User talk:MiraLuka/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Navigation
MiraLuka • Talk • Userboxes • Sexuality • Other • Alphabetical • Explanation • Navigation

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the users who have contributed to this page may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MiraLuka/Archive1.


This is an archive of my talk page. Please post new messages to my current talk page.

Archive Index:
Archive 1: February – July 2006 | Archive 2: July 2006 –

Contents

[edit] Template:User Antipope

Hi.

You might be aware that there has been some contention around the use of userboxes. There has also been a new speedy deletion criterion added with regard to templates.

A box you are using, Template:User Antipope was recently tagged as such. I've removed the tag, but would ask that you {{subst:}} the template. You may also wish to contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes if you are not already.

brenneman{T}{L} 00:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] While I'm here

Welcome!

Hello, MiraLuka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 
brenneman{T}{L} 00:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User wishful

Also Template:User wishful has been nominated for speedy deletion under the new criterion. Iif you could remove it from your user page as a show of good faith that would be great. - brenneman{T}{L} 02:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I rather like it, thank you. Sheesh, I pick these up last night and people are already trying to delete them. MiraLuka 03:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, we've had quite a bit of disruption over the last few months around user boxes. Some from admins going a bit delete happy and pushing their agenda, some from new editors not understanding that the purpose of every action here is not to create an encyclopedia pushing their agenda. Even if you simply use {{subst:}} to make it plain text instead of a template, that would be really helpful. - brenneman{T}{L} 05:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern, but as I said, I rather like it and I see nothing wrong with expressing my personal opinions on my personal page. MiraLuka 08:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage was briefly delisted by a rouge admin

You have a userbox Template:User UN which links your userpage to United Nations Wikipedians. There is currently a movement to ban userboxes from Wikipedia which are shared and which create Lists of Wikipedians. Certain admins have taken it upon themselves to preemptively sabotage and/or delete such categories and template. Here is the incident report which reported damage to yours, in which hundreds of userpages were delinked from categories without the users' knowledge. They have been stopped, barely, and the damage reverted— for now.

There is a Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll, which if passed, will make required by policy the damage done to categories and templates such as User UN/United Nations Wikipedians. If you do not want this to happen, I urge you to vote Oppose. in the poll. Support is currently running at about 66%, and your vote could make the difference. It is said to require 75%-80% to be deemed reflective of consensus.

Thank you,

StrangerInParadise 23:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I believe this user.....

.....might like carrots, after reading templates for deletion comments....... ; ) DonaNobisPacem 21:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes I do. :) MiraLuka 00:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kiri "weird" box...

I agree... Glad you removed it. Vivaverdi 18:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WPWI

Good job on the Barbara Lawton article. You might want to join the WikiProject Wisconsin. Cheers --BaronLarf 20:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the invitation. MiraLuka 23:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beverley McLachlin

You're right that it is silly. But while the article may appear to you to be written in "American" English it is in fact written in Canadian English and in that variety of international English, as I say, "practice" is a noun and "practise" is a verb. Please check the Oxford Dictionary of Canadian English if you wish authoritative confirmation. Masalai 08:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, on closely reading the article, I am perplexed at what makes you think it is written in "American" English. The only word in the article that departs from international usage is "hospitalized" with a Z rather than an S and that is the protocol in Canadian spelling. "Practice" for the verb, however, is incorrect north of the 49th parallel and Madam Justice McLachlin is indeed the Chief Justice of Canada. Masalai 08:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, on further close reading I note that "Governor General" was spelled with a hyphen. That is British, not Canadian, spelling. I have corrected this as well. Masalai 08:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You may, however, if you are unfamiliar with international spelling, have been misled by "honorary." This is, though, correct: "honour"/"honourable"/"honorary." Cf "humour"/"humorous," which is what this discussion is becoming. Masalai 08:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, nice essay there. Sorry that I don't know every variation in the spelling of the English language. As for the "humorous" discussion, the only one I see here is the one you're having with yourself. —MiraLuka 08:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
In that case, young man, you shouldn't officiously barge in on articles concerning outside the USA and peremptorily Americanize the spelling, under the erroneous impression that you are correcting it. Masalai 09:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
First off, "Young man?" Don't presume that you are somehow superior to me because of your age. Besides, for all I know, you're 12. (Plus, using "young man" makes you sound like my mother.) Secondly, no one "officiously" (or "peremptorily") did anything. I corrected what I believed to be a mistake. The major clue, at least for me, that something is not in American English is the use of "-ise" rather than "-ize." Since the article included several words using "-ize," and me being unaware that there was such a thing as "Canadian" English, I assumed that you were attempting to change the usage to British English, and I reverted accordingly. After you reverted me, I left you a note on your talk page explaining why I did what I did, and assuming that I was the one in the wrong, with the intention to leave the issue be. You are the one who decided to post a lecture on my talk page and then attack me for my age and nationality. —MiraLuka 09:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, "-ise" versus "-ize" is a very rough indication of international versus American spelling. Please consult Fowler's English Usage. It's actually, strictly speaking, an indication of Latin verus Greek etymology; the rather lazy tendency to regularize towards Z in North America and S elsewhere has many exceptions.Masalai 05:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, but I'm not really interested in looking all this up. —MiraLuka 05:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minyan Edit

In your recent edit of this article, you deleted the text "A few authorities also hold that 10 women can, at least under some circumstances, constitute a minyan for purposes of zimmun b'shem leading Birkat HaMazon." What was your basis for this deletion? The sentence was sourced, the reference is the article (Frimmer, Women and Minyan, Tradition 1988) which indeed lists a few authorities who hold this position. Given that your user page indicates you consider yourself a secular humanist, lapsed Catholic, etc. and you don't present yourself as an expert on the Jewish religion, what is your basis for your interest and in these rather obscure and controversial matters of traditional Jewish religious law? And what are the sources for your position supporting this deletion? --Shirahadasha 16:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That took me a little bit just to figure out what you're talking about, as I didn't even remember editing that article. Heh. I'm sorry about that, it appears that I accidentally edited an older version of the article while trying to fix something else. I've put it back to how it was before I edited it. Hope it's back to how it's supposed to be now, and happy editing. —MiraLuka 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:DRVU

I have made a proposal on WP:DRVU that you may find to be of interest. In any case, your comments are welcome. Mackensen (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etc.?

The etc. was because Piper Halliwell has grandchildren now. And her sisters has 3 children each...Big Family. Same goes for the rest of the pages where I added "etc.". --DarkFireTaker

The "etc." just seems a little odd to have when talking about people. I think that we don't need to mention or refer to every single member of her family. —MiraLuka 00:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi MiraLuka/Archive1, thank you for your interest in VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User VandalProof}} (this also places the user box attached) or, [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof|{{PAGENAME}}]] to your user page.

