Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ihcoyc (talk | contribs) at 15:44, 25 August 2006 (Template:Buzzword). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Another opinion

The following is an excerpt from comments Encyclopedist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left on my user page -- perhaps his 43rd edit to that page, finally under his primary username. I feel it's only right that I allow the community at large to check out the substance of his complaints; having done so, for me to reply.

Pleasure knowing that you seemed to have identified me as your little menance over on your user page. And guess what? I confess. Damn right. You have come here, railing out your stupid worthless opinions and giving notices as to how great you are, while ignoring the values of seniority and actual benefits to the project. Who the fuck ARE YOU??? You are a whiny little bitch that has come here adding on their stupid bitchy little opinions, while contributing negligently to the project itself (for example, most of your contributions are in your little fucking user space!). FINE, you are ENTITLED to your stupid trivial ass opinions, so so am I. I decided that they be best aired from your crappy ass user page...

I'm truly sorry that I've offended this user so deeply. I've heard it said that a gentleman never gives unintentional offense. I did indeed feel this user was poor admin timber and I think events have borne out this opinion; but it was never more than one user's opinion. I feel TexasAndroid gives me entirely too much credit when he says A quick check shows your opposition to his RFA was a critical factor in his withdrawl of the RFA and withdrawl from the project. I don't believe my opinion is so influential; other users opposed this nominee before I did. This nominee withdrew from consideration less than 3 hours after accepting nomination; at that time support stood at 10 to 4. Had he remained he might easily have picked up sufficient support to succeed; had he been elevated I'd not have objected. Every user has an opportunity to comment on pending RfAs; none of us has the right to complain about the outcome.

If any user can point out "notices" I've given asserting my "greatness" I shall certainly strike them out. I've consistently maintained that the strength of this community lies in the number and diversity of its members. I do feel that at times we have lost focus; many of us are not here to fulfill the primary purpose of the project but rather to enjoy common resources and pursue private agendas. I suggest that we need not be quite so eager to recruit new members who do not share our core values. But I would never seek to close the community or establish any class of privileged users.

My opinions are worth as much as the next user's, no more. So long as Encyclopedist expressed his opinion on my user page, I was content. I should have preferred he had been allowed to do so freely. The existing content may be "crappy ass" but then I don't maintain it as a showpiece for other users; merely as a collection of links for my own use. It serves this function well enough from history; there's no need to remove any other user's edits from it.

The vast majority of my contribs over the last couple of weeks have been to userspace; I've been experimenting with enhancements to {{divbox}} and it seems wise to iron out all the bugs before going live with my ideas. I've put this on hold pending improvements to ParserFunctions and I will, as time allows, return to my usual rounds.

We are all different here and perhaps it's best that I make explicit what might be taken for granted. My door is open here and all users are welcome to comment. My opinions are mine alone and are worth nothing more than the standard 2¢. I tend to form these opinions carefully and am slow to change them but I am always ready to be corrected in matters of fact.

Finally, I'd like all of my fellow editors to know that my primary purpose here is to contribute to this project as best I'm able; I'm happy to help other editors in whatever way my limited skills, time, and energy permit. Please don't hesitate to ask. John Reid 05:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this whole incident only happened because you only irrationally overlook what the admin. candidate has to say, despite what he says. He had every right to question your vote, and your policy during the RfA. I actually think you are an asshole personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.240.78 (talk • contribs)

A quick look at your talk shows you're likely a certain troublesome user hiding behind an IP. I can't imagine why; if I were you I think I'd create a sock for that kind of foolishness. On the other hand, if I'd sufficiently annoyed the community that I didn't feel comfortable editing under my right name, then I'd probably go amuse myself elsewhere. I guess we're all different.

