![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Would you please have a look at the top line of this page? I can't seem to position "Help:Contents" correctly next to the left arrow icon. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. The Transhumanist 02:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought I should come here to say that I appreciate our reasoned discussion, and hope that any disagreement doesn't lead you to think otherwise. :-)
There was something about your comment here that confused me, but it doesn't have to do with the policy discussion at hand there, so I didn't want to clutter that page. You said "But if you restrict your aim to lists of words, and dubious ones at that, like Glossary of sexual slurs and List of online-gaming slang and List of Chicano Caló words and expressions and Australian rhyming slang; then go right ahead." I think this indicates that we agree that word lists and slang guides are certainly a different category from glossaries, and are dictionary territory (and indeed, that current policy governs them). This also indicates, as seems clear to me, that you believe that the "Glossary of sexual slurs" is really a list of words inappropriately named. Can I ask you why you then supported keeping it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of sexual slurs. I expected this reasoning to lead to an endorsement of deletion. Dmcdevit· t 05:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have created a new merger template, per the request, to replace both the Christianity and Christian Theology templates. I noticed your interest in the template. I would appreciate your comments. Please place comments on the template discussion page, so others can read them. Thanks. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Just curious. Why is the sidebar so difficult to update, technically speaking? And don't say it's because you can't get to it! ;-) Rfrisbie talk 18:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I filed a bugzilla report and Brion Vibber is taking a long time to get to it, but he's right, it's an enhancement, and not a critical bug. So right now, I think we just wait. Hozau and I did the programming. You can go to the programming talk page if you want. -- gatoatigrado 21:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Check this out! :-) Rfrisbie talk 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Quiddity. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day/Yearless. I set up a "yearless" version of the tips pages so they have a chance of continuing a bit longer. I also set up the test page to help ferret out any problems. When they're ready, the changeover can take place with some simple edits to the display templates. Please add your comments to the bottom of the test page. Thanks. Rfrisbie talk 23:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Quiddity. I need your help again. Someone told me the selected picture at Portal:Cats is too big and screws up the display using Firefox. [1] Could you take a look and suggest a ballpark size for the pic? Thanks, Rfrisbie talk 04:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for having worked on the template for the Cats wikiproject. I just wonder why you removed the criteria for importance assessment. The template was specifically designed so that those criteria wouldn't appear in the template itself, but would still automatically place the article in the correct importance category. Only about 20 or so articles have to date been assessed for importance, but they can all be found in the various categorys. Given the fact that different articles would be of different importance levels to different projects, I thought we would not want to make too big of a deal of the individual article's importance to this particular project. Thank you in advance for your response. Badbilltucker 16:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm working on trying to get Portal:Psychology up to Featured portal status. Any tips you can offer on how to improve it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbie talk 16:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
To wrap up this issue, I've posted the following message to David Levy:
User talk:David Levy#Consensus on Main Page links - The Transhumanist 03:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Are the sidebar redesign and fixed logo without the white fringe going to be implemented? — Centrx→ talk • 02:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I talked to a developer online, who wants to implement functionality in MediaWiki:Sidebar so that the location of the Search bar can be specified there. After that, we could implement the change through MediaWiki:Sidebar. The new logo image has issues with backward compatibility for older versions of Internet Explorer. We could create a new image that is anti-aliased while using the current Wikipedia background image. This is not the perfect solution, but the border that is currently white would cleanly blend in with the background. — Centrx→ talk • 05:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see talk at Help talk:Contents thanks Lethaniol 18:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey don't worry about it. I am sure nobody would let you go running amok on such important pages and pressing all your own POV. I know what it is like always editing one page or talk page, you feel that you have to do it, but your always worried about what people will think. Your cool with me - although I still want the link :):):) Cheers Lethaniol 19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I altered the template wording... how's this now? Makes better sense. N'est pas? Best! // Fra nkB 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Since you didn't explain why you were changing {{ lowercase}} usage in articles like eBay, I've reverted your changes. It's generally best to use edit summaries and talk pages when making such changes. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Q—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 05:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, it looks like you have good "box/header" know-how. Would you be interested in joining or participating in our group, the WP:Extra-Long Article Committee, so to give us ideas and suggestions in this direction? Thanks: -- Sadi Carnot 15:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added the "{{ prod}}" template to the article Blanket fort, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Blanket fort. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. TheRingess 06:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I could use an assist (maybe two). I have a pet peeve, and thought I'd come up with a good concept for making chides to editors who leave incomplete documentation trails by creating sort of a wet diaper award. It seems to be drawing some adverse reactions, and even before I'd spammed a request to some others like this for brainstorming on how to shorten same and evolve it, as I'm not happy with it either. Subsequently, it's already drawn fire ( here) before I could ask in help and get suggestions. Can you take a look and comment here. There has to be some way to let people know 'shallow edit actions' that reflect poorly on our pages need a talk note justification, no exceptions, thankyou. Much appreciated // Fra nkB 22:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have done a lot of extensive work (and so has Rfrisbie) to Portal:Business and Economics. I would like to bring it to Featured Portal status and I am seeking your opinion! Please leave your suggestions at the the Portal talk:Business and Economics about how to get this portal to featured status. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Nishkid 64 04:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, based on your previous good deeds, please consider becoming one of the portal review volunteers and adding your name to the list. :-) Regards, Rfrisbie talk 18:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Quiddity - sorry for the long delay in replying...