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Glen TC (Stollery) 10:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond Leo Burke

Hi! Iv've noticed that you've reverted a couple of anonymous editors who've made changes to the Burke article. You describe their edits as "biased." The same changes were made again and I was about to revert but looking at the diff I'm not sure the anon edit was biased. I'll leave it alone, but if you think it needs to be reverted, maybe drop a note on the talk page first. Thanks!! TMS63112 16:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried leaving a note on the talk page of one of the IPs, but I'm not sure if that person got it. —MiraLuka 01:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S. This line is the one I find to be the most biased: "insisting that Catholic politicians may not ignore fundamental Catholic values in the exercise of their office" —MiraLuka 01:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
P.P.S. They got my message, I'll try to work it out. —MiraLuka 01:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad that you and the anon user are trying to come to an agreement on language you both find acceptable. I have been continuing to follow the edits myself. Personally, I do not see a lot of difference between most of the language each of you seems to propose. For whatever it is worth, I tend to agree with you that the phrase "may not ignore fundamental Catholic values in the exercise of their office" is a bit too POV. However, I also have a problem with the language about Burke's actions worsening relations with the laity that were already strained by the sex abuse scandal. I don't really see how the sex abuse scandal is directly relevant to the discussion. Including it feels like a POV attempt to tie Burke to the scandal. Perhaps it would be useful for any further discussion to occur at the article's talk page so other users can join in more easily and there can be a record of any consensus that is reached. Thanks! TMS63112 18:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Native speakers of Klingon

Actually, there was one guy who really tried to raise his son as a native speaker of Klingon: Wired article. But there weren't any words for the things a baby/small child needs to talk about ("diaper", "table") so they gave up. Just thought you might like to know this random bit of trivia! :-) FreplySpang 18:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. Thanks for that. :) —MiraLuka 07:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday to you! [1] --Durin 15:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) —MiraLuka 20:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder

Image:Benedict XVI.jpg This is a reminder to go vote by June 7 for the
Catholic Collaboration of the Week.
Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration.

[edit] Userboxes move

Hi MiraLuka,

I noticed you moved some userboxes into your own namespace. I've also seen the explanation page you link to, buy I still think this is insane; most wikipedia contributors don't have any idea of what a naming convention is and why it is useful... as a consequence one is never able to remember how a template is named (is it "language icon" or "languageicon"? or "LanguageIcon"?), now just imagine remembering in what user space it is. Anyway, may I ask you why you removed the category tag from "user single male" and "user single female"? (Please, reply here, I'll watch your page during the discussion) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the categories from the templates themselves because there are strong objections to leaving the categories in the templates. And although I am removing the categories from the actual template, I am in the process of replacing them on all of the pages they were removed from. They will also be available for users right next to the userboxes in my archive. —Mira 18:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for "there are strong objections to leaving the categories in the templates", please? —Gennaro Prota•Talk 19:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[2]: wikipedian categories should be strongly deprecated. let's not encourage them here.
Wikipedia talk:The German solution#Broadly welcome: I feel that use of categories of any kind would be inappropriate except for pretty uncontroversial matters such as Wikipiedians who live in Quebec or Wikipedians who have knowledge of Catalan.
I found those without even trying. I'm sure there are plenty more quotes out there. —Mira 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The point is that a few people have the time to follow these discussions. So it seems they reach unanimous consensus while that's just the consensus of the few people who participated. Anyway, what about having a *single*, conventionally-named user, such as Boxes for all userboxes? —Gennaro Prota•Talk 19:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
See the WP:TGS talk page for thoughts on that idea. —Mira 22:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] w00t

Thanks! E. Sn0 =31337= 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, you're welcome. :) —Mira 18:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Putting Backgrounds on a Page

Hello. I know this seems weird that I am just asking you this question, but I want a answer quickly so I went to the "Recent Changes" and you had just done a edit, so I knew you would get this message quickly. I am the owner of D&D Wiki and I was wondering if their is a way to make a background above words. For example, a image behind text on a page. Am I making sense? If so, is their a way to do this? Please help. --Green-Dragon 19:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you can, and I don't know how one would go about doing it if it's possible. Sorry I can't be of more help. —Mira 19:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh well, thanks anyway. --Green-Dragon 19:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A request

I'm going to request this to every user so please, hear me out. I do recent changes patrol for vandalism and it is very hard to do when users are using the AWB or fast-paced editing to substitute templates for WP:TGS. TGS is good, but when you mass edit it is hard to see vandalism to the userspace. Since there is a function in recent changes to ignore minor edits, could you mark your edits when mass-editing as a minor edit so it is easier for others to find vandalism in Recnt changes. Please consider this method. Thanks! The King of Kings 02:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I most certainly can and will do that. (Assuming, of course, that I don't forget. I have a tendency to do that.) —Mira 02:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think in my preferances, there is a function to where you can mark all your edits as minor edits. I suggest activating this function whenever you start this kind of editing. Thank you so much for taking what I said into consideration. Cheers! The King of Kings 02:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Userbox

Thanks for the warning. I'll change it. --Coredesat 03:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. —Mira 04:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're talking about when you sent me something about userboxes. SilentRage 05:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're using a userbox on your page indicating that you are a single male. This userbox was recently moved, and the link needs to be corrected, as indicated on your talk page. The problem (and the reason I haven't just changed it for you) is that the new link will not work within your Babelbox (the code which starts: {{Babel-X...). You will have to find a new method for organizing your userboxes (or at least that one). I hope that helps at least a little bit, and please come back if you have any other questions. —Mira 05:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with my "wife" userbox? You left me a little note on my edit summary, but I don't understand it. I reverted it back until I hear from you. Thanks.--Mikepope 05:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. - How is one both a Catholic and an atheist?--Mikepope 05:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is actually "wrong" with it, but the link has changed. The link you changed back to will likely be deleted sometime in the future, so I changed it so you can keep your userbox. If you would like to read through a longer explanation of why this is being done, see WP:TGS (or ask me). Hope that explains everything, and let me know if it doesn't. Oh, and I was raised as a Catholic (my mother is one), but I no longer consider myself Catholic. —Mira 06:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.--Mikepope 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too wide?

I just realized that this page may be too wide for people with normal sized monitors (mine is wider than most). If it is, please let me know, and I'll see what I can do about making it narrower. Thanks. —Mira 09:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could just remove the category column and just display the category information on the actual user box page. Also, why is there a border in and around each of the user boxes? It kind of distorts how it looks compared to on your own user page. ~ Wave of Mutilation 03:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
So it is too wide then? I'll work on fixing that, thanks for letting me know. I don't really know why the border is there, I'll see if there's anything I can do about that, but I doubt it. Oh, and categories in the userboxes themselves are a bad idea, and one of the few remaining objections to the existence of userboxes. Having them displayed next to the userboxes, but not in them, allows anyone to add the userbox and the category almost as easily. —Mira 05:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm

Thank you for the edit, magic stranger. I don't know who you are or what your edit did, but I spotted you helping to clean up the UW-Madison page, which makes you A-OK in my book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lemonsawdust (talk • contribs) 4 June 2006, 22:28 (UTC).

