Jump to content

User talk:RichardF/Archive/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Crystal Clear app messenger.png
Talk
Archive 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 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10
Archives • New quote & pic


You may like to check out Template:Main Page discussion footer, as used at the bottom of Talk:Main Page ;) --Quiddity 18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will.

Rfrisbietalk 18:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose because the footer is two lines high, the "absolute bottom" position hits the "relative bottom" of the header box. I really wanted to keep it located in the background bar. I added the "extra" text area for when someone used the "Start a new discussion" button. Unless there's some way to push up the relative bottom, I'm stumped for now.

Rfrisbietalk 19:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, if it can't be hacked with padding, then I'm stumped too. Ah well.

--Quiddity 19:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried "margins" and "padding" to no avail. Since they're on different "layers," the footer just moved around and everything else just stayed put. Thanks anyway.

Rfrisbietalk 19:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Gus to

I fixed the links on Template talk:User GUS UBX to to be self referential, I didn't put it on the main template to avoid confisuion for casual editors coming across it. — xaosflux Talk 03:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You also win the prize for being the first editor to play "Push the footer"!

Rfrisbietalk 03:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Cent

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 Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Template log. This will help us stay all on the same page -- no pun intended. You're also going to want to come up with a more plausible rationale for pushing your pet project than alphabetic sorting. Or sort the entire template. Thank you. John Reid 04:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with sorting, revert it. Rfrisbietalk 04:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I really dislike reverting other editors, even once. I've also spent several hours recently, sorting Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions. This is up to you. But please don't break this thread over pages. John Reid 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So, since you seem to be the expert guarding your pet project, you pick. I'll either revert the original sort or make everything alphabetical. Rfrisbietalk 04:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. I took care of it. Rfrisbietalk 04:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Cent is not really my pet project; an editor named Radiant started it, invested a lot of effort, burned out, and left. I've uncovered more than one place where this editor seems to have overdriven his own opinions, trying to see acceptable outcomes where there were none. I mention this because I'd not like to go down the same road. I did adopt this stray neighborhood cat; I saw that it could do a lot of good -- or harm, if not managed with some firmness.

Early on, I noted ...its usefulness is in inverse proportion to its size. There is practically no limit to the amount of potential contention surrounding what is included or excluded. I'd like to think I've built a reputation for impartial adds, moves, and drops from Cent. This reputation allows me to do a lot of dog work that otherwise might just not get done. I'm hardly perfect; I have my own biases. I don't want to do anything on Cent that might suggest I'm pushing my biases here. I make dozens of judgement calls and sometimes I'll make the wrong call. I'll be content if my error is corrected and it's not labeled as self-will run riot.

My personal opinion is that it is wrong and contrary to the nature of a wiki to have more than one competing proposal on any topic. It's definitely contrary to Centralized Discussion. The driving spirit is to keep all players on the same page. I will -- generally -- keep on Cent the most viable of a number of competing proposal pages and drop all the rest.

So, for my preference, drop GUS altogether. If you think this kind of approach is correct, edit Userbox policy instead of running a competing proposal. I don't think you agree and I'm not going to force the issue. Between the current system (reverse chronological) and alphabetical, I don't have much preference. I alphabetized Conclusions because that's a more or less stable directory; the Cent template is not.

I'm much more interested in civility, neutrality, and moving process forward than in any outcome. I'm sure you'll appreciate that I like things to look good, too. Within these bounds, hey, it's your wiki too. I'd really rather have you involved in process, making decisions. Then you, too, can sweat your own neutrality. John Reid 05:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the history, very interesting. Personally, I'm opposed to GUS too. I'm just more opposed to wikiwars. At least it quieted things down a bit. As far as policymaking goes, the "it's descriptive, not prescriptive" mantra rings true for me. I'm more inclined to call it a distributed, rather than a centralized process. One thing I've learner from GUS is that the way things really work here isn't the way many of the written procedures would have you believe. I've seen more than one "old timer" make comments to that effect, but I couldn't tell you where at the moment. Anyway, thanks for clearing things up, and I apologize for editing the template "out of process". (I even missed the note in red at the top of the page!)

p.s. Being the graphic designer you are, I'm glad you like the palettes.