I do absolutely agree that any nominee for adminship has the inalienable right to respond to any comment I make; he may choose to question it, demand I justify or elaborate it, take offense at its content or tone, or launch nuclear weapons at his disposal. As a civil person I may even reply to an inquiry, polite or otherwise. But I maintain it is an absolute necessity of adminship that those who hold this office not take anything personally -- even if it is meant personally. A nominee may question thoughtfully, on his RfA, my comment on his RfA; he might explain something I don't understand and sway my comment. A nominee who comes to my talk page with a comment on his pending RfA is taking the matter too personally and too seriously. For me -- not for anyone else perhaps -- this cements my belief that such a user is unsuitable for adminship. He may be a fine editor and I hope he will continue to be one. John Reid 01:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

WP System

Hi, I've been cleaning up the uncategorized categories list and came across Category:WP System. It's showing up because it doesn't have any parent categories. It looks like it might be a project that escaped its sandbox. In any event I thought I'd check to see if you still needed it for something. -- ProveIt 22:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

By their nature, category projects -- unlike say, template projects -- can't be developed in sandbox. This particular project is still live but it is on hold while technical questions are being answered. I suspect developer help may be needed to fully implement. Please leave it be for now; thank you. John Reid 00:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fine. I've given it a temporary home at Category:Workpages, just to get it off the uncat cat list. Otherwise someone else might come by and ask about it next refresh ... If you know a better place for it that would be just as good. -- ProveIt 01:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. John Reid 11:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOXPOL

See also: Misplaced Pages:Mackensen's Proposal/Straw Poll.

You might want to go read the poll questions a bit more closely: some of your answers appear to be in opposition to your stated goal (specifically, you oppose categories in userboxes, and oppose userboxes in template space, which are contrary to the status quo your comments appear to support). If you did, and your opposition to all fo the quesitons is in fact your desire, then please accept my apologies. Jay Maynard 15:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you Opposed User Categories in Userboxes, saying "yet another divisive anti-UBX effort," and then Opposed removing them??? And you Opposed existence of all userbox templates for the same reason! I happen to agree that WP:UPOL is the best option, but you're making it look radical by voting so thoughtlessly. TheJabberwʘck 21:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's silly to float competing proposals. The assumption is that existing proposals are so far from one's point of view that compromise is impossible. Yet somehow we must all work together. I object to the entire thing.

Perhaps I've demonstrated one obvious reason why this sort of thing is a bad idea. People who find it difficult to express themselves or do not understand the nature of collaborative editing create Byzantine straw polls with a plethora of confusing options presented. I made my way through the muck as best I could.

If there's any question about my position: I support the Userbox policy under collaborative development. I'll probably continue to support it even after it has been significantly altered from the original draft. It's not about one man's opinion; it's about doing things the way of the wiki. Anything that conflicts with or attempts to subvert or bypass wiki process is not okay. John Reid 05:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, great, but your voting at Misplaced Pages:Mackensen's Proposal/Straw Poll still makes no sense. It's just a non-binding poll, so I'm not gonna pester you to fix it. But I urge you to take more care before voting next time. Λυδαcιτγ 19:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. There are editors trying in good faith to flesh out a solution. It seems like you (the owner of this page) have m:MPOV. Ansell Review my progress! 23:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel I've been uncivil. I have certainly refrained from speaking half my mind. There are editors trying, in good faith, to flesh out a solution; they may be found in the history and talk of WP:BOXPOL. There are other editors trying, in good faith, to figure out what in the world is meant by Mackensen's Straw Poll. I think it is uselessly complex and obtuse.

A workable UBX policy will not be found via divisive polls and argument. It will be found, not without pain, only when those editors who hold opposing views determine to sit down, work together, and hammer out a compromise that everyone can live with -- although nobody may be happy with it. It's well past time.