Heh, you're welcome. What my edit did was (hopefully) protect your userbox again possible deletion attempts. I know it doesn't look any different, but it should help. —Mira 03:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I took the liberty of ensuring that everyone knows I like pornography, as well. Thanks for userspacing them. Lemonsawdust 04:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that just made my day. —Mira 04:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I go to your school, I hope to see you around. I really could use some tips on making my user page prettier, and you seem like the guy to ask. (Enjoyment of pornography not required ;D ) Lemonsawdust 13:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh, well, did you have anything specific in mind, or just general prettiness? ;) —Mira 06:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I was hoping to get my userboxes organized so they're not a big ridonkulous mess, like they are now. Lemonsawdust 08:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Let's see...one easy way (and the way I use) is to add {{Boxboxtop}} to the top of your list (and remove the <div style... stuff you have there now) and {{Boxboxbottom}} to the end of the list. If you do that, I'd also suggest moving the entire list up to the top of the page - it'll look strange in the edit window, but it'll display better. If that's too long, you could also try chopping them up into sections. —Mira 08:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. You can also use {{Boxboxtop|left}} to display the column on the left or {{Boxboxtop|center}} to display it in the center. —Mira 08:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gotta catch 'em all...

We seem to have taken care of that category rather quickly. Good work :) --Disavian 06:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, almost, I still need to take care of a few. But after that, I'm out of the userbox business. Good luck with the rest! —Mira 07:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Many thanks for the advice. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You moved my pronoun box!!

Thanks! I had no idea this was going on. Fear is the mind killer! — vijay (Talk) 05:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) —Mira 05:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone else who...

Removes all the spam on the Charmed pages. Thanks for that... you wouldn't think one show could attract so many little girls who like to put their fanfiction into articles, or talk about which Charmed boy is the sexiest in the article. Just commenting on your dedication really. :) Zythe 23:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I notice you around a lot too. :) —Mira 01:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you consider adding Category:Wikipedians who like Charmed to your page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zythe (talk • contribs) 13 June 2006, 09:35 (UTC).
Of course! —Mira 21:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Why are you constantly editing my User Page? It does get annoying, seeing that you have made no change to my User page. Weirdy 00:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Hello!

There may not be any visible changes, but if you check the history, you will see that some of your userbox links have been changed. The new links will continue to display with no visible changes, but if the links had not been changed, the userboxes probably would not display correctly. —Mira 03:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TGS becomes GUS

Thank you for being bold! The simple reordering of words prevented my kneejerk reaction from reoccurring; funny thing, that. -- nae'blis (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. —Mira 02:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Hi there, saw your visit to my userpage. I tried to follow the discussion, but as best as I can understand it, you did something useful and helpful, because as I get it, the way userboxes are managed is going to change. Did I get it right? mitchsensei

Yep. Basically, all userboxes are being moved into User: space, and the links will be changing too. I imagine you'll get lots more visits from other users correcting links in the near future. —Mira 19:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
When was this decided? Last time I checked there still was no consensus, and the straw polls I've seen about it did not seem to favour moving the userboxes into user space (though I admit I may not have seen all polls) (And yes I've read Wikipedia:German userbox solution but no I don't agree with it nor do I think it should be implemented without more discussion) -- Hirudo 08:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
There were no straw polls on WP:GUS, and there does seem to be consensus among the users who have participated there to implement the proposal. However, if you have concerns, I (and other users, I'm sure) would be open to hearing them, but I think they would be better placed on the proposal's talk page rather than here. —Mira 09:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Stupid me totally forgot to read the talk page on the proposal's page. While I still think that moving the boxes from template space to a non-centralized location on different user's pages is a bad idea, it seems that the effort is too far underway to stop it. Too bad. Thanks for the quick reply though -- Hirudo 13:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Some semi-centralized directories are quickly forming. This and this are probably the best ones so far. —Mira 22:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the userbox update - much nicer than seeing a bunch of code because something got switched around. ;' ) - Tzaquiel 02:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) —Mira 03:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shemale attraction userbox

Hi there. I've noticed that you added a userbox to the listing at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality. Would you mind if I also included that userbox at User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/Sexuality? —Mira 06:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC) (copied from Dark Tichondrias' talk page 21:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Why would there need to be two userboxes with the same content?--Dark Tichondrias
I think you might have misunderstood me. I don't want to copy the userbox, I just want to add a link to it from my page. —Mira 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC) (copied from Dark Tichondrias' talk page 21:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC))
Adding a link is okay.--Dark Tichondrias
Thank you. Would you mind if I did the same thing with your cross-dressing box? —Mira 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC) (copied from Dark Tichondrias' talk page 21:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC))
I do not mind. You do not have to ask. Link both. --Dark Tichondrias

[edit] AFD

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of relationships with age disparity and please take a side. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 16 June 2006, 11:01 (UTC).

[edit] List of Law & Order episodes (season 16)

You're right, we did go over this. More to the point, you're right I did fail to respond. Unfortunate of me, and I apologise unreservedly. Not appropiate of me to do slow-motion revert warring like that.
brenneman {L} 09:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No apology needed, really. I am still willing to talk about this if you like... As I was writing that, a random thought occurred to me. Maybe there's some kind of episode guide at the "official" Law & Order site. Would that kind of link be more acceptable? I'll go look to see if something like that exists. —Mira 09:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's one from NBC.com. [3] —Mira 09:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm very happy with that. Thanks for being flexible. - brenneman {L} 09:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I'm glad we've found a solution we both are happy with. —Mira 09:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding category designation to userbox

MiraLuka, it is common to have a userbox add a category as part of the userbox. When there is an applicable category, why wouldn't you want to have it added automatically? After all, if you are adding the userbox, you have already put yourself in the category. In this case: User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User straight. Thanks! DavidBailey 03:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of user categories in userboxes is controversial, and as one of the major reasons for the implementation of WP:GUS is to avoid controversy, I think it is better that categories stay out of userboxes. However, the categories are listed at User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/Sexuality right next to the userboxes, and I added the category to all pages which were using the userbox before the category was removed.
P.S. There is a related discussion going on at the talk page of WP:GUS that you may be interested in. —Mira 03:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User heterosexual

I was wondering why you added Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians to my userpage separately instead of incorporating it in the template itself as is standard practice. This creates problems with organisation. If there is no particular problem, I'll add the category to the template. Loom91 07:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, I see your reaons. Loom91 07:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop

Do not edit any user pages, ever, especially not mine. Continue to do it again and I will have you reported for vandalism. Have a great day. :) Drakky 06:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but simply editing a page is not vandalism. Please see WP:OWN and WP:USER. —Mira 13:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, I repeat, please do not edit any userpage without any permission whether it's a vandalism or not. Drakky 21:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
And I repeat, there is nothing that prohibits me from editing user pages. I am making minor changes which have no effect on how the pages display (and in fact, if I did not edit the pages, certain userboxes would disappear from them). I fail to see the problem, and those people who have anything to say about it are either pleased or indifferent. —Mira 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing that prohibits you from editing user pages. However, your removing the category from the template and adding it (in the wrong place, I might add) directly to the user's page is changing the display of the user's pages. That is disruptive. If you're going to do that, you should have made a separate copy of the template for your own use without the category. (The category will almost certainly be deleted shortly, anyway, but your changes make it more difficult to do that.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
How does that change the display of user pages? Perhaps it changes the order the categories appear in, but that's so minor as to not even be worth mentioning, and certainly not disruptive. I think it would be more disruptive to not place the cateogries on the pages. And please see WP:GUS. The goal is not for me to have my own private copies of userboxes, but to move all userboxes to user space. —Mira 02:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand it, myself, but it did change the display. Perhaps, with proper (sandbox) expirementation, you can find out why. (Besides, the categories are probably to be deleted, anyway. Migrating them out of the userbox makes it more difficult.) (I don't have access to spell check, as my Internet Explorer was infected, and I haven't installed a spell check in Opera yet.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you give me a link to a page where the display was changed? I don't really know what you're talking about. —Mira 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The future of Wiki userboxes

