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, my apologies for the confusion. I obviously misread the situation, and you can rest assured that I will not be moving the pages again without explicit discussion leading to consensus, so please proceed with the promotion and archival.  :-) —David Levy 21:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Namespace for featured content pages. —David Levy 22:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages:Featured content is not very prominent. Misplaced Pages:Featured articles is very prominent and moving that with a grain of consensus on an isolated discussion is not appropriate." Why is Misplaced Pages:Featured articles more important than Misplaced Pages:Featured content? That doesn't make sense. Anyway, I agree though with David's sentiment that all Featured content pages should be in the same space (not sure which of portal or Misplaced Pages myself), but he should've sort consensus first. Never mind I guess. Deamon138 (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I suspect Sephiroth wasn't referring to relative importance re status as much as prominence in terms of the place to hold a discussion that has the most traffic and would have been noticed by more editors. Obviously, several of us were caught completely unawares by this, but I don't think Seph meant to say FA was more important, just a more noticed discussion place. The Village Pump discussion solves that, so moot now anyway :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm that makes sense I'd say, thanks. Regardless, I'm suprised that no fuss was created when those other pages were moved months ago. Deamon138 (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Like, I suspect, many editors, I've never even been to those other pages (or any portal, for that matter :-) Perhaps some relative traffic numbers would shed light on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Sandy sums up what I meant pretty well. =) sephiroth bcr 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
As was just pointed out on Raul's talk page, Portal:Featured content is consistently one of the 100 most viewed pages on the site. So surely, the move to the portal namespace cannot have gone unnoticed. —David Levy 22:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The plot thickens... Deamon138 (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the argument on Raul's talk page is that it gets high hits because it's linked on the mainpage, but it has definitely gone unnoticed by most editors in featured processes. The hits coming from the mainpage are probably unrelated to whether it's named a "portal" or something else. Discounting vandalism, it has about 25 talk page posts all year, indicating that most editors ignored it as I did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
To me, that reflects the fact that it requires very little editing. —David Levy 02:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Possibly, but my experience tells me otherwise. The only people who edit/update WP:FA are Raul, Marskell, Joelito, me, and the mainpage bolding bot, but it still attracts many talk page queries and posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, heck, the mainpage bolding bot: that's another bot owner I have to notify of the discussion (Rick Block and GimmeBot also update FA regularly, for things like name changes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
True, but isn't that because there are many related topics to discuss? WP:FC, conversely, is a largely static page, but it's one that's highly viewed, so it seemed reasonable to assume that many people had noticed the move since December.
Regardless, it's clear that I was mistaken in my belief that the moves would be uncontroversial, so the above doesn't really matter.  :-) —David Levy 03:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I know you meant well; you don't have to keep saying you were mistaken, and I'm sure no one faults you for the innocent move :-) And I admit I know little of portals, as I just don't visit them. In the case of the featured content portal, I do remember when it went up, and that I actively ignored it, as it seemed at the time to have very little relevance to editors or readers. Now, is there any chance you would believe me if I tell you that you might be dramatically wrong about 1b and 3? Are you really aware of and prepared to rewrite all that Gimmebot does or find someone who will? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm certainly interested in learning of any reason(s) why Gimmebot would require a major rewrite. And actually, I do have a close friend with coding experience who might be able to help out. —David Levy 03:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not just coding experience; it's a dedicated commitment, and a very big one. And in the meantime, our articlehistory work is lost, and we will need immediately many editors to take over many mundane, time-consuming and difficult daily tasks across many processes. I don't think you're aware of what words like RichardF's have caused or what the toll will be; I know that's not your fault, and I know you meant well, but it is what it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1. Ummm...do you possess specific knowledge that Gimmebot would require an extensive rewrite? I can't think of a reason why it would, but I'm 100% open to information to the contrary.
2. No one is suggesting that we reinstate the moves without first ensuring that the bots are ready to accommodate the new titles.
3. No offense, but you're really, really overreacting to Richard's comments. He said nothing intended to insult or degrade anyone. All of us are volunteers, and I wouldn't be remotely offended if someone noted that we have to put our readers' ability to use the site before my convenience; it's true. —David Levy 04:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image request

Hi, would it be at all possible for you to create a version of this icon using this image? The reason being that WP:FILM has recently adopted the latter image, and for the sake of consistency I would prefer to use a deviation of it in {{Future film}}. No worries if you can't, it's not a big deal. But there's no harm in asking! :)

Thanks for your time either way. Regards. PC78 (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page

The link no longer works. What were you referring to? Corvus cornixtalk 08:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"It's none of our bloody business why!" is incivil. Corvus cornixtalk 23:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:G4TV.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:G4TV.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Chrysler Neon

Your contribution is needed here: Talk:Chrysler_Neon#Move_to_Chrysler_Neon.3F Netrat (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Track and field

David, just a note that the point about the American majority is of course fully convincing. I'm afraid I'm sometimes a bit overzealous when it comes to anything I perceive as potential American systemic bias ("ASB"). Nevertheless, I was poking a solution I had already accepted rather than seriously challenging it. As sort of a (very lame, in hindsight) explanation, I was coming fresh off this. No point explaining how I came to make an association between the two situations. It's sometimes (although not here) hard to immediately distinguish true ASB from the real-world "American bias" that stems from the fact that Americans make up the majority of native speakers (metric system et.al). So, sorry for bothering you & have a nice one. user:Everyme 14:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WBZ

I noticed you moved the article at WBZ (AM) to WBZ, with a note that a two-item disambiguation page isn't necessary. Ordinarily, I'd agree with you, particularly if one of the usages was an abbreviation or something that was less frequently used — in fact, Dravecky has been moving many of these cases to hatnotes as you've done here recently, when the disambiguation has been between a radio station and an airport using the same ICAO code, for example. However, for a situation where two radio or TV stations share the same base call sign, I think the disambiguation is not only necessary, it's almost essential.

I've just spent the last couple of months cleaning up incoming links to dab pages like these ones, to the tune of 6-7000 edits. In fact, WBZ would have been one of the pages that I cleaned. I can guarantee you that the radio station article will now gather other articles linking to it that should properly link to the TV station, and they won't be easy to spot and fix like they would be if they linked to a dab page. The offsetting cost is one extra click for someone who wants the radio station article and the same number of clicks for someone who wants the TV station article.

And I know, WP:Other stuff exists, but there are probably several hundred dab pages that are exactly like this one — disambiguating a radio and a TV station, or two radio stations. This would be one of the few outliers that's using a hatnote instead, and the other few using that format were on a list for me to tackle once I'm done cleaning up incoming links, and turn them into dab pages so that there's a consistent approach across the project.

Didn't want to revert without a discussion. Thoughts? Mlaffs (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan


Next: Saturday September 27
This box: view • talk • edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Misplaced Pages and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Misplaced Pages creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

349 W. 12th St. #3
Between Greenwich & Washington Streets
By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Mlaffs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Image:Queen Anne.jpg

Hi! The above file has the same name as one on commons. Would you mind deleting it? If you wanted to keep it, you could upload it under a different name or rename it. DrKiernan (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)