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) is looking good to me - nice work! While I value freedom of presentation here, I do believe we should have a standard method of presenting filmographies (etc.) and that page gives excellent guidelines. I'd try and help to support it further but am still rather absent right now.
Regards, violet/riga (t) 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
re: Just a tip, but for finding the source of template tags, I'd suggest only checking every 10th or 20th or 50th diff, instead of going through them one by one. Once you find a diff without the tag, reverse direction and find where it was added. - Quiddity 04:45, 16 December 2006
I just look at the Recent Changes page, often without looking at edits. That plus WP:AGF. If we don't AGF, we validate why they do what they do. Just H 21:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I stubbed together a couple of informational and display ?Essays, ?Demonstrations, ?________ pages... whatever...
Wikipedia:Neutrality_templates, and
Wikipedia:Dispute templates due to a double dose of reverting editors, so I can point to inline templates as better ways to handle disputed lines, paragraphs, etc.
So what the heck are such called? Seems like a logical extension of 'main article' tagging on cats, so I cross tagged the categories...
So what do I call these non-guidelines, non-policies, non-project, non-essay samplings of available choices. Menu pages!?? HAH!
Being an organizing guru of sorts, I figure you're a good resource to ask. While you ponder that, have a happy new year! Thanks //
Fra
nkB 04:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmmmm...
WP:NT Darn--used already!' <g> and
WP:DT (good, arguably the more important one to cite) Cheers! //
Fra
nkB
Just kidding.
What's that? I found you described as such by User:Ben S. Nelson
I can have a go at it, if others won't resent a new editor looking at it. Can you give me an overview, roughly, the issues it's facing, how it got where it is, what different people think is missing or wrong, and any possible disputes or disapproval someone trying to work on it might walk into? Thanks ! The more detail the more helpful to understand whats needed. FT2 ( Talk | email) 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your useful comments on FT2 page. Pretty well spot on, though there is a further individual, also new, who is a bit of a problem. Nothing like the other one you mentioned, though. Dbuckner 14:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Check this out - it's about me (Ludvikus), naturally.
Thanks for alterting me. To be honest, and I might as well be, I find Ludvikus ludicrous, self-contradictory, often deeply uncivil (and equally often deeply obscure), baselessly arrogant, and lacking in self-control, self-awareness, and understanding of philosophy. He and a few other editors have taken over Philosophy, which is a laughing stock; it and one or two other similar articles have often been cited in my hearing as evidence that Wikipedia shouldn't be taken seriously or used as a reliable resource. Although I find that depressing, I don't feel that there's anything that anyone can do; editors like Ludvikus are tirelessly logodiarrhoeic (somewhere between types 6 and 7 on the Bristol Stool Chart), and have no sense of or respect for Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Even if I had the time and energy to commit myself full time to improving the article, they would frustrate that attempt. Just look at the article's history as soon as the protection was removed: rocket-powered hysterical editing, with edit-warring thrown in, all with the net result of... the usual mess.
