User talk:Dscos/archive15
July 2005
[edit]thanks!
[edit]Hey Blankfaze, thanks for the encouraging words on my RfA. I'm always pleased to find out that my work is appreciated, so thanks for the positive feedback. I'll do my best to be a responsible admin! --Spangineer (háblame) July 4, 2005 04:01 (UTC)
Don't cry for my template, Argentina!
[edit]Template:Argentine_Military - can you please take a look at the markup and see if you figure out why the flag on the top right is flattened into a long thin strip, reminiscent of that style of beef they prepare out on the Pampas? I can't see what I did wrong. --Jpbrenna 4 July 2005 06:48 (UTC)
- It looks great to me! Maybe you are using a loser browser? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 4 July 2005 13:44 (UTC)
Dragon's Flight pointed out a serious omission to this proposal: that the image description page of WikiCommons should include the content of the one on Wikipedia. I have reworded the proposal to include that. Because the wording changed, I have hidden your vote; please read the new version and see if you support it now, and reinstate your vote under the appropriate section depending on whether you do. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 08:17 (UTC)
PBurka pointed out that an important omission from this proposal: a band could meet WP:MUSIC criterion #5 (sharing a member with a famous band) and still be speedily deletable by this criterion. I've added a sentence to the proposal to reflect this: it now reads An article about a musician or music group that does not assert having released at least one album, nor having had media coverage, nor having a member that is or was also part of a well-known music group. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead. I believe you voted for different reasons, but you may want to vote on the alternative proposal as well. I'm sorry for the confusion, and let me assure you that I won't be asking for any other revotes on this (it's just ironic that you can discuss something for nearly two months, only to have two omissions pointed out within hours of asking for a vote...) Yours, Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 09:59 (UTC)
- I wish you had publicised this discussion. If you didn't know, I am the author of most of a previous CSD expansion proposal, and I would have liked to take part in forming this one. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 5 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)
Typo fix
[edit]Cheers for the typo fix at ITN - I shouldn't be rushing when editing main page items! Oops. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)
CSD Proposal 3-B
[edit]You voted or commented on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-A or both. I have proposed a revised version, at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. This version is intended to address objections made by many of those oppsoed to 3-A or 3-B. The revised propsal refers explicitly and directly to the criteria at WP:MUSIC. If you have not already done so, please examine the revised proposal and vote on it also. Thank you. DES 6 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)
Some of the pictures from my excursion the other day have...found their way into the article. ;) Mike H (Talking is hot) July 7, 2005 17:32 (UTC)
- A new article. Mike H (Talking is hot) July 7, 2005 17:55 (UTC)
- William Dudley Chipley is done. Mike H (Talking is hot) July 7, 2005 20:42 (UTC)
An anon IP is making the main Pensacola article one big list. Please help. Mike H (Talking is hot) 16:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I'll look at it when I get back into town. But try to get a head start, mmk? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 16:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Am I just using a loser browser...
[edit]...or did I do something wrong here: Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Greece --Jpbrenna 8 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)
H3 tags
[edit]Please don't use this tag, it messes up the section editing on the pages the template is used on. - Mgm|(talk) 06:24, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
- See my edit summary. The header needs to be in h3 tags like all the other main page headers. If not it looks out of place. I suggest either starting a dedicated template for this weekend FP stuff, or moving the h3 header back out to the main page and changing it manually between DYK and FP when necessary. Font elements are unacceptable either way. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Personal attacks
[edit]Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, then cease advocating the murder of people on VfD. --Carnildo 03:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Hah! You are cute. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I will second that. You voted to draw and quarter an admin on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Southeast Raleigh Magnet High School. If an anon or newbie puts up a series of votes like yours, they usually end up getting warned and then at least temporarily blocked. There shouldn't be a double standard just because you are a longtime user. You've been here a while, and you need to set a better example toward those who are newer to VfD than we are. --Idont Havaname 04:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Hah, that's funny you should mention that one; Ta bu is a friend and I thought he especially would appreciate that. The draw and quarter thing is an obvious joke, and anyone who takes it seriously ought to have their head checked. Point is, these continuous votes on schools are ridiculous. All schools are inherently notable. All these votes serve to do is clog up VFD and take the focus away from more pressing issues. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Wiki for schools
