Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:28, 20 September 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

!ding!

You've got mail! ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

!ding! ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a concern

Your edit summaries and make it sound as if User:Orangemarlin made the edits instead. That's a typo right? --Firefly322 (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

editing is a generic term, that covers all changes to an article. even reverts are edits. plus, the 'good-faith edit' thing is prepackaged comment (I reverted using twinkle). no worries, it will be clear to anyone who reads what's happening. --Ludwigs2 01:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

Ludwigs2, hi, I realize how much fun that you're having, especially with people that are easy to bait. However, some of your posts are getting way far afield from the actual topic of the talkpage (meaning, the related article/essay). So, could I ask you to please ratchet things back a notch, rather than engaging in a battle of wits with the, well, you know? :) For best results, try to ensure that each one of your posts has at least something to do with an improvement of the related page. Thanks, --Elonka 18:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

actually, I'm not having fun (I was getting a bit hot under the collar myself, and I hate that feeling). I'm done with that thread entirely, and with the page as a whole for a few days. no worries. --Ludwigs2 20:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, you may find it therapeutic to go back and refactor or even delete any posts of yours which were focused on editor conduct as opposed to article content. This also has an excellent effect both in that it can de-escalate the dispute, and it makes someone look remarkably mature to show that they can go back and reconsider words said in the heat of the moment. Up to you though!  :) --Elonka 00:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

need a cool-down day or so before I even consider that. at the moment, I don't think anything I wrote was incorrect, and I'm just as likely to compound issues as improve them. best I leave well enough alone. if you or someone else feels a need to remove the discussion, however, I certainly won't object. --Ludwigs2 00:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Despite twice reverting a guideline tag today, you have the cheek to suggest that it is me that must be prevented from edit warring. Check the history of that guideline. I have never edit warred there and have no intention of edit warring. It is not my style. You owe me an apology. Colin° 22:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, I apologize. I'm not here to fight with you, Colin, but I would like a bit more thought put into this change before it's elevated to guideline status. the move is premature. --Ludwigs2 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Colin° 22:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Template frames

Hi, is there anyway you can undo your addition to the frames? See how the template used to have no blue frames around the picture, compared to the changes made recently. Now every article that uses the template (couple thousands) have a frame. Also it makes the picture bigger than it is. Benjwong (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I had to revert to the sept 10 edit. You might want to try a sandbox edit before you put that change back in. Benjwong (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the difference btw. Benjwong (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

you reverted the whole change because of the blue frame? I actually kind of liked the blue frame, personally... at any rate, that's easy to fix if that's the only problem. what other issues do you have before I fix and redo? --Ludwigs2 03:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

made the changes (alittle CSS tweaking is all) and added samples on your page above. tell me if that works for you... --Ludwigs2 04:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

poke

Question for you at Misplaced Pages:Consensus ? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I responded, but I'm not sure how much more attention I want to give it. I'm getting disgusted by the wikipedia process. --Ludwigs2 05:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring in Quackwatch

Please do not simply revert edits. Instead, please make a clear corresponding comment on the talk page discussing your reasoning. Given your edit history, you should know better at this point. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

given your edit history, this is beginning to look like stalking. if I ever want advice from you, I will ask. in the meantime, please cease and desist from leaving meaningless and threatening notes on my talk page.