User talk:NThurston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archive 1

Contents

[edit] Scouting article work

If you are getting this, it is because you do or did work on Scouting articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting#Participants_and_primary_areas_of_interest).

As the Scouting WikiProject has been formed since early January 2006, we've had many great improvements made in this area of Wiki and I want to personally thank everyone for their help. We don't always agree on things, but we keep moving forward. YIS, Rlevse 22:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Hmm, I'll have to find a free usage one then. Thanks. Griz 20:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait until his stress level goes down, it's on I quit/I need a vaction and they are on wikibreak. Then I'll ask him for help. Griz 20:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Button, button

I saw you left a note at User talk:156.110.82.38. This guy is VERY focused: Special:Contributions/156.110.82.38. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your entry on David N. Sundwall

Hey, I was just browsing around Wikipedia and happened to search for David Sundwall on a whim (I knew him from some time ago in DC) and was surprised to see an entry. Just curious, how did you know him?

I worked with him when he was at ACLA.

He's my boss. A great guy, too.


Nice. He's definitely a great guy--showed me everything there was to know about DC when I was just a freshman in college. For the longest time I wanted to follow in his footsteps, but it's unfortunate that a MD just wasn't in my future.

[edit] WC2006

Hi, about indication places - if two or more teams are going tie, then ranking of each team in each group will be determined by drawing of lots by the Organising Committee for the FIFA World Cup. Thanks. SteveGOLD 19:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Finally figured out that the text describing the colors was not consistent with what people are actually doing. Better to change the text than continue the tussle. Now, the key is to ensure that the rows actually correspond to final position. NThurston 19:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
As for me better adding one more column - Places than write behind team their place. Maybe you can propouse this at WC2006 Talk place. Thanks. SteveGOLD 20:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies

Hi NThurston! Thanks for your recent interest in the AfD of the 2006 World Cup controversies article. Your input is most appreciated. Since the AfD is now closed and the World Cup almost over, I'd like to encourage you to put some input into the improvement of this article, either by improving where you think you can, or by suggesting changes on the talk page. Kind regards, MyNameIsNotBob 03:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BSAseries

I like what you are doing with the infobox. I was trying to work out how to include an image variable so that we could include the logo currently on each page into the box- any ideas? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be a great idea, but I don't know how. It's well beyond my capabilities. I'll try to look around at some other templates to see if that is possible. --NThurston 15:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Sweet! Looks great. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I got lucky - The galaxies template (first I looked at) had exactly what we needed. --NThurston 16:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Good. I was searching for some myself. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I added a simple useage section to the template. --Gadget850 ( Ed)

[edit] 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies

Sorry about the delay...

The "Rescue from AFD" Award
I award you this barnstar in recognition of all the work you did to improve the 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies article, which resulted in it's AfD proposal being rejected and the article being kept. Keep up the great work! Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 01:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scout box

Look at the articles after you put the series box in, it's causing massive white spaces to the left in many articles. Rlevse 16:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting Barnstar

The Scouting Barnstar
The Scouting Barnstar

- A hearty thank you for your steadfast and quality contributions to Scouting articles, especially in improving our templates. Keep up the fine work! Rlevse 01:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Hi,

I was frustrated by the lack of a template for the citation format I wanted, so I made one Template:Harvcol. Actually, it was a trivial mod of an existing one. It's my first template, but I was a Pick/C/C++ programmer for four years, so I'm not flying blind.

So my question is, I think the template is useful, but how bold should an absolute Wikipedia newbie be? Should I get someone to look at it and declare it kosher? Should I edit pages regarding citation format & insert it & relevant explanation into the content? What's the point of entry for the Templates subculture? That's pretty much it. Thanks. Ling.Nut 04:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