Just to let you know, Category:Wikipedians by politics is under discussion to be deleted from the WIKI users. This could affect other WIKI user interests in the near future. This may spill over into user religion, hobbies etc affecting userboxes. See my talk page on this. JungleCat 21:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
WCWM
Cultural geography
Phantom of the Paradise
Red Rabbit
Eric Dane
First-order predicate
Annie Parisse
Leigh-Allyn Baker
Z-order (curve)
Dorian Gregory
Dean Winters
Leslie Hendrix
Paul Guilfoyle
Female Trouble
Roz Weston
Diane Neal
The Doom Generation
The Great Raid
J. K. Simmons
Cleanup
The Cardinal of the Kremlin
CW Television Network
Safe trade
Merge
Middle Low German
Pre-order
Pre-order incentive
Add Sources
Frito pie
Our Town
Banned films
Wikify
Stephen Macht
Keith Douglas
Philip Delaporte
Expand
Z-order
List of Little Penguin colonies
IntelliStar

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to my userpage

Thank you for your attempt to help with my userpage. Please, however, observe the request on my page stating:

"Please do not edit my userpage to remove, subst, edit, bypass redirects on, or otherwise change userboxes. Contact me on my talk page if you would like to discuss this."

I have therefore reverted your edit; please do not reinstate it. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I did not notice your request, however, I edited about 500 pages for that userbox alone. I don't have time to look at every page as I go through. Again, sorry. —Mira 01:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC) (copied from Stifle's talk page 01:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] WP:GUS

Thanks for Moving TGS -> GUS We need people like you, Thanks --E-Bod 01:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. —Mira 01:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your userbox is back to its normal Template:User heterosexual

I've changed the template back to what it was. Please do not edit my page, nor revert my edit on the template. Pronoun 09:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this related to a suggestion for deletion? I'm a newbie, someone suggested the userbox as an AfD, and for a while I edited my article believing my Userpage was being AfD'd. Cruel joke. Demf 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me. Pronoun 14:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you are unhappy with my edit to your page, but you may wish to review WP:OWN and WP:USER. There is nothing prohibiting me from editing your user page, and I was in fact helping by correcting a link. If you would prefer not to use that userbox, however, that is your choice, and I will not change it again. But please do not change pages such as that to redirects. A large number of people are using that link on their user pages. If you disagree with the fact that the userbox has moved, please see and add to the discussion at WP:GUS. —Mira 23:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC) (copied from Pronoun's talk page 23:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Thanks

I'm not sure what you did about the userbox (trying to improve it?), but thanks. Do you mind if I copy some of your userboxes onto my pages? --Lux 06:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Although the display did not change, the userbox you were using was moved to a new location. I corrected the link you were using from the old location to the new one. And yes, please do use the userboxes I am hosting, that's what they're for. :) —Mira 14:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to my page

Adding a "category gay wikipedians" to my user page is, at best, in poor taste. And in any case, it is false. Your note on the that edit said that it didn't change the display, this is wrong, it adds the category. Nahaj 13:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The category was previously tied into the userbox, so you have been in the category all along, whether you noticed or not. —Mira 14:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I walked through the history, the category explicitly appears at the bottom of the page only between the time you added it and the time I removed it, so it clearly did affect the display of the page. The third party vandalism to the boxes on the page didn't seem to affect the categories at the bottom, and (as a matter of verifiable fact from the history) did NOT add "gay wikipedians" to the displayed category list. YOUR edit, on the other hand DID add that to the category list displayed at the bottom of the page. (Falsifying your edit comment that you didn't change the display.) I also note that rather than adding the category at the top where I have mine (one line below the box edit you did) you put it burried down in the "logic" section instead. Nahaj 21:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I notice that Arthur Rubin (above) already pointed out to you the issue of the display of categories pointed to by user boxes not being the same as explicitly putting the category on the user page. A simple walk through the history verifies the case with your edits on his page also. Nahaj 22:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I just looked at your page's history. I'm sorry for perpetuating the vandalism that had occurred, however, I had no way of knowing that it was in fact vandalism at the time.
I just tested the category, at my sandbox, and adding the old userbox (with the category in it) does also add the category to my page. A look at that page in the history after the category has been removed from the userbox, however, does not show the category. I don't really know why, but there it is. As for the location of the category, I use AWB to assist in these edits. It has a function that allows the addition of categories to pages. These categories are automatically added to the bottom of the page. I wasn't trying to bury anything. And as far as I recall, I have made no edits to Arthur Rubin's page. —Mira 00:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to say "Authur Rubin's example", not his page. It is understandable that you didn't know my page was vandalised. However, if you had not added an explicit category my removeal of the obvious vandalism from the box would have fixed the problem. (Instead of having to go through the history and see what you had done) Note that the AWB pages says "AutoWikiBrowser is not an automatic bot — edits made using this software are the responsibility of the editor using it" But that's water under the bridge... and I'll believe you acted in good faith. Nahaj 01:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason I have been adding categories is that I'm sure the vast majority of the users who had that box on their pages were using it legitimately, and I think they'd all get upset if their category suddenly disappeared. Again, please accept my apologies. —Mira 01:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SaturnYoshi

Hello. I noticed that you changed something with my userboxes on my user page. I'm not here to yell at you, or to tell you to stop it, or anything like that. I just want to know what it was exactly you did so I can have a better understanding of how things work on Wikipedia. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia still, and any knowledge I can gather will help me for when I edit pages and possibly even start my own one day. I can tell that you are doing a good job and you should keep it up. I appreciate what you do to make thing better and I hope to hear from you soon. Take care. SaturnYoshi|TALK 08:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. What I did was change the link that you are using on your page, because the userbox you were using was moved. For example, compare Template:User lesbian to User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User lesbian. Formerly, the first box would display the same way as the second. Now, it quite obviously does not. Whichever box you were using (I've edited too many user pages recently to remember which one it was) would have ended up looking like Template:User lesbian if I hadn't edited your page. I hope that helps to explain what I did, and please feel free to ask any other questions you may have. —Mira 14:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If you are interested in why the userbox you are using has been moved, I think WP:GUS explains it better than I can. —Mira 14:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babel bifurcation

Hey, MiraLuka, What's the deal on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userbox location straw poll#Languages? You look like a split-personality with no place to go! . But seriously folks, I'd be interested to see more of what you have in mind for Babel boxes. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 16:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I like those smileys. I think what I had in mind was simply this: Babel templates would be acceptable to me in either Wikipedia or Template namespace. Thinking again, I suppose Template space would be better, if only because the are already located there, but if someone would be willing to do the work, I would have no problem seeing them somehow moved over to Wikipedia space (possibly under Wikipedia:Babel). —Mira 02:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I figured as much. I was just trying to prod you into posting a comment there. Rfrisbietalk 15:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Duh. Silly me. Posting over there. —Mira 04:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polyamorous userbox