Rfrisbietalk 05:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like the template. In fact, I like it so much, I proposed adding it to the Community Portal. I hope you'll add your 2¢. Rfrisbietalk 15:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the palettes more than you know. This recent whinging about the tints chosen to head Cent points up the need for standard color schemes -- to be used right across the board, everywhere, in article mainspace, project space, and templates. This may be an encyclopedia but if so, it's one where each volume is bound and illustrated in a different style. Articles and processes may be grouped but from one to the next there is no consistency. It looks as though someone cobbled together a shelf, one volume at a time, from a dozen different reference works: that is, looks like hell.

If you check out old {{divbox}}, you see a primitive, limited effort to standardize presentation. It has caught on some but the creator didn't really seem to know how to go about it. I fooled around with this some, trying to improve functionally on the original, but what's really needed is a design working group that goes light on function and strong on specifying exactly which colors may be used for which roles in what places. Border thickness, margins, paddings, widths of infoboxes, notice boxes, and tags all need to be defined. One or two standard sizes of icon need to be established and all other sizes ruthlessly forced to conform -- to say nothing of icon style, which currently ranges from neoprimitive and naked moderne through photorealist to liquid 3D. In other words, some responsibility must be taken to establish a look for the entire project.

Well, that's one.

You've got an idea with Cent: the vertical, one-column layout. This is how most similar project directory boxes work, e.g, {{style}}, {{notabilityguide}}, {{MiniAWFP}}. When I took up the Cent mop, the three-column layout was already established; I retained that through the last few minor facelifts. I might well endorse a standard one-column layout.

I do ask that you retain the colored background headers. I think color is extremely important as a tool for distinguishing one thing from another and more from less important. The current tint, #acf, keys all the Centralized discussion pages. Under the whinging, I also altered {{divstyleblue}} to match.

I definitely am not wedded to any particular color combination, only to the use of color. I smell a wave of anti-color sentiment masked as concern for the color-blind. I think this POV is foolish; people who truly cannot abide colors can use a skin that, through CSS, controls all colors to white and black, maybe gray. I also know that my personal strength as a designer lies in form and outline, not in color. You may have a better eye for palette.

Let's do this: You fiddle with Cent; adjust the colors and assume a one-column layout. Prototype it casually; don't worry about function, let alone content. If you want to take it all the way, that's fine; but I'm willing to take it over at some point and get the functions working and update the content. Let's do this on a workpage, say, {{Cent/work}}. When you and I and anyone else who drops in think it's go, we can substitute the new version in a few prominent places. If it's accepted there, then we move it directly to the regular template.

Re UBX, GUS, etc: Sorry. You came in with your edit just as I finished about 16 straight hours of work on Cent, only to have to deal with the whinging on the tint. I overreacted. I agree with you on this point: The war is bad and almost any solution is probably better than none. But I don't like the way the "Germans" are, ever so politely, marching us along. The most frightening words in any language are Step this way, please, Sir. Next thing you know, it's Please forgive the inconvenience, This will only take a moment, Sorry, but your papers are not in order, and You will have to come with us, thank you.

Now, I'm leaning toward pulling all UBX discussions right out of Cent, just as I did Notability. I wrote recently Notability has simply become too large of a topic to be handled on cent. It has its own directory template and interested parties are thrashing out dozens of issues in their own ways, on at least 40 pages. I also wrote, trying to summarize the UBX war, Many proposals compete in an effort to regulate the creation, format, storage, and display of UBX. This is a failure of the centralized discussion process. Now, I'm thinking that the failure itself just disqualifies UBX-related issues from Cent. Cent is for Centralized discussion, not for dispatches from the battlefield. The biggest possible mistake is to link Cent to everything.