Finally! After months of hard work and toil, 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies was promoted to Good Article status. On behalf of everyone, I'd like to take the chance to thank you for all your hard work in improving this article. Thank you! Daniel.Bryant 07:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Don't remove the notice from Wikipedia:Userboxes. It's getting really annoying having to delete all of the new userboxes that are created when they should have been created in userspace in the first place per WP:GUS. The end part of the German solution is all userboxes in userspace rather than template space. As a necessary part of this no new userboxes should be created in template space. --Cyde Weys 14:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's misleading and inappropriate for several reasons: 1) WP:GUS is not policy and is certainly far from being accepted practice. In fact, most of the people I deal with in terms of Userboxes (U.S. Education and Scouting interests) do not appear to have any interest at all in GUS. 2) The concept that no new userboxes should be created in template space is not even consistent with GUS, as there seems to be an acceptance of the idea that some userboxes could belong there. 3) It's completely unenforceable, hence chaotic and counterproductive. 4) It looks authoritarian, which it's not. I am not aware of any consensus on this issue. Reading through the discussion page suggests quite the opposite, and in fact the GUS Straw poll has far more interest in keeping them in templates than moving them. 5) It's POV, and therefore really should be removed in its entirety. It's a reasonable compromise to admit that there is a difference of opinion on this matter. Finally, in my own opinion, the GUS is just downright silly, when there is such an easy solution - Declare that Template:User yyy is equivalent to user space.--NThurston 15:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, while I agree with your solution, the reality is that it has the proverbial snowball's chance in a supernova of holding. The Powers That Be have decreed WP:GUS; while it's not officially policy, it effectively is, and the alternative is not leaving userboxes in Template: space - it's doing away with them entirely. I don't like this any more than you do (ask Cyde about that), but those are the cold, hard facts. Jay Maynard 22:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't revert based on SUS. I don't like the GUS idea anymore than you do but it is either GUS or No boxes at all. Æon Insane Ward 22:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me get a thing clear first - personally I would not have minded if boxes stayed where they were. However, living in a community also means that other people will have other opinions than you and, I dunno if you were there, the "userbox wars" were nasty, stressfull and a big waste of time for all involved. So we compromised. We move the boxes out of templatespace (which was satisfactory for most of those that wanted them gone from the NPOV wikipedia space) into userspace (which allowed those that wanted to keep them to keep them). Neither side got the whole pie, but everyone got a good slice, and most people were satisfied. So let's not try to open old wounds - none of us would like that. CharonX/talk 01:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
As an afterthought, if you want to I'd be happy to discuss the whole issue with you here or on my talkpage, and I'll try hard to be less grouchy, promised. CharonX/talk 02:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a stern warning to desist your unuserfication at once. Seeing as how the only possible outcome it could have is massive disruption and possibly renewed hostilities in the userbox war, you will be blocked for disruption if you continue. --Cyde Weys 22:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi

Are you a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?--Eric LuoTalk to me 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Because I am a chinese LDS, i am going to translate this page into chinese, so i wonder if you can give some suggestions.--Eric LuoTalk to me 15:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I am just want to know the information given in this page,is it true or false,or maybe just part of them ? --Eric LuoTalk to me 15:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the polygamy is my major concern.i have already finished 50% translation of the article. should i translate directly or Briefly or maybe skip it?--Eric LuoTalk to me 15:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is another problem,the protestants in chinese wikipedia are very anoying. they always write somethin about our church by using thieir own opinion, as far as i know, there are only two chinese LDS in chinese wikipedia. But there are lots protestants out there. so i better translate some thing are Very NPOV. otherwise..protestants will change the whole article again.--Eric LuoTalk to me 15:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice to talk with you, 4:00 AM here now, i have to go to sleep, see ya!--Eric LuoTalk to me 16:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Userbox

Hi,

One reason that Cyde might have deleted the thing was that it was oddly titled -- putting User: first placed it in userspace, not template space. Although not yet a written rule, it is common custom to delete user pages for non-existent users, which this would be. Anyway, I have complied with your request and userfied the box to myself at User:Xoloz/UBX/User SUS per the German Userbox Solution. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timpview High School

I saw that you worked on the Morgan High School page and would like help developing a page for Timpview High School. Mathboy965 17:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Talk to me

[edit] WP:TGS problems

Your changes to the bottom half of the article were fine though not strictly necessary. However, I saw the following problems with the content introduced into the upper portion:

First, grammar. You replaced the simple wording originally present with a confusingly worded paragraph containing sentence splices, non-standard usage, and abuse of the term "etc." which, while fine on talk pages, is really not encyclopedic when overused and should be limited to a minimum of uses on article/project pages.