Thanks for working on User:Xoder/Userboxes/Polyamorous, I really appreciate the attempt for a standardized look and feel to the sexuality-ish boxes. I'm going to add a category to the box, and I was wondering if you knew how to prevent it from adding the category to every page its on (i.e. the Userbox list page) without losing those pages' ability to sync with the original? Thanks. — Xoder|✆ 15:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you for your kind words. To be honest, I'm really not sure how one would do that or even if it is possible. However, I would encourage you not to add a category to the userbox (especially if you have to make a new one, I haven't looked to see if there is one). The use of categories in userbox templates, even in user space, is controversial, and in fact the categories themselves are controversial and probably (for good or ill) headed for deletion. It might just end up being a waste of time. —Mira 04:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would have been nice

Hey, noticed you removed an image on my userpage. I appreciate the reason; I would have also appreciated a note on my talk page that you changed my userpage though. Unnoted changes to my userpage risk being reverted without question. Anyways, please don't change my userpage without mentioning it on my talk page. BigNate37 00:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This page, although it is not mine, has a wonderful explanation of why it is simply not cost-efficient to leave talk page notes in these cases. —Mira 01:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
While I understand that it takes longer to actually leave a sentence about it, bear in mind that faster editing in and of itself does not imply better editing. This is especially so when leaving an explanation prevents future inquiry or edit wars. People also appreciate being told why their userpage was changed instead of having to ask why to even be pointed at a FAQ. I don't want an apology or an arguement, I'm simply letting you know that I tend to feel justified in blindly reverting edits to my userpage that aren't accompanied by a note on the talk page; I don't feel that this is too much trouble to ask. Off the top of my head I think that there's a Wikipedia guideline somewhere that mentions to leave a message on the talk page if you feel your edits are likely to be reverted. BigNate37 02:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Wow, you archive fast. Just wanted to say thanks, looks like you're taking the time to better explain the changes you've been making in regards to userboxes of late. I honestly think it is a positive difference for those whose pages you edit. Anyways, I see you're caught up with a dispute at Erika Steinbach. It seems like User:Donnog is being rather brash; good luck in your discussions there and be careful not to stoop to the level of those whom you disagree with. BigNate37 02:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, sorry about the archiving, it's the neat freak in me. And yes, I've been motivated (because of comments made by you and others) to leave more descriptive edit summaries and links to pages with even more info. With regards to the dispute, I'm trying to be sure I don't cross the line. The time I spent away from Wikipedia today helped me come back with a clear head. —Mira 06:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin

I'm well aware of the fact that Latin is not always written in all caps. I studied Latin in college, and it would definitely have been a pain if the Latin in the textbook had been written in all caps. Likewise, when writing out long things like sections of the Latin Mass or verses from the Vulgate, or even legal phrases, it is perfectly sensible, and preferable, to write using both upper and lowercase letters as in English. My point is twofold. First, in the ancient world, Latin was traditionally written in all caps. My Latin professor showed us copies of ancient texts, and they didn't even have spaces or punctuation. The Romans did not have lowercase letters. I have been to Rome, and while I needed no convincing, I have seen for myself that all Latin text there is written in all caps. Plaques, inscriptions, descriptions, etc. They are all written in all caps, and not all of them date back to the Roman Empire, although they are plenty old. All around the perimeter inside St. Peter's Basilica is Latin text, and inside the dome is text from the Vulgate. And it is all in caps. Which leads into my second point, which is that, while it is normal and preferable to write long Latin passages in capital and lowercase letters, short stand-alone phrases are often written in all caps, especially when not contained in a long passage. As I have said all along, look at the seal. From what I have seen, "Numen Lumen" is not displayed much on the Wisconsin campus except in the seal, but other schools, such as my alma mater, have their Latin mottos inscribed on many or all buildings. And they are written in all caps, not upper and lowercase letters. So don't tell me that I don't know how to write Latin.

Now, that said, I'm tired of fighting about this. It's simply not worth my time, so I'm simply going to leave it in upper and lowercase and not waste my time on it anymore. However, I hope you'll consider what I've said and understand my position. If the motto were in the middle of a paragraph, like I quoted it above, I completely agree that it should not be in all caps. But in an infobox like I've been editing, I look at it as if it were written on the side of a building or on the seal, and I think it's appropriate to put it in all caps. You're entitled to disagree, but I hope you'll at least respect my position. My belief that the motto should be "set off" from the translation is also a matter of reasonable disagreement.

(Btw, when I made the initial "dude, seriously" comment, it was because that guy had previously accused a similar edit-to-all-caps of shouting, and I was frustrated at his failure to understand that all caps isn't always shouting, although it can be. I should have been more clear, like I was in my subsequent edit.) --24.196.82.58 18:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you think the discussion about this is finished, and that's fine. After all, I as much as said I was done with it in my post. But I would have appreciated at least a brief response. --24.196.82.58 22:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What kind of reply were you looking for? —Mira 08:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. I guess just whether you understand what I said and agree with it, and if not why. It's not a big deal. It just surprised me that you didn't respond, especially since it appeared from your talk page rules that you generally do. --24.196.82.58 20:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I hear and understand what you said, but we are not in ancient Rome, and I don't feel we should write like we are. By the way, my talk page rules don't mean I'll respond to every post (although I usually do), they mean that if I do respond, I'll likely do it here. —Mira 20:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:User templates

Hello there...would you be willing to help me get the User templates category cleaned up a bit? After categorization I will be looking to get rid of all duplicates...Are any of yours duplicates of those already in existance elsewhere?
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 21:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I am willing to help when and how I can. I tend to work on things in little chunks, so I'll probably do the same here. As for the userboxes I'm hosting in my space, a handful are duplicates, but I'm also slowly getting those deleted so that the templates that are actually in template space can be moved over. And now that I think of it, I don't think that any of my duplicate userboxes are in the category. —Mira 00:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just noticed your mergeto

I'm very glad to see another fellow Wikipedian interested in enhancing the Star Wars articles into encyclopedic articles without loads of "battle" articles and maintaining lists for future encyclopedic pushes (and cruft containment ^_^). Have you joined the Star Wars WikiProject, which is being geared toward cruft reduction and encyclopedic enhancement?

Also, I noticed your work on the Galaxies page, very nice start. — Deckiller 05:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your kind words and invitation. After poking around the project for a while (there's sure a lot of stuff there), I think that I will join and see what I can do to help. —Mira 06:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veronica Lueken

I got a request about the vandalizing of the Veronica Lueken article. First: I did ask the individual doing the vandalism to put any concerns, etc., on the discussion section and if the individual would please get a wikipedia account. Second: I told User:Caribeu (? not sure of the exact spelling of name) to get ahold of an administrator. I hope this helps. Thank you-RFD 11:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, just wondering why you left the [above] message on my talk page. I've added the article to my watchlist and have done some work on it now, but I don't understand why I got the message in the first place. —Mira 22:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi! You probably have more experience with vandalism and people who change articles without expressing their concerns, etc., then I have. You probably have more experience with handling vandalism then I have like blocking them. Thanks-RFD 22:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, thank you for your kind words. As I said, I will continue to monitor the page to make sure everything is okay. But I can't block people, you'll need an administrator for that. For anything else, though, please feel free to contact me. —Mira 02:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (copied from RFD's talk page 04:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Removing category from userbox

Can I ask why you removed the category from User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User androgynousonline? --mboverload@ 08:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User:Shayl/Changing user pages:

"Many userboxes contain user categories. These categories are controversial in and of themselves, and their use in userboxes is even more so. To avoid controversy, I remove categories from those userboxes I work on, and replace those categories on the individual user pages. There should be no change in the display of your page."