I can't for the life of me think how to respond to your charge of meglomania. I am quite certain that I have no more authority than any other user. Whatever solution comes from our process may or may not please me personally; and that's okay. I'll be content if the consenus of the community is allowed to express itself -- a consensus into which I do not pretend any special insight. John Reid 09:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde's Crusade Against Userboxes

It's good to see someone whose views match mine. I want userboxes to remain templates, but, more importantly, I want the process to be respected. Consesnsus to delete these templates, as a group, is clearly not here yet, but a few admins & users are attempting to subvert the consensus-building process by TfD'ing userboxes one by one. I tried talking to Cyde, but diddn't get an answer from him. I asked for informal mediation, but because userboxes are such a heated topic, they didn't feel this was a good case for mediation. I don't want to solve the userbox question, I just want to stop TfD being used to override the consensus-building process. Please contact me if you think we can strategize to resolve this.--Ssbohio 22:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't swear we think exactly alike but if you feel, as I do, that one consistent policy is better than none -- and far better than a half-dozen conflicting manifestoes -- please visit WP:BOXPOL, edit the proposed policy to reflect any concerns you may have, and participate on its talk page. John Reid 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that every userbox is necessarily appropriate, but I'm uncomfortable about their wholesale deletion.--Runcorn 20:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Crusade"? C'mon. "Crusade" implies religious motivations, which I don't have. --Cyde↔Weys 20:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Crusade", in this age, implies a certain degree of uncompromising dedication to some point of view; that's all. Not my choice of word; I rarely assign such labels. I do wish there was less extremism -- at either extreme -- and more moderation on all sides. John Reid 08:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I recently had a perfectly reasonable factual user box relating to renewable energy on my user page, which was at some some point deleted. I was given no notice that this had been proposed and had no opportunity to prevent this happening. Wholescale demolition does not benefit WP and causes bad feeling, and even alienation, to those who are conscientious contributors rather than opinionated deletionists. I propose that all those who use a particular userbox should be consulted before it is deleted. (Curiously after this userbox had been deleted I observed that other, totally whimsical userboxes (such as one I added later to demonstrate) have not been removed, indicating how arbitrary the demolition is.) Elroch 10:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

(I should point out that this particular userbox was not deleted by Cyde, but it seems an analogous example.) Elroch 11:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Userbox policy

I won't comment on the whole background, but I really don't think it is anything near appropriate to base any vote at WP:TFD on a policy that has not yet been adopted, or even has started to get voted on. I do not oppose your right to "pimp" the discussion, but I express concern at flaunting it as if it was adopted already. Circeus 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You and I disagree in a basic way. I say community policy is created by the direct interaction of users. BOXPOL is what it is at any moment; if you don't like it, go ahead and edit it.

I don't see that cowboy, wholesale nominations add any value to the community or to the project. John Reid 23:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Advance warning

The user previously known as User:Encyclopedist has not actually left the project, despite his showy "exit". He has continued to converse on his IP page. The latest from him says that he now plans to launch massive vandalism attacks, including attacks against you specifically. Just wanted to give you a heads up. - TexasAndroid 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So long as users confine themselves to creative reinterpretation of my user page,I fail to see that they threaten either community or project. They certainly don't inconvenience me. John Reid 23:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my attack

Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire.εγκυκλοπαίδεια*14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cent

In reference to your message at my talk page, I don't recall it off hand, but I believe you when you say I've edited it recently. I don't have the time to dig through my contribs and track it down, judging by your comment I guess you have it to hand, and you know the ropes on that system better than me, so would you mind covering whatever it is that needs doing on my behalf and accept my apology for not following the correct procedure? Ta. Steve block Talk 21:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

May 21 =? recently; I've been away for awhile. I'll tidy up, no problem. Take care. John Reid 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

May 21 feels like a lifetime away to me. Hope your move went well, thanks for taking care of it for me, and happy editing. Steve block Talk 22:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! John Reid 22:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cent & Tnavbarmini

Hello, I see you've recently edited {{cent}}. Kudos; the new gadget may prove useful. But please make a note of your technical change to the template at Template_talk:Cent. This will help us stay all on the same page -- no pun intended. Thank you. John Reid 21:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings John Reid, thanks for writing me. Please forgive the lack of talk page addition on this template. I was in a bit of a "install Tnavbar" mode and happened upon {{Cent}} and figured much like the dozens of other templates that I'd previously added it to there'd be virtually no questioning of it. If you feel that the "gadget" doesn't belong or perhaps it should look differently I invite you to either remove it or peruse the current selection of similar templates. Thanks again. Netscott 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not criticizing the insertion itself; I could but then I could always find something to complain about: I'm a perfectionist. I think it's a good idea to be able to navigate easily. If I were to suggest any changes, it would be to include a wider range of links. I'm thinking of page histories.