Second, redundancy. The userbox debate is already covered on the T1 and T2 debates page, and does not need repeated here.

Third, POV. Your characterization of the compromise is not accurate, as the issue of what restrictions apply to userspace templates is unaddressed. Further, the speedy deletion of new template-space userboxes should not be judged one-sidedly. Provided the admins inform the user who created it that the box should have been made in template space, you would be hard-pressed to say exactly where they are "breaking" The German Solution.

Finally, the changes were totally undiscussed, and should have been brought up on the talk page. I have reverted the controversial portions, please discuss them on the talk page before readding. That will be all. --tjstrf 23:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Responce

I see that you continue to deny that the status quo is dead. Here's a quote from Jimbo on the talk page of WP:MUPP:

This is not an acceptable policy, and it has not achieved the requisite level of consensus. The single most important thing that must be done is the removal of a centralized official space for Userboxes. A userbox namespace is exactly the wrong answer.--Jimbo Wales 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Now here's the important part:

The single most important thing that must be done is the removal of a centralized official space for Userboxes.

The single most important thing is to remove a centralized place for userboxes, which could refer to either WP:UBX or the template space in general. The template space itself is officially sanctioned by the foundation (which fits in to the part about no official space for userboxes). Notice there is nothing about POV userboxes in there, as it refers to all userboxes. These are Jimbo's words.

Further more, who's job is it to define "non-divisie and non-controversial userboxes"? What if I say I find that someone supports a certain author contriversial? What if a few people, and admin's agree with me? So the box gets deleted. People complain about unfair practices, so to be fair all other author boxes are deleted to be fair. What if Jimbo decides in the not-so-distant future, Jimbo decides this has gone on long enough and decrees all userboxes in template space should be deleted? And have you read to part on WP:GUS where it just says "Just go ahead and do it"? Besides, saying you like something is a POV in iteself no? -Royalguard11TalkDesk 22:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I am especially troubled by this responce:

The "Just go ahead and do it" phrase and attitude is precisely the problem. Everybody's doing their own thing, regardless of what GUS actually says, which is surely going to be a problem if we want the compromise to work. At a minimum, people who support GUS ought to limit their actions to what GUS says.

As far as I know, the process I have seen (and used ) is adopt template to subpage, slap on GUS box {{User GUS UBX to}}, bypass redirects (I know that some people don't, but there are bots that help out now, like User:AP.BOT), and once everything is bypassed, nominate for speedy under G6. If someone is not doing it this way, then you might want to inform them yourself, or tell us so we can. As far as I know, everyone is following this process. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 00:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

P This user is a student or an alum of SUNY Potsdam.

has been userfied per WP:GUS (although, not knowing what it was about I can't tell you where to look for it, this might help). Template:User Crane has also been userfied. If they have been userfied, copies are speedy deleted, as there is no point in copies of userfied material. When I'm reading your comments, they seem almost cryptic. You've given lots of hypotheticals, but no specifics. There was a group of editors who were proceeding to systematically userfy all existing templates, again ignoring the GUS requirement of consensus. If you think a certian editor has done something wrong, then tell them that you think so. If somethings been userfied, then it's already done. I've had a request to un-userfy several boxes, but I'm not going to do it because that would require un-bypassing over 500 redirects. If something is done, then it's done. There's no point crying over spilled milk. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 03:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Cuse

Thanks for the help, but I was wondering where I can find an administrator who can just do a quick informal speedy delete of {{User Cuse}} so I can move the userfied one back. I don't feel I should tag it with the {{db-g6}}, since it is transcluded into several other's userpages. I just need a quick fix. Who (or what) should I go to? —Akrabbimtalk 15:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting Help

Can you see if you can make my user page look a little bit more like yours? Mathboy965 16:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chess

Thank you for participating in my game of chess. The game was won by black.
A new game has started at User:GW_Simulations/Chess/Game 2 if you are interested in participating.
GW_Simulations - 10:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates vs Articles

Your edit to Template:MBHistory‎ has messed up History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America). I know that Durin is hot on FU usage outside of articles, but I think in templates there's no valid reason not to use them as they merely appear inside articles. How can you fix the history article? Rlevse 19:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAU

I re-added the FAU box to user space. Where is the strawpoll you mentioned?KnightLago 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SUS Template

Found it: {{User:Xoloz/UBX/User_SUS}} it was further up your talk page :) --WikiSlasher 14:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help - inclusionism is "absurb" now

Sorry to bother you, but as an Inclusionist wikipedian things are getting desperate and I need to appeal to your for help. We are facing a situation where a deletionist admin is free to declare inclusionist arguments "absurd" and ignore them at will. If you don't agree with this situation, please share your opinion here. Kappa 02:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BYU then Princeton or the other way around...