[edit]I would also suggest that you and some of the others who vote to keep all schools should start a new wiki for schools and start transwikiing the school articles there so that you don't have to keep seeing people here who want to delete them. --Idont Havaname 04:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Why would we start a separate wiki? Articles on schools are patently encyclopaedic and well suited for this project. Don't fix things if they aren't broke, eh! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I was suggesting that because not everyone here believes that schools are inherently encyclopedic, and that if we did that, then nobody would need to waste time or energy in the debate over whether or not they were. Transwikiing has pretty much solved the problem for dicdefs and source material, for example, and I think that it would take quite a bit of stress off of VfD. It's obvious that a lot of the editors in those VfDs, inclusionists and otherwise, are getting sick of debating about it. I don't mind going to the newest school VfD and saying "Delete, it's just like any other school" or "Merge into the article about its city", but when we're getting silly votes like "Banana" and "Cow", then we're not getting intelligent discussion; we're getting people who, regardless of their stance, don't want to talk about it anymore. --Idont Havaname 04:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well if you guys would quit being silly, it would also fix things :-) ! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it's more complicated than that. Although previous to Schoolwatch getting started, schools were deleted almost without question, and now they're pretty much always kept, there are still deletionists among newbies and more experienced users. Schools are still a gray area around here, and WP:SCH is just a proposed policy, so the correct solution to the VfD controversies over them (which are becoming some of the worst problems in VfD, aside from general overload and... ha, repeated GNAA nominations!) is not to use one's preferred method of abuse upon the lister. I was hoping that the separate wiki suggestion would ease the tension there. Also, it would provide a better framework for filling in the pieces and would - I think - foster growth better by allowing the editors to concentrate on one topic without taking any grief over their work, if you want to create a more complete directory for schools (much like Wikitravel is in the process of doing with various destinations). Anyways, just a suggestion. --Idont Havaname 04:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Having a separate wiki removes the advantages of having a wiki. The wiki's value increases with the number of links. Making interwiki links is much more trouble than internal ones. A less-notable school will probably not have many inbound links anyway, so only those interested specificially in that school will find it. — David Remahl 09:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well said. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 09:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Having a separate wiki removes the advantages of having a wiki. The wiki's value increases with the number of links. Making interwiki links is much more trouble than internal ones. A less-notable school will probably not have many inbound links anyway, so only those interested specificially in that school will find it. — David Remahl 09:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it's more complicated than that. Although previous to Schoolwatch getting started, schools were deleted almost without question, and now they're pretty much always kept, there are still deletionists among newbies and more experienced users. Schools are still a gray area around here, and WP:SCH is just a proposed policy, so the correct solution to the VfD controversies over them (which are becoming some of the worst problems in VfD, aside from general overload and... ha, repeated GNAA nominations!) is not to use one's preferred method of abuse upon the lister. I was hoping that the separate wiki suggestion would ease the tension there. Also, it would provide a better framework for filling in the pieces and would - I think - foster growth better by allowing the editors to concentrate on one topic without taking any grief over their work, if you want to create a more complete directory for schools (much like Wikitravel is in the process of doing with various destinations). Anyways, just a suggestion. --Idont Havaname 04:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well if you guys would quit being silly, it would also fix things :-) ! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I was suggesting that because not everyone here believes that schools are inherently encyclopedic, and that if we did that, then nobody would need to waste time or energy in the debate over whether or not they were. Transwikiing has pretty much solved the problem for dicdefs and source material, for example, and I think that it would take quite a bit of stress off of VfD. It's obvious that a lot of the editors in those VfDs, inclusionists and otherwise, are getting sick of debating about it. I don't mind going to the newest school VfD and saying "Delete, it's just like any other school" or "Merge into the article about its city", but when we're getting silly votes like "Banana" and "Cow", then we're not getting intelligent discussion; we're getting people who, regardless of their stance, don't want to talk about it anymore. --Idont Havaname 04:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
admin criteria page
[edit]I was wondering if you'd mind if I used the basic layout from your personal criteria for adminship page. Of course I'll modify it for my own use and attribute to you using a html note. Thanks. Please reply on my talk page as I will be not watching this page Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 07:37, July 29, 2005 (UTC)