But I only wanted to ask you to document your change; I didn't mean to speak to the change itself. I think it's important to make a record of what you do and page history only goes so far. If you've been adding your templates to other templates then I'd suggest you document that change on all affected template talk pages. It's harder for people to fight about what we do when we explain ourselves. John Reid 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page. :-) Netscott 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Cent

John Reid wrote:

Hello, I see you've recently edited {{cent}}. This is quite all right and I encourage you to help keep it current. But please don't forget to log your changes at Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Template log. This will help us stay all on the same page -- no pun intended. Thank you. John Reid 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out to me; I wasn't aware that there was a log. I have explained my changes there, and will do so again if I update the template in future – Gurch 09:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Cartesian Materialism

Hey! I stumbled back onto Cartesian materialism today and found someone had left me a big giant Christmas present! Thank you so much for doing that illustration-- it's PERFECT. --Alecmconroy 12:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. You're welcome; glad you like it. John Reid 16:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:DRV Misplaced Pages:OURS

Greetings again, I noticed that you submitted permanently banned editor Resid Gulerdem's Misplaced Pages:OURS policy proposal up for deletion review. I realize that User:Raphael1 brought it into existence but please make no mistake that policy proposal is User:Rgulerdem's. I would advise you to retract the review as even if Resid Gulerdem's policy proposal were to be undeleted it would likely again be speedy deleted because the page would still fall under WP:CSD general critria #5 "Pages created by banned users while they were banned." I've added these comments to the review. Netscott 17:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What a pity. I have a private theory that editors with elaborate sigs are more foolish than those with plain sigs. No matter. No, I will not retract the review; I will allow it to run its course, in process. I won't ask why you insist on bypassing process. John Reid 19:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

To get a better idea of what the arbitration commitee thinks about editors working as proxies for banned users you might want to familiarize yourself with this discussion. Netscott 20:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I find resort to authority insufferable. Justify your claims on their merits. John Reid 00:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Updating flag

From the discussion here; I would really like for you to update the flag. --Je suis _t\ 16:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to discover a fairly large image -- licensed or not -- for me to begin work; failing that, a detailed description of the blazon. I've searched the usual places and can find nothing except an image from North American Vexillological Association -- poor quality and probably the uncredited source of our Image:CharlestonWV.jpg. I have the skills needed to produce a decent flag but I need some basis for the work.

I suggest that you contact the City of Charleston itself; you might be surprised just how helpful they may be. Let me know what you get. John Reid 06:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stay!

Please don't leave Misplaced Pages! I've looked at your edit history, you're contributions are appreciated! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the balloons, man, but I'm just tired of wrestling with this dead pig engine. It took me 10 minutes just to load any page this time. I'm tired of getting smartmouth comments (not yours) from smug rich folks when I say I just can't afford to upgrade my entire system so I can load WP.

Besides, it wouldn't really help if my fairy godfather gave me a shiny new 'book and all the software to go with it; that might make it easier for me to edit but it wouldn't do a thing for the millions of third-world users who are barely able to get on the net, let alone read the articles. I support free knowledge, given freely to the world; I don't give a damn about SUV-driving soccer moms' rich kids just trying to crib a term paper. John Reid 14:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Did this happen while Misplaced Pages was having server issues, or does it happen regularly? (If the former, is it really unforgivable?) As for the 3rd world country people, thats what Misplaced Pages 1.0 is about. Okay, so in order to edit they'd have to try sending in contributions by mail, and hoping someone added them, but at least they'd get to read some of our better articles. And it might not be just you - I have a decent internet connection, but it can still take a really long time to load sometimes. I think Wikimedia's servers may be somewhat stressed, but that could change with time. Maybe try taking a Wikibreak but come back? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have persistent issues with this service as well as some that come and go. Some worsen at times; others are constant. The dev team breezily ignores my complaints; their defenders say What do you expect from volunteers; I suggest we hire a professional dev team equal to the task of running a major site; and spoiled rich kids insist the whole thing run on air, not money. It's just bullshit.