Maybe (but not likely to be honest) I'll return to look at it in the Easter vacation, but I've too much teaching (and thus marking, etc.) to do during the term. I admire your ability to keep your cool in the midst of it all. I hope to keep contributing the odd philosophy-related article, but Philosophy itself I'll leave to others (and good luck to them).
(The suggestion that I'm using a sock-puppet to give myself two voices in the debate is a bit odd, given that I've withdrawn from the debate. If only it were the oddest thing that had been said. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of that scale. Have you? And you should check out Judge Banno aquitting him. Judge Banno ruled that I was not called "shit" - that only what I was doing is "shit".
So you deleted it? I guess you find it disgusting. Can't take it, he? but you're advising others on not getting upset. But you can't take it, eh?
How come you took it upon yourself to cleanup there? -- Ludvikus 02:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Two forms of intuition: Outer& Inter. What are they? Space & Time. What are their corresponding sciences? Arithmetic & Geometry. What is the relation between them (at the moment in history). After the discovery of Non-Euclidean Geometry, there remains only Arithmetic (Geometry becomes Physics). So What is Arithmetic. Frege says he proves that it's Logic. Russell sows he's mistake. Russell then shouws Arithmetic is Logic.
Hello - would you support this? It really has become impossible with this constant stream of illiterate, unsourced and factually incorrect edits, and a refusal to negotiate any changes on the talk page (not that one would want to negotiate anything, given the exhaustion that would result). The guy is absolutely tireless - follow his trail). Leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dbuckner 09:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's see what the admins who are aware of the issue do. I imagine one of them will warn him and then block him if he keeps it up tomorrow (today). Talking of which, bed time here :) -- Quiddity 10:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you are at all heldful, or consistent. You seem to think that one should be called "shit" is to be taken humorlessly? In do not think we need another policeman. I would be interested in hearing what your "documents" are on "philosophy"? Dbuckner can take care of himself. If you are not capable of following my brief arguments, then don't tell me be brief. And I am disappointed at you lack of impartiality - that you have taken sides with "poor" Dbrucker. Where do you think the "shit" on me comes from? He keeps it on his talk page - he seems to giggle over it.
And you are missing the point.
And probably incapable of understanding this bief legitimate question on the Phil. Talk page. I hope I'm wrong: Does User:Peter J King = Peter J. King?
PS:I'm also trying to assertain if there's suckpottery[sic] going on. -- Ludvikus 10:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You expect me to take "shit" which you cannot stand, but my gentle reference to Philosopher King in this context to think is abussive? In that context, what's you take on "rationality" in philosophy. Do you consider Philosophy's Essence to involve Rationality? That irrationality is a mere Accident?
Unless you demonstrate to me an understanding of my point, I will take you as another instance which confirms the opposite of rationality. I hope I'm mistaken, and you remove the "shit" that you expect me to tolerate but which you yourself cannot stand. Are you laughing now? -- Ludvikus 11:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi - your comments on the talk page have been insightful and useful. Unfortunately it is very hard to locate them due to the current disruption on the page (mostly caused by Ludvikus, in my view, though there is one other, who is less disruptive). A community ban on one of the editors (Ludvikus) has been proposed by Banno, which I strongly support. However, other administrators feel there is not much evidence of any disruption. If you do feel that there is a problem, and that current conditions make work on the article difficult or impossible, please leave a message on FT2's talk page. FT2 is currently co-ordinating work on the Philosophy article. Dbuckner 08:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 09:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
In light of FT2's Workshop, why don't you archive the Talk page at Philosophy - so we'll have a clean slate? -- Ludvikus 00:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Ludvikus, after the recent spat of material that you have cut-and-pasted from talk pages onto the talk page of Philosophy, [2], [3], I am blocking you for a 48 hour period. I am of the opinion that you have exhausted the patience of the community, and that both you and they will benefit from a break. It is a shame that you did not follow Quiddity's advice, [4], instead of selectively quoting him [5]. Banno 12:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not essential or anything, but I just thought that I'd make clear that when I referred to Ludvikus as suffering from logodiarrhoea (a Greek word that I've heard used in Cyprus; I don't know about Greece), I wasn't referring to the content but the quantity, the constant stream of words; the Bristol Stool Chart was intended as a humorous indication of that. Ludvikus has consistently misrepresented that in his attempts to blow it up as a smokescreen for his own constant incivility, etc. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)