Just wondering which was first (undergrad presumably), BYU or Princeton. I'm interested in talking to someone who is involved in scouts about how BYU deals with scouting... Naraht 12:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I know there is no Alpha Phi Omega chapter currently on campus (hasn't been since the early 1990's), but I was wondering if there was any scouting related activities. I know that the LDS Church considers the Venturing program only appropriate for Priests, so I guess a Crew would be inappropriate. Is the Merit Badge Pow-wow run by a student group? Thanx Naraht 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I will contact him. I would imagine that crew is just a little bit different than your average ward venturing crew. Seems that there might be room for Alpha Phi Omega in those who are still somewhat interested in scouting, but not enough to want to make their careers out of it (which as best as I can tell is the most likely reason to do RMYL). I'll have to see what the school rules specicially say about greek letter organizations. I know Social Fraternities and Sororoties are not allowed and Honor Societies are. Thanx Naraht 11:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BSA issue

Heqwm is playing both the controversies article and Boy Scouts of America to promote his agenda in a very POV manner. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-08 BSA, where anyone can chime in. Rlevse 17:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TTU

Please do not delete userbox listing from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United States. I am sure you did not intend to remove TTU, however, you should be more careful when editing long lists. --NThurston 19:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes,I did this absoulutely unitentional and I apologize.I must have accidently deleted it while trying to add one of my templates.Again apologies. SOADLuver 03:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Girlguiding UK images - Thank you

Thank you for helping out so promptly with the images problem on the Girlguiding UK page. Kingbird 03:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a little confused

Are User:Aard and User:71.71.66.244 attacking eachother or something? I just noticed the former's vandalism (he has done this in the past) of User:Pmsyyz's page (also noticed the cyde incident), asked him to stop, and then happened upon this business between the two of them. ... aa:talk 22:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Editing!

To the userbox essay. I did seem to have missed a few things. I've given a major responce on WT:UBM. It looks really good. By the way, do you think us moving from GUS to UM is a good thing (dropping the "German" part)? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BSA controveries header

Thanks. I'm about to add another Supreme Court decision I found while looking at a source for Evans. CovenantD 20:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] _Excellent_ eyes at BSA controversy

NT, I just wanted to drop you a note and thank you for your recent edits to the article. I want to apologize if I seemed a tad protectionistic when did your first rewrite. There were a couple of things at play there. One was that I had people posting to my talk page saying, essentially, "hey-- have you noticed that FA you worked on? I think it's getting read to lose its FA status". Another was that I went to the article and it had changed so much over night that almost didn't recognize it and had a hard time following all the changes that were being made. There's also the fact that there were two editors rewriting the page, so I basically unconsciouslly attributed some edits to you that weren't in fact yours. So, yeah-- I responded with a giant whoa-- let's everybody slow down here.

Now that we have slowed down, I have to say, you've helped make some major improvements to the page-- you've done a lot of the tedious, thankless stuff like properly formatting links, etc. You've served as an excellent addditional pair of eys to make us think about and discuss how we're doing things. In particular I want to thank you for catching the way the article was completely mischaracterizing the Oakland Park incident-- particularly since I'm pretty sure I'm the one who wrote that passage, and I'm pretty sure I reverted you when you tried to change it earlier. It was a HUGE NPOV violation, sitting smack in the middle of a FA, and I'm really embarassed that I somehow got such a wrong impression of it. So, I "give you mad props" for such an excellent find.