What say you? John Reid 01:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoo-Wee, that's what I say!. Plus... On palettes, check out this Color project topic, WikiPalettes. I typically defer to Quiddity on such matters. That's how I finally got a clue on how to try out different palettes with some wikiness to them.
As far as Cent goes, I also like Quiddity's idea about grouping similar "advanced user" templated info on a common page he mentioned at Add Template:Cent to CBB?. I'd like to see your comments there too. :-) Templates like these often have multiple layouts for different settings. The content gets entered into a "text-only" template and then layout templates format it as needed. I'm willing to work with you on Cent as a stand-along activity, and as part of a themed group.
On GUS, I'm winding down a bit on my involvement with it. The flames are cooling down to embers in most places, and an infrastructure for userspace boxes is off the ground. I'm not iterested in nit-picking "shoulds" because wiki is what it is. Jimbo's the Big Cheese and he's letting me play with his toys. If he wants some separation of "neutrality" and "viwepoints" that works for me. There's a category for Wikipedia userbox discussions that shows lots of pages, so I agree Cent has a dilemma. However, the issue shouldn't be maginalized simply because it's messy. Maybe Quiddity's new page could find room for such "hub" pages. Rfrisbietalk 03:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cent can't be for everything; perhaps it shouldn't even try to include the most pressing issues of the day. It should be limited to centralized discussions. What that actually is, has not been clearly defined and right at the moment I'm still trying to figure out if a clear definition is wise.

I certainly can see a somewhat similar discussion-omnibus template that is much more wide open. When the idea works it's way through my mental digestive tract, I'll show you what I think. John Reid 03:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If some broader page pulls together a cluster of templates, then that certainly takes the pressure off any one of them to stray off focus. If something important still falls through the cracks, it alway could be added to the page through another template. I think the concept has promise. Rfrisbietalk 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Colours

If I might interject...

I totally agree with John's comments that we need an organised color scheme. (Possibly, a standardised color scheme for the Wikipedia/Official/Meta pages & templates, and a set of color restrictions for the other regions (so that inappropriate choices can be over-ruled))

It would be marvellous if you both took over at WP:COLOR, and built it out. (It's honestly still just a proposed guideline; Urthogie added the "style guideline" template back in April without discussion, but I didnt have the heart to remove it, as it's not a bad page, and might help influence things until it can be properly improved.) There are a list of things that might be done at the bottom of its talkpage. (I'm just a design novice, who's been poking at that page recently, as it is so obviously a problem)

Anyway, that's it, just a plea for input :) --Quiddity 03:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I was just trying to add a comment there when I got a "you've got mail" banner on my page! And no, I don't know what color it was!

Rfrisbietalk 03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Something should be done and we might just be the people to do it. John Reid 03:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure we can do something, even if its just suggestions. Rfrisbietalk 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Lotta stuff

Okay, that's four different-though-related initiatives we may both support:

  • Reworking Cent into a one-column layout. See Template:Cent/work. I'd like to see what you do there before I get into it.
  • Creating some sort of alternative to Cent, something much more wide open, with less focus, less overhead, broader scope. I'm thinking {{Kite}}. See Template talk:Kite.
There must be another dozen floating around the project worthy of general interest. I don't really know where to begin.
  • Establishing some kind of standard look for project/process boxes. We can take a page here from article taxoboxes, which are starting to fall into a loose standard -- but I don't see any need to copy these and it might be well if "ours" were distinct. See Wikipedia:Probox. I think I can develop the technical ur-template, you can lend an eye to color selection, and we can work together on the layout appearance.

I don't know how much time we can devote to all of these but there's no time on a wiki. John Reid 14:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to opt for the "putzing" aproach on these and four or five other "projects" I've been dabbling with. For the most part, I'll make my comments on the respective talk pages, in a feeble attempt to try to keep things straight. Some quick comments.

    • Cent: I'll try things out in the context of Add Template:Cent to CBB?
    • Kite: I'm not at all sure what that would be. I don't even know what "Kite" means.
    • GCS: Again, I'm interested in the context of Wikipedia:Community Portal tie-ins.
    • P/P boxes: Those types of things seem to have the best success when they're "project-related." I think people would be interested in help in the form of templates, but probably not "requirements."
    • Cent on CBB: It's still a possibility, the conversation continues there.
    • WP:COLOR: I'm interested in "tweaking" high level page colors for borders, headers, and backgrounds, so they use more-or-less the same set of HSV palettes. Rfrisbietalk 20:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Michael has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thanks Michael!

