| Revision as of 01:51, 22 May 2005 editGrutness (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators316,539 editsm →<nowiki>{{Image-stub}}</nowiki>← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:44, 22 May 2005 edit undoRedux (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,740 edits Article on twinsNext edit → | ||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
| ''I feel I have explained everything on my test page for this stub.'' | ''I feel I have explained everything on my test page for this stub.'' | ||
| :Hi Who (hi who, it's off to work...)... erm... This isn't really a stub-type operation. Stub is simply a way of saying that an article is incomplete, not ''why'' it is incomplete. In any case, there are already templates used for just that purpose - you've created an alternative form of ]. I must admit it looks better that Reqimage, but I'd suggest proposing a change to that template (to make it more like your one) on the Reqimage talk page rather than to WP:WSS. Otherwise, as the duplicate of an existing template, it's likely to eventually turn up on ]. Please don't call it "stub", though, whatever you do - an article without an image is still a valid article, not a stub! ]...<font color=green><small>''] 01:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC) | :Hi Who (hi who, it's off to work...)... erm... This isn't really a stub-type operation. Stub is simply a way of saying that an article is incomplete, not ''why'' it is incomplete. In any case, there are already templates used for just that purpose - you've created an alternative form of ]. I must admit it looks better that Reqimage, but I'd suggest proposing a change to that template (to make it more like your one) on the Reqimage talk page rather than to WP:WSS. Otherwise, as the duplicate of an existing template, it's likely to eventually turn up on ]. Please don't call it "stub", though, whatever you do - an article without an image is still a valid article, not a stub! ]...<font color=green><small>''] 01:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Article on twins == | |||
| Hi, Who. I'm sorry, but I had to revert your edits in the articles partaining to the ]. I stated my reasons in the edit summary, but I figured I'd drop you a message to explain it better. I see you've been with us for little more than a month. That being the case, I thought you might not yet be completely familiarized with some of our procedings. In cases like this one, we prefer to put the topic up for discussion on the article's talk page before implementing the change. There, we try to reach a consensus, which basicaly means that we get a reasonable number of editors to agree on a line of action, which is the one that shall be taken in the article itself (how many people may have to agree to form consensus is subjective, it depends on how many people are interested and contribute for any particular article, or just how many opinions happen to have been given to the issue at hand). In the case of the issue of whether to split the article on the Olsen sisters in two, you will notice that this has been discussed before (as a matter of fact, it was brought up by someone who thought that the article should be broken in two), but the train of thought that prevailed was in favor of keeping the ''status quo'' for that article. That is why I reverted your edits. I must say that, personally, I too think that it should be kept in only one article — read the comments in the article's talk page for more details (but you will notice that I did not participate in that discussion myself). In any event, the consensus was to keep the joint article. I apologize if I might have erased some new data that you may have inserted in the separated articles. If that happened, I would ask you to integrate them in the MK&A article. Cheers, ] 02:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:44, 22 May 2005
Monday January 13 06:35
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Who. |
Changing merge templates
Please see Template talk:mergewith#Merge template changes before changing more merge templates. - Omegatron 12:43, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Gang
Wouldn't it make more sense to leave the article on the overwhelmingly common meaning of "gang" at Gang and put the disambiguation at Gang (disambiguation)? Anyway, if you really insist on doing it this way, are you planning to do something about the roughly 200 articles that you've now left pointing at a disambiguation page? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Caucasian Albania
Hi,
Just wanted to thank you for your involvement in this page. I have reported his actions to Admin noticeboard. However, I do not believe this person can be stopped by mere arbitrary actions. In my view, the only way to stop him is to have several editors standing against him and neutralizing all his POV edits and vandalism/trolling. Only then, I believe, this person will realize the whole senselessness of his actions and will retreat. Therefore, I am grateful to you and to User:Codex Sinaiticus for not leaving me alone to combat Rovoam's POV and vandalism. Please, keep it up. --Tabib 05:04, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for picking up on the immature prank, apparently played by one of the other eating clubs, by creating an extremely insulting entry for Princeton Tower Club. I've put some work into the entry, it may lack a bit of neutrality but it's much better than what you found.
Brackets in IPA transliterations
Hi, please don't remove square brackets from IPA transliterations. They are necessary! Thanks! --Angr/comhrá 19:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Abbott & Costello
Who is the Wikipedian that this user talk page belongs to?? Georgia guy 14:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
{{Image-stub}}
I feel I have explained everything on my test page for this stub.
- Hi Who (hi who, it's off to work...)... erm... This isn't really a stub-type operation. Stub is simply a way of saying that an article is incomplete, not why it is incomplete. In any case, there are already templates used for just that purpose - you've created an alternative form of Template:Reqimage. I must admit it looks better that Reqimage, but I'd suggest proposing a change to that template (to make it more like your one) on the Reqimage talk page rather than to WP:WSS. Otherwise, as the duplicate of an existing template, it's likely to eventually turn up on Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion. Please don't call it "stub", though, whatever you do - an article without an image is still a valid article, not a stub! Grutness...wha? 01:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Article on twins
Hi, Who. I'm sorry, but I had to revert your edits in the articles partaining to the Olsen twins. I stated my reasons in the edit summary, but I figured I'd drop you a message to explain it better. I see you've been with us for little more than a month. That being the case, I thought you might not yet be completely familiarized with some of our procedings. In cases like this one, we prefer to put the topic up for discussion on the article's talk page before implementing the change. There, we try to reach a consensus, which basicaly means that we get a reasonable number of editors to agree on a line of action, which is the one that shall be taken in the article itself (how many people may have to agree to form consensus is subjective, it depends on how many people are interested and contribute for any particular article, or just how many opinions happen to have been given to the issue at hand). In the case of the issue of whether to split the article on the Olsen sisters in two, you will notice that this has been discussed before (as a matter of fact, it was brought up by someone who thought that the article should be broken in two), but the train of thought that prevailed was in favor of keeping the status quo for that article. That is why I reverted your edits. I must say that, personally, I too think that it should be kept in only one article — read the comments in the article's talk page for more details (but you will notice that I did not participate in that discussion myself). In any event, the consensus was to keep the joint article. I apologize if I might have erased some new data that you may have inserted in the separated articles. If that happened, I would ask you to integrate them in the MK&A article. Cheers, Redux 02:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)