Of course, I don't agree with all your changes, which is as it should be, but just wanted to thank you for helping out, and I look forward to seeing what article we all come up with on the funding controversy. --Alecmconroy 03:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:VarsityCamelot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:VarsityCamelot.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:VarsityTentmates.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:VarsityTentmates.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timpview High School

Nihonjoe simply deleted the page without a discussion, citing that it was a non-notable high school. Looking at his deletion log, he deletes many pages for that same reason. I think the term "non-notable" is relative and that it may be insignificant to some, but important to others. What can I do to undelete the page? --Mathboy965 17:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Jumping in here...recreate it. Was it even tagged with some sort of delete tag first? Rlevse 17:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:CIH.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CIH.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mb104c.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mb104c.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jon Huntsman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jon Huntsman.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 23:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Class A Terminology

<raspy voice> Well, back in my day, we had Class A uniforms and we were thankful for them - we wore them all day every day - to school and back - in the snow - uphill - both ways... </raspy voice>. Interesting. Thanks for informing me of this. "Back in my day" we always used to use the term "Class A" as an official term. We would never have considered a merit badge sash or OA sash to be part of a "field uniform". I will gladly revert myself to "official uniform" since you have clued me in. Johntex\talk 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O RLY

Well, since I'm a deletionist I guess I'm just pushing my POV, eh? Talk about civility. rolls eyes You ARE familar with WP:GUS and WP:UM, yes? You are aware that WP:SUS was overwhelmingly rejected by the community a long time ago , yes? I called the USERBOX WAR (not you, not your argument) load of crap because all it did was create a bunch of people who made accusations of 1) administrative abuse, usually by an admin with thousands of hours of service and tens of thousands of edits or 2) violation of policy that the community had rejected.

However, I took offense to your statement that "So, the bottom line is - yeah, maybe it shouldn't have been a Speedy Delete, but "oh well" the outcome is not that bad, so what the hay." You are saying that you feel Cyde is not applying T1 properly, and that everyone in the discussion is not acting properly in voting the way they did. Never mind the fact that the box WAS in template space, and that consensus is for userfying it. Never mind that not a single person backed your assertion. Never mind that T1 itself is pretty clear on this. Sending it to TfD just wastes time. There shouldn't be any userboxes in template space. What I find baffling is that, even after consensus has been achieved, and even after the point has been hammered home by both Jimbo and ArbCom, people still think they should be exempt. That's why I called it arrogant. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We peacefully agree to disagree then. :p --ElaragirlTalk|Count 16:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

May I comment on this for a sec? It does rather seem as though there is consensus to endorse the deletion - that the deletion was correct and that it should not exist as a template. Seeing as this is so, surely WP:IAR, no harm done and an extra layer of bureaucracy has been avoided? Also - well, it's probably not too clever to have a template that references the userbox wars - that really is divisive and my own personal view is T1 does apply. "Load of crap" is an excellent way to describe that particular mess, though I agree that the rest of Elara's comment had an over-combative tone. Best, Moreschi 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Royalguard11/Userbox personalities

I never actually looked at the old image, but it doen't actually say "fair use" on it, it says CC-by-2.5, which is not fair use. Anyways, the new image fits better, but I don't think it need the fair use rational. It's different enough not to need it, and you did re-make it, so it is yours. Now, the next step is to make up a "userbox spectrum test". -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, never mind there. There was a bit of a revert war on the image, and I happened to see it at a time when it didn't have the fair use tag on it. The new image still looks different enough though. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Many images on Wikipedia are mistagged. Only the copyright holder can authorize a derivative work of a copyrighted work, so if you copy and paste a picture out of someone else's document, edit someone else's photo, etc, that doesn't give you rights to it and the resulting work is not available to Wikipedia under a free license. That is why I changed the tag on Image:Worlds-Smallest-Political-Quiz.PNG to a "fair use" tag - it is not free. The original uploader reverted it back, asserting permission. I have left a message on his/her talk page explaining derivative works and asking if, in fact, the original copyright holder has authorized this derivative work and released it under the license that was selected. The new image is not quite as straight forward. Facts are public domain, so I would be inclined to think that this image is ok to use. (I'd strongly suggest getting the parody tag off of there, though.) Others may disagree, though, and consider this to be a derivative work of the original image. BigDT 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/t/h/User_talk%7ENThurston_1542.html"