Backatcha! Rfrisbietalk

HSV color test: (original "AliceBlue" HSV - H:208 S:6 V:100) (adjusted to "wikified" HSV - H:210 S:4 V:100 - #F5FAFF)
Michael has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

WikiProject Psychology template

Sorry about that. I will be sure to do that when I add the template in the future. Thanks for all of your work in creating the template and adding the right ratings to the articles! —Cswrye 17:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Don't worry about the ones you already added. I'm going to update them with WP:AWB. Also, this weekend, I might get around to adding a "draft importance" subpage table that's specific to psychology, but I'll probably try out some details on a different project first.

Rfrisbietalk 17:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry again about the class/quality thing! I get these WikiProject templates mixed up sometimes. Fortunately, I only made that mistake on a few articles. —Cswrye 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you just did more wikiwork, you probably could keep things straight!

Rfrisbietalk 17:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Is there a scale of any kind to indicate how psychology articles should be assessed? It looks like you've been doing most of the assessing so far. I've been reluctant to do it, but I've gotten involved in a discussion on one article about how it should be rated. I would use the scale for the Biography WikiProject as a guide, but it would be better if we had one for the Psychology WikiProject. --Cswrye 19:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind--I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Assessment. I should have paid more attention to the talk page of the Psychology WikiProject! --Cswrye 19:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I just took a look myself! I didn't get very far at "customizing" it, so we just have to play it by ear. If you have some ideas, go ahead and adjust the draft.

Rfrisbietalk 19:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I did some work on it using the importance scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment as a basis. Let me know what you think, or make some edits to it. --Cswrye 22:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks good! See comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology/Assessment.

Rfrisbietalk 23:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Userbox display

Yes, i would like some help displaying them in columns...also, i'd like to know how you managed to make your page look so nice? somody 19:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Somody,
Here's a userbox columns boilerplate you can try out. I fiddle with my pages by "borrowing" layout designs from other users (see User:Rfrisbie/Resources), fiddling with color palettes (see User:Rfrisbie/Palettes) and then "transcluding" them with various subpages. That makes testing and changing things a lot easier too! Let me know if you have any other questions, or need more help with the userbox columns boilerplate.

Rfrisbietalk 20:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

South Bend, Indiana

You recently added the {{Unreferenced}} box to the top of the page on South Bend, Indiana. While it is clear some areas do lack citations, I do not agree that the page as a whole lacks references. Would you object to the removal of this template and instead include the indication of which sections or facts need reference work? Michael 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael, either my browser didn't load the full page or I just spaced it!

It didn't see the references section the first time around, so I just took the tag off. Sorry. Rfrisbietalk 22:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Little Einsteins Invitation

This is an Invitation to WikiProject Little Einsteins. If you want to join, Click on the blue link. Signed Iswatch19 and MatchPat
Hi Iswatch19 and MatchPat, thanks for the invite, but I think I'll pass on this one.

Rfrisbietalk 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Rfrisbie, the WikiProject really needs you because MatchPat has already left Wikipedia. User talk:Iswatch19 11:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, but I've never even seen an episode. Rfrisbietalk 00:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/ Non-ISO Languages

Something on that page is causing it to appear in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion but it's too large for me to be able to pick out the item. Perhaps you can find it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Thanks! Rfrisbietalk 14:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Collage

Now, are you ever going to be pleased with just one userpage design? ;) I think it's a neat idea though; now what shall I add? Sango123 00:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No....and...hmmm....

Rfrisbietalk 00:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A nice featured picture from the Commons, perhaps. :) Sango123 03:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks!