And note that although the category has been removed from the box, it has been replaced on all pages that were using it, and it appears right next to the box for easy use at User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/Sexuality. —Mira 08:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, ok. Feel free to remove this message. --mboverload@ 08:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Narrow Userbox

Hi. From your edit, it seems I should explain what I am doing by deleting the userboxes in my user space. Basically, I'm trying to preserve the history of the page, because I intially created the userboxes as copies of those existing in template space. By deleting the copies I made, I am able to move the original userboxes into place, thus preserving the history. You just seem to have caught one of the userboxes in its in-between state, where I hadn't yet gotten around to moving the template box into user space. I hope the explains what I'm doing, and please feel free to leave me a note on my talk page if it doesn't, but I'd also like to ask you to refrain from performing edits of this nature. While I do not doubt this was done in good faith, it complicates the process. Thank you. —Mira 08:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (copied from Phil Boswell's talk page 09:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

Sorry about that, I must have blundered through at an awkward time. The reason I added something to that UB was that it was creating a red-link on a page I was fixing under WP:GUS and there was no explanation as to why it had been deleted. So I simply posted an explanation of why there was no content, rather than using {{deletedpage}} as I have been doing with those which were deleted for more egregious faults. I'll keep a look out for this situation in future, although there must be some way to leave a note to the effect of "deleted for merging purposes"…if I find a good method I'll drop you a note. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, I understand. And if you do find some way to place a note on the page, please do let me know. It would be useful, although I hope to be done with the "mistake" userboxes soon. —Mira 09:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (copied from Phil Boswell's talk page 09:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] SWG Emu

The SWG page SHOULD have an Emulation snippit about it. It's related to SWG as much as the Ultima Online Free Shards are. It is related to the topic and you dont have a right to censor it! I want to know why you did. Its important to be said, because it speaks also of the growing setiment of the older veterans leaving because of the controversial NGE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolfofwar (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I "censored" nothing. I removed irrelevant information from the article. I don't see that this SWGEmu warrants a mention on the page, when it doesn't even work yet. If and when it begins operating, then I could see a very brief mention going into the article. Until then, it's just a fantasy that may never come true. I would also recommend reading through Talk:Star Wars: Galaxies, where this has been discussed several times before.
P.S. You can (and should) sign your comments by typing ~~~~ after each one. This helps keep track of who said what in a discussion. —Mira 18:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You have no authority nor right to censor (yes, you are engaging in censorship) the article, and the SWGEmu project most definately is relevant to the article. There have been videos, screenshots, and even the announcement of the opensourcing of the CORE server of the project. From many of your comments, it seems as though you work for SOE -- and I will continue to revert your censorship as I see fit, until Jimbo himself tells me otherwise. Ameise -- chat 02:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is it a dictatorship, Antman. We determine things via policy and consensus. For this issue, I will agree with Mira unless proof and citation can be found that shows this emulation project is significant enough to be noted in an encyclopedia. — Deckiller 02:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No, I am not engaging in "censorship", as I said, information on SWGEmu can be added if it can be independently proved that it actually works. You may be interested in reading Wikipedia:Free speech and WP:NOT. And no, I don't work for SOE, however I did work with them as a correspondent until I left the game. —Mira 02:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Mira has proof; the project has screenshots, videos, and other information -- what else do you want, a functional binary? Because I am fairly certain that the Galaxies article was up before it was released. Ameise -- chat 02:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I do not have proof, I have yet to see a direct link to anything other than a forum. And I don't think mere proof that the project exists means it warrants mention here. There are many projects and ideas that are not worth including in Wikipedia; see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —Mira 02:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
However, your opinions do not qualify as community consensus. Here are some direct links for you:
I could also list quite a few AVI mirrors, but I will only list one:
Ameise -- chat 02:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I Infact had added a link to the working alpha test of the server (which you can already move around in, use the chat, has working animation and movement.) and the fact that over 5,000 people are involved in the community makes it a significant effort over some small emu with like 2 people interested in it. It is also important, and directly related to Star Wars Galaxies in not only the aspects of the game itself (seeing it is an Emu of the Pre-NGE) but also of the controversy of the NGE (in which the game lost most of its fanbase) and shows that the dedicated veteran fanbase is trying to bring it back. I see no point in CENSORING the Emu. It is relavent, an active, progressive project, with a large base of people, and links, citations, pictures, and videos. It needs to be on there, or we should just make a new article solely dedicated to it. But I have a feeling theres people on this site that will delete it. (WolfofWar)

Would you stop with the censorship thing already? No one is censoring anything.—Mira 02:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Warning: you are two reverts away from breaking the Three revert rule. This notice is being posted to all affiliated parties. — Deckiller 02:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Two away, huh? :D Don't worry, I'll be careful. —Mira 02:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You'll be dead! (quote) I'm one away, but the day will still be mine! Ameise -- chat 02:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Erm...okay, have fun with that. —Mira 02:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charmed template

Hi! I think we have to create specific pages for the powers as depicted on the series and not use the existing articles, because they are portrayed a bit differently. They did it on Buffy, and Charmed has way more powers than the former. Also, I think someone should create articles for the different angels on the show (to fall under neutral beings, i.e. angel of deaths, of destiny, etc; muses); a demons article separate from the evil beings article; stand-alone entries on fictional establishments/settings like Magic School, i.e. the Manor, the Underworld, the Bay Mirror, Bucklands, etc. I'd be willing to help. - User:Asnallar 20:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you discuss this on the main Charmed talk page before going ahead and doing this. We want to avoid fancruft as much as we can. —Mira 20:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC) (copied from Asnallar's talk page 20:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Warning

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Donnog 22:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Hahahahahahahahahahaha. And who are you going to find to block me? —Mira 22:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
In retrospect, I feel I should explain that comment for future reference. First off, it was made in the heat of the moment, and I probably shouldn't have said anything. Secondly, what I was doing was not vandalism, I was involved in a content dispute at Erika Steinbach. —Mira 01:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox Request

I was wanting to know if I could request some userboxes covering masculinism, which could be included in your sexuality list. ISD 10:20, 9 July 2006.