WP 1.0 is an admission that much of the current content is crap. Nobody is willing to face fundamental issues; it's easier to walk away from them. While it may be very cute to distribute CDs, I think it insufferably patronizing. We should concentrate on making a better service in the first place.

Meanwhile I notice that much of the hard work I do either goes unnoticed or is thrown out by some immature jerk. I'm tired. John Reid 11:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Amen to this last paragraph, brother. here's my proposal. All writers and editors have to post a bio to include educational attainment (liars, if caught are purged forever). That'll stop (most of) the mean sons-of-bitches who create and act out some ninja-avatar to feed their ego. And by this i don't mean to exclude school kids or stay-at-home house-dad/moms, inmates in prison, whoever. They just have to say who they are and their educational attainment "Hi I'm Jackinthebox and I'm in 5th grade" is enough-- no gender, age, phone numbers, no e-mail addresses, etc required. If they're so shy they can't do this, they won't survive wicked-pedia. I've worked >10 years face to face with folks across tables writing international standards never once encountered the rudeness and cruelty I've encountered on wicked-pedia.wvbaileyWvbailey 21:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Also read the next note man I hear ya. I knew a John Reid from Cherry Creek High school, went to School of Mines. Is you he? wvbaileyWvbailey 21:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to "Here is my attack"

Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire.εγκυκλοπαίδεια*14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: It is my wish to make it clear that I want to return to the encyclopedia, and I am asking that my block may be lifted so I can continue my work here. I sincerely apologize for my actions. I especially apologize to you, John. Can this be in the past now?εγκυκλοπαίδεια*16:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said you were a bad editor, Encyclopedist; and I really don't think I've had much to do with your block. I just didn't think you'd make a good admin and I stand by my opinion. If you change your silly sig to something more mature, I might even give you a second thought as admin.

I think the entire issue of blocking and vandalism is way out of hand. Some guy gets annoyed and blows up and gets blocked; meanwhile, low-key nutjobs maintain superficial cool but grind away at cross-purposes to everyone else, year after year. We should block about 90% of the current editing membership if you ask me -- and be a bit more discriminating about who we let in. If a prospective editor does not share our SuperordinateGoal, he's a threat to everything -- community, project, corpus, the works. The threat is less obvious but the damage is continuous.

It was a really nice idea to allow anyone to edit. We tried that. It didn't work. Now we have a large community of editors pushing personal agendas; we have huge numbers of crufty shit pages; and important work goes undone. Time to try something else -- and since I'm pretty sure this wiki is not going to change, I'm about fed up with it. John Reid 14:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Good article

hi, i hope you can take part in the deletion review debate for the above metadata template (it puts a star on the article's mainpage, and as you voted in the original deletion review debate i thought it might interest you that there is now yet another one). the vote is here Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8 (scroll down for Template:Good Article section). thanks. Zzzzz 00:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- This debate has nothing whatever to do with the subject template, does it?

I'm sick and tired of this endless forum-shopping fostered by WP's slavish worship of the wiki model of social development. At any moment, important policy points are thrashed out on a dozen pages -- often the same exact point on four or more at one time. Five or ten or twenty editors on one page declare a "consensus" for their agenda on this page; another little clique wins another Lilliputian battle on their page and declares victory for their side.

For the economy-size version of this foolishness, compare the ongoing userbox wars. These have raged through TfD, ArbCom, and any number of pages that attempt to finalize project-wide policy through the participation of a small minority of editors. Anyone who doesn't like the way the debate is going in one forum just sets up a competing proposal and the game is on.