Rfrisbietalk 04:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

{{proposed}}

Hi there! That was a reasonable compromise... but let me explain why I put that line there in big honkin' bold letters. Novice users frequently make a proposal and then say, hey let's vote on it. I (and some others) try to put a stop to that unfortunate tendency. A big !! sign on the template seemed like a good idea for that. Just my $.2. Yours, >Radiant< 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I get it. :-) Just out of curiosity, what do you think of "consensus polling"? Rfrisbietalk 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please keep an eye out, and if you agree it might help to make the point a bit clearer again. Thanks. Regarding consensus polling, I think it might be useful for major policy shifts, but other than that I don't really see the point on-wiki. >Radiant< 17:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay. Will do. Also, the expectation that "It is only really appropriate when a group of individuals desire to collectively solve a problem that affects them all," often isn't met around here. :-) Rfrisbietalk 17:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Pipes?

Hello, I am not sure I am doing this right; please bear with me. I am not sure what a "pipe" is, but if it's the link divided by |, then my reasoning was this: I was merging "Course evaluations" with "Course evaluation," and when I corrected the links to "Course evaluations," I used the | to preserve the appearance of the page. I apologize if this is not the correct way; I am new to merging. Jlittlet 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, piped links are those verticle lines that let you change how a link is displayed!

Sorry for assuming you made the original caps changes and the renaming pipes. In most cases, links are best displayed in their "unpiped" form. Rfrisbietalk 21:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/ Non-ISO Languages

It's back in the speedy deletion category again. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, whatever it was must have been deleted already. I touched it and two other pages to get them out of the category. Rfrisbietalk 02:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It's baaaaaack.... :D I tried looking at the code and I can't figure out why it's showing up for CSD? Maybe because something is transcluded?--- Deville (Talk) 17:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
There's going to be a speedy note displayed in the place of the offending template. The code itself won't look any different. I commented it out. Rfrisbietalk 19:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Pointless edit

Hello there! Yes it seems pointless, but what it actually does is refresh the article's categories. Your User: page was still listed in a category that it wasn't actually in anymore - but to force everything to update - I 'bumped' the article. Bumping essentially is adding a blank line to the top of an article, which actually dissapears once saved - thus causing no interferance with the article's appearance :) Normally, categories update themselves properly and a bump isn't needed - however sometimes articles get stuck and need a little encouragement.

Hope that explains things :) --Sagaciousuk (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It didn't always work when I tried just saving without making any changes, even after purging my browser cache. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Help controlling ubx position | Stuff

Thanks for the <div> code--it did the trick and is better than going full width and pushing down the discussions. Thanks as well for the fonts in your sandbox--I still have to take the time and learn how to incorporate one into my skin. I think there is a basic skin concept that is eluding me, such as where my skin's css file resides. --Eric 12:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't use css but you would create one at username/monobook.css if you use the main skin. You also can just use subpages like I do for my header, or just put a div at the top of a page like here. You can see some of the page resources I have at User:Rfrisbie/Resources. Rfrisbietalk 13:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I have it now--thanks again. --Eric 14:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Color table

You're welcome to alter the Colour generation guide as much as you like or replace it completely. I just hacked it together (based on this table), and the example hues have no specific importance. :) --Quiddity 04:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but it does seem to have some momentum. Of course, anyone else can change whatever I do too.

Rfrisbietalk 11:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I would be interested in adding a two-level header option. If you happen to find that color blindness test page, I could adjust what I've been using, if needed, and then throw it into to mix. Then we can see what happens with something like that too. Rfrisbietalk 14:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, the basic concept is fine, but the table design is simple (and ugly?). That's what i meant you could replace (only if ya want). Or it could be moved/merged to the project page, or anything! (I also just meant, that the table is all my work, just unsigned, so noone will argue with you if you hack it up :)
And I did find that page :) colorfilter.wickline.org. The contrast is fine, I changed the Wikipedia principles template back to your test, and noone has complained yet :) --Quiddity 18:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Cool. If it holds up for a while, I'll add a two-level palette to the options. Rfrisbietalk 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Help colours