I'd be happy to help, but I need a few more details. If you want an image, please provide a link. If you want specific colors, let me know what they are, otherwise I'll choose the colors. Lastly, what do you want the userbox to say? "This user supports..." or "This user is..." are the usual forms. —Mira 09:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I was wanting to use the Image:Male.svg. The caption I want to go with it is, "This user is a masculinist." I'm not fussy about the colour, you can pick the colour which best goes with it. ISD 14:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is what I came up with {{User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User masculinist}}. If you don't like the colors, I can change them (or you can too). —Mira 13:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems fine. The only problem I have with it is that the blue link is somewhat hard to read over the dark brown background. ISD 15:11, 9 July 2006. (UTC)
How's that? —Mira 14:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
That's much better. Thanks very much! ISD 15:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Permission

My permission to edit my user page would be nice before you go around adding things like female wikipedian and user box amendments. In the future please consult me first before modifying my user page and maybe I dont want to be catagorised with other female wikipedians.--Lucy-marie 14:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've offended you, but if you read the page you originally posted on, you would note that all pages, even user pages, are owned by the community. Permission is not required to edit them. I would also note that you were already in Category:Female Wikipedians, whether you noticed it or not. The userbox used to add you to that category automatically, but it no longer does so. That's why I added your page to the category manually. There was no visible change to your page with my edit. —Mira 21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thats not the point it may be that usre pages are owned by the community but I could argue that you are a vandal. As you have modified something without the permisiion of the whole community or the principle editor of the page. A courtesy to the user would be to ask first other people have asked and I have granted permission. You are just rude and unilateral.--Lucy-marie 21:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Have you actually read through the the page you originally posted on? I ask because I want to be sure we are both on the same page here. Requesting permission of the "whole community" to do something is simply not possible, and the proposal to move userboxes to user space has achieved wide consensus. The page I have linked toexplains why it is not feasible to leave a message on every talk page of every user whose page I edit. Lastly, if you agree that the display of your page did not change, then why be upset? —Mira 21:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I have read your front page and I understand exactly what you are saying, but are you sure that what you are doing by using your computer packages and editing hundreds of pages all simultaneously is really the best way to make friends with people, and not just ruffle the feathers of more people like me who are irritated by people like you. people like you who think they have a divine right to force whatever they want to do on to other people. It should be put into a public discussion forum and the people who agree with what you are doing should either give you permission to carry on with what you are doing or to do it themsleves and the people who disagree with what you are doing should give you there names and you should not edit there pages. People who have not left any comment should have a notice posted on there pages informing them of what you are doing and invite them to either agree or disagree with what you are doing within a set period of time. After that if they have left no comment then you can go ahead with your edits.--Lucy-marie 12:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
While you definetely make some valid points, I think this whole issue has been blown out of proportion. MiraLuka was trying to improve the quality of Wikipedia, which is what we are all striving for. I can understand that you disagree with someone else editing your userpage without asking you first, and a note on their talk page is a good idea, so they know. This has been done, the changes have been reverted by yourself, and MiraLuka has some feedback about how he may like to alter his editing methods for the next time. While userpages are not the property of the individual, it often feels like an invasion of privacy to see someone else has edited it, especially without your permission. I think you both have explained your reasoning in great enough detail that you understand eachother, so hopefully from here we can see productive editing of Wikipedia that we are here to do. Regards, --Ali K 13:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Can i please have a coment from the person I was originally talking too. I thank you for your input and would be more than willing with your help to open the debate up further. This would enable a broad concensus to be reached about improving the editing of wikipedia.--Lucy-marie 16:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the issue was opened for discussion at WT:GUS, where it achieved enough support to be implemented. If you want to open the debate up further, you may want to post there. I will say that I just don't have time to leave notes on the talk pages of everyone using a userbox, otherwise I would. There were almost 500 using the female box alone. And a list of people who do not want their pages edited wouldn't work either, because I really don't even look at which page I'm editing as I go through, I just check to be sure it's a user page. However, if you have a suggestion for writing a more informative edit summary, I'm open to it. —Mira 20:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I am open to writing a more informative editing summary and would like to recive as much input as i can from as many diffrent sources as possible so as I can mak the best and most informed use of the information avaliable.To create a working piece of work. I want to be able to make an implimentable and easy to use edit summary.--Lucy-marie 22:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Erm, what? —Mira 01:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It just isn't polite to edit other people's userpages. You shouldn't do it unless there has been a large community consensus on something such as deleting a specific userbox. Otherwise don't do it! Concentrate on editing articles, not annoying others by editing their userpages. --huntersquid 22:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone finds it impolite. You can see the thank you messages right alongside the complaints, both here and in the archives. And let me ask you one question: Would you rather that your userbox turn into a red link? Because that's what will happen unless your page is edited. —Mira 22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
O.K. I can clearly see what was meant to be me having a little dig has bown up into a full scale war. Lets move back from the abyss and have a rational full and frank debate without personal attacks, rude or inappropriate comments. This would determine the public opinion and concensous on the issue and clear up any controversies. I do not want to be redirected to the German Userbox solution talk page at all. I want a whole new debate on the issue. Please carefully consider my proposaly.--Lucy-marie 22:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see what is wrong with discussing this at WT:GUS, where more people will see. Otherwise, I think it will end up being a debate between you and me. —Mira 03:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{user childfree}}

Hi Cyde, I noticed that you deleted this page because the userbox there was moved to user space. While I don't dispute this action, I wonder if you could restore the page temporarily so that I can use AWB on the pages linking to there to change the links to the new location. I wouldn't need it up for more than hour, if that. Please let me know. —Mira 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (copied from Cyde's talk page 17:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

N.B., WP:AWB can still use what links here on deleted pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template%3AUser_childfree). — xaosflux Talk 02:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I can see the "what links here", but I can't seem to get AWB to work on it... —Mira 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the request? This is working perfectly for me. If it's already moved to userspace, just change all of those links to point to the userspace location. --Cyde↔Weys 03:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (copied from Cyde's talk page 17:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
Maybe that's not it then. But AWB tells me that nothing links there. I don't get it... —Mira 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (copied from Cyde's talk page 17:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
Well then, just recreate the page with some nonsense content long enough to do your replacement work, and then tag it for speedy deletion once you're done. --Cyde↔Weys 04:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (copied from Cyde's talk page 17:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
I think I foobared something along the way. Argh. Jaguara 04:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Another user restored it, and that seems to have worked. Thanks for suffering through my cluelessness. —Mira 05:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (copied from Cyde's talk page 17:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
Hey, I don't know what exactly you did other than restoring the page, but it worked. I just switched all the links to the new location. As one last housekeeping thing, could you tag the page for deletion with {{db-author}}? And if you ever need any help with this sort of thing again, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks. —Mira 05:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (copied from Jaguara's talk page 17:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
Hee.. I duped the template of the userbox I made. {{user childfree}} is tagged and I made a summary about userfy/German Solution. Jaguara 05:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My user page

Why are you doing things to my user page? --Michael Johnson 05:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read through User:Shayl/Changing user pages (which I linked to in my edit summary). If you have further questions, I will try my best to answer them. —Mira 05:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Male/Female controversial?