There should be a rule that any particular issue can be debated on one page only, ever. XfD pages in particular should be forbidden to decide any issue that even hints at controversy; if the matter generates any serious amount of debate on both sides the nomination should immediately close -- accurately, with "no consensus" -- and the debate be moved to its own page. At that point, it should simply be project-wide flat-out policy that the topic can only ever be debated there. This includes all associated pages, templates, categories, images, and other hair. If the page grows too large, archive it -- but never create a competing debate on the same topic.

Of course, this sane requirement will never be accepted. Forum-shopping has become the standard way to react to policy decisions that displease you or me or Joe or Jane. Since WP is not paper -- not even in Wikipediaspace -- there is no limit to the number of proposal forks and miniprojects that can proliferate.

The terminus ad absurdum is, of course, when every editor guards his own page codifying all contested policy matters and declares himself the winner by default. This will lead to a great many editors spending all their time chasing such pages in order to deprecate them; while their creators spawn a continuous chain of re-creations and re-formulations. Thus all editing time will be spent on clambering for high ground and none on creating good articles.

John Reid 03:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated the Portal Approval Process Page for deletion

The discussion can be found at: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals. --Transhumanist 18:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mille Bornes

Hi, I just recently was able to remember the name of the card game I played when I was young, and I've been looking everywhere for any information I can find on it. Since you apparently created the card images shown on the mille bornes page, I figure you might be able to help me out. I know I also had a computer version of it, years ago, but I can't seem to find any mille bornes programs that aren't for mobile phones or something. Do you know of any? Barring that, its getting to the point where I just want to print out my own deck, and laminate the cards myself. Thanks for any help at all you can give me. --Monguin61 21:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what help you need. Whether you want to play Mille Bornes with real cards and real people or with any number of electronic games, there is ample opportunity.

• While researching the topic I generated the workpage Talk:Mille Bornes/work. This is just a page of disorganized notes but you'll see several computer versions listed, often with direct exteral links. Mille Bornes seems to have been ported, with or without license, to every imaginable platform.

• Real cards are widely available; the game is in re-release. I found a deck at Toys "R" Us; I've seen them at Target and, I think, Walgreens. Failing joy at your local big-box retailer, you can order the game online through any number of outlets.

• The new deck is (IMPO) ugly -- flashy but unplayable. Fortunately, many old decks are for sale on eBay. This game has always been extremely popular and produced in large quantity -- so no need to overpay. You might get a nice 1962 deck for about the same as a new one!

• The images I created to illustrate the article (eg, Image:MB-roll.png) are intended for that purpose alone; they are of fairly low resolution, besides being of extremely simple design. They are however licensed freely under GFDL and you are welcome to download and print a set. If you really want to do this, you may want to coordinate with me; the original workfiles are vector illustrations so I can send you much higher-resolution versions.

I don't see how I can be of further help but please, don't hesitate to ask again. John Reid 00:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was anything useful on the work page. I've been searching for anything I can think of in an effort to find some sort of computer version, but with no luck. I guess I was kind of hoping you'd know of some free computer version for windows, but there is that link to the java version, which is a lot more than I've been able to find. That's plenty good for me. Thanks. --Monguin61 05:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I won't swear that there's anything useful there. At one time, I put considerable time into researching Mille Bornes and its ancestor, Touring. It's always feast or famine around here; either your work gets cut up by a dozen sidewalk superintendents or you can't get any help at all. I took it so far and nobody showed interest so I dropped it.

Here's a shareware MB-clone purported to run under Windows:

http://www.dejavusoftware.com/row/

Have fun! John Reid 20:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Buzzword

Just a note to let you know that I created a new cleanup template there. Not sure that the name is the best possible name, but I'm not sure how a Template:Bullshit would fly. The concerns I have are addressed more fully at Template talk:Buzzword.

Dropping you a note because you had responded supportively to my statements about this issue when it came up last April on Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Method Engineering Encyclopedia. Looking to enlist more people to tag That Sort of Thing when they see it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)