Hi. I noticed that you have been working on colour standardisation. Following the redesign of the Community Portal, I initiated a redesign of Help:Contents using the same colours as the "Guidelines, help and resources" section of the CP. I then changed help related project templates and pages to the same colour scheme (from a mixture of schemes - some very poorly designed). I also changed a number of collaborations and fix-up/to do templates to the schemes of their respective CP sections. I like the tweaks you have made to the CP but was wondering what else you had planned (I am happy to tweak the aforementioned templates, but don't want to then change them again). On a related note, Quiddity has changed {{Wikipedia principles}} per your suggestion. This breaks the colour scheme on that template and I feel we need a unified "two-level" scheme if we are going to go down that road. Once again, I don't want to change all the templates multiple times, so this needs to be discussed / decided now. If we really create a guideline for help / project pages it could be documented on Wikipedia:Colours. Finally, I have tweaked {{Writing guides}} which uses the same style as the principles template above to make the sub-headings slightly smaller. This provides a better differentiation between the top & sub headings and is something to consider in a debate about two-level headings. I admire what you are doing and look forward to your thoughts -- Gareth Aus 10:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gareth Aus, I've been trying to go by Wikipedia:Colours and the talk page as much as possible. I went with 60 degree hue increments for the most part with shades like at the the talk page. Different layouts forced picking a border so I always went with the darker choice. I've been trying the two-level palettes at User:Rfrisbie/Palettes. If there's interest, I would add the suggestion to the WP colours page. Also, Quiddity suggested Portal talk:Browse#Reference pages wikiproject?. Something like that might be a good way to coordinate groups of pages for color palettes and layouts. I'm open to suggestions too. I'm just "putzing" for the fun of it.

Rfrisbietalk 11:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Tip of the day

The tip of the day is starting to run low. Just another month left on the buffer. I kept the thing stocked up since April, so I would really appreciate if someone would pick up where I left off. You are my first choice, 'cuz I know you'll keep the quality level high. --Go for it! aka The Transhumanist 18:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dho! The "real world" has me cutting back on my wikitime too.

I won't say "yes," but I won't say "no" either. I'll pitch in where I can. Rfrisbietalk 18:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Top level pages

I was just following your lead on reformatting portal browse, but since there were some objections, we should just leave it the way it was originally, for the time being. We should drop the matter of upgrading that page for now. Quiddity thought we should wait, and I happen to agree. (Quiddity's hands are full with the sidebar project, so I think we should wait until that project is completed). Nice work on the color coordination, by the way. --The Transhumanist 18:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I've just tried to do minor adjustments here and there where no one objected. Since Quiddity was the one who opened his mouth on starting another project (what was he thinking! ;-), I'll just follow his lead on that.

Rfrisbietalk 18:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

*hides under a blanket* -Quiddity

We know where you wikilive!

Rfrisbietalk 19:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction changes

I restored the prior introduction pages - I didn't see anywhere this was discussed prior to the change - I think it looks good to have the header tied into the tutorial better, but lets get concensus first on Template talk:Please leave this line alone. thx --Trödel 00:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, go for it at Template talk:Please leave this line alone#Tabs like Tutorial. Sorry for being so bold!

Rfrisbietalk 00:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

NP for being bold - sorry I didn't research first - I should have - my only defense is that I got that habit on that particular page because of its high profile since it is linked prominently on the main page - but I should have at least looked who did the change first. Sorry also about the footer - I use the little + sign and didn't realize I had edited below the footer. --Trödel 03:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm used to being reverted. The footer thing is just a game I play. I realize most people won't see the note until I move it.

Rfrisbietalk 03:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Restored

I have restored your page. When I had deleted it, it was actually listed on the "Speedy Deletions" page, which is a bit strange if you did not post the template. It must have been a technical error. Michael 19:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you're fast!

Rfrisbietalk 22:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Michael 22:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Rambot

Thanks for updating the Rambot FAQ / Rambot Talk Page. I'm sure you did all of that for your own reasons, but it just looks nicer anyway. Later! -- RM 03:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome...colors...pretty!!!

Rfrisbietalk 03:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way. It's listed at Wikipedia:FAQ so I decided to give that group of FAQ pages a similar look and feel. Rfrisbietalk 03:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Namespace

Good point about the namespace. I've fixed that problem, so we can get on with the discussion about merging the pages. --The Transhumanist 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RichardF/Archive/Archive_6&oldid=1251641867"