I could see how MBTI boxes might be controverisal and thus need migration, but male and female? Has the UBX problem really spiraled down to that level? Wow. Hbdragon88 07:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's really controversial, I just grabbed all the userboxes off of the former Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality and started migrating. —Mira 07:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another userbox fan speaks

I just wanted to thank you for the bit of userbox work you did on my page. I think this is a great idea because I really like userboxes, and I'd like to keep the ones I have (and have the option to change them in the future), but frankly I'm too lazy to start making such changes myself. I'll be adding the "User DEUTSCH" box to my page, and I've added your "other" userboxes page to my watchlist. Keep up the good work! - Ugliness Man 13:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. —Mira 19:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the recent edit you made to User:Vesther

I should really point out that I'm a Mac User (if you are aware of it), and I don't use AWB like other Wikipedians do, because AWB is likely a Windows-only code to use for Wikipedia, and I felt that the changes were only minor, and the explanation should've been listed mainly as a bug/syntax fix, so in the future, I appreciate if you list any bug/syntax/template/redirect fixes as being "bug fixes" because in the past, I've listed all of my syntax fixes as "bug fixes" and as "minor fixes". I don't mind you having to do any bug fixes on my page, but I appreciate if you list the edit as minor and as "bug fixes" that would certainly help that you are really doing those bug/syntax fixes. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well first off, you're right, that should have been marked as minor, I must have unchecked the box or something, sorry about that. Secondly, I don't understand what you mean by "bug fixes." You want me to use "bug fixes" as my edit summary? Because something tells me that not many people would find that informative. —Mira 21:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
A Bug Fix, in Wikipedia lingo, can apply to fixing some sort of link error, wikicoding error, and/or redirect error (Example of your edits) to ensure that the syntax used won't result in any accidental redirects and/or broken link errors, or in the worst case, result in a horrible wikiarticle appearance. It can also be called a Syntax Fix as well, which was the case with the edit example I'm listing. Hope this clears up the confusion...— Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 23:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been here a while, and I've never heard that term used. Are you sure it's "Wikipedia lingo"? Anyway, I think the edit summary I currently use is more informative than simply "bug fixes." —Mira 01:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It may not be Wikipedia lingo, but preferrably, a generic term used to describe the minor edit you did in my user page, since I deemed it to be more like of a "bug/syntax fix". Just about every Wikipedian probably did some Bug and/or Syntax fixing as a minor edit at some point of their tenures somehow... I'm just gonna stop talking about it and not debate any further, as you will soon learn that people's takes in minor edits differ from other's points-of-view, as I really appreciate the bug fix you did on my page (as I never knew about the bug). — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I told you that I meant it to be minor, and there was no bug... —Mira 03:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the info

Thanks for the info, Mira! I'm so sorry I've been on Wikibreak and will be so for some time. I can only do some minor edits once in a while but not prolonged work. I'll be back though but not soon. Lafem 02:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:GUS

Let me get this straight on the German Userbox Solution. If I create a userbox, it gets attributed to ME?--M W Johnson 06:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I understand the question... —Mira 07:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why you have removed Greek Dodekatheism Userboxes?

In the userboxes Ideas page, If not, explain me your reasons?.--User:Atenea26. 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry you put they in new userboxes, Then thanks ; )--User:Atenea26. 15:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, just moving them to the right place, that's all. :) —Mira 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thanks for creating my proposed userbox for WikiProject Cetaceans! --Gray Porpoise 16:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. —Mira 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted templates

Template:User Soft Butch, Template:User SOFFA, Template:User Lipstick, Template:User HRC, Template:User Gender Equality, Template:User androgynous-online, Template:User bifemale, Template:User bimale, Template:User boi, Template:User androgynous, Template:User ally, Template:User transsexual, Template:User queerrights, Template:User queer-4, Template:User male2

These templates have been deleted, as requested.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. —Mira 06:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Phew!  (aeropagitica)  (talk) 
Heh, I'm sorry about all the work, these probably should have been deleted one at a time, when I was finished with each. —Mira 06:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ohio Wesleyan University WikiProject

Thanks for alerting me about the fairuse images appearing in the userboxes. Your help in making it consistent with the fairuse policies is greatly appreciated! WikiprojectOWU 11:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. —Mira 17:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Thanks but no thanks

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the page Template:User married will be deleted shortly. If you choose not to accept my edit, that's up to you, but please reconsider. —Mira 05:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) (copied from Pv7721's talk page 17:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for your edit that wanted to help, I've seen that the template has been removed, so I simply removed it from my Babel! :) --Vlad|-> 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox maintenance

I appreciate the work you're doing to clean up the userfied userbox syntax but leaving the "you are free to edit this page" disclaimer on the talk pages is unnecessary, as that applies to every single page on Wikipedia by site policy and the GFDL anyway. It's also in the General disclaimer and as text on every single edit page. --Cyde↔Weys 18:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I answered this on the feminism userbox as well, but I'll answer here. I put that on there because I find that people are often hesitant to edit user pages. I'm hoping a reminder that they can edit anything will stop the hesitation. —Mira 19:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UWindsor userbox

The time and effort I used to make the image for the University of Windsor box is no different than the ones for Queen's or U of Waterloo. Thus, the image was retagged and re-inserted, after reading your direction to Durin's page, I think you guys are so way off the legal path it gets scary. Policies are not enforcable by a cabal of freelance admins. Who is Durin and yourself, that you have such certainity you have insight to copyright law? you guys need to offer some valid case law, or statute, or reference to binding arbitration or judicial opinion or whatever, cause otherwise you sound like a bunch drunks in a corner bar or jailhouse inmate in the 'law library'.--Mikerussell 18:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from personal attacks, thank you. I freely admit I have little knowledge of copyright law, however, my edits were based off of Wikipedia policy, which prohibits fair use images from being used anywhere other than articles. —Mira 19:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I'm not an administrator. —Mira 19:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You should work to avoid personalizing comments as 'personal attacks' and listen closer to what others are saying and how you are responding in turn. The 'personal attack' is a vaild analogy to how persons ill-suited to dispense with legal opinions feel free to act as experts. If you are easily offended, I apologize. Nevertheles, you seem to completely miss the point. Whether or not it is a policy is not the issue, passing the buck is hardly a useful way of coping with fellow wiki editors. why not observe what you are doing before editing others work based on a self-appointed police authority. Learning about the reasons why a policy exists is just as important as carrying through a flawed patrolling. --Mikerussell 23:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've missed the point again...what is so "flawed" about what I did? Mira 00:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You deleted a valid image.--Mikerussell 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't delete anything, but I did remove an image that was tagged as fair use from a location where fair use images are not allowed. —Mira 02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the you miss the point, but it is getting to be a waste of time. I would ask that you respect the contribution of others, as much as you value your own power to exact policy mandates. Generally speaking, this Talk section, and the 'article' you use to 'explain' your 'reasoning' via link to User:Durin/Removal of fair use images threaten the continued contribution of readers/editors who spend time trying to make the wikipedia better for all users. A person who enforces policies has no greater right to assert they are helping wikipedia then one who disagrees with the policy. Tty to be more of a creative force than a puppet of the policy. Do you even have any reason to care about the University of Windsor's Userbox or logo? Oh right, sorry- enforcing policy. --Mikerussell 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I think I see now. You have a problem with the policy. In that case, I suggest you go to the policy talk page and see if you can convince people to change it. I have made no assertion that I am helping Wikipedia more or less than anyone else, and I don't believe that I have threatened anyone's contributions. If you succeed in getting the policy changed, please come back and let me know. Until then, I will continue to remove fair use images from non-article pages. —Mira 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/r/User_talk%7EMiraLuka_Archive1_3622.html"