User talk:David Levy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page!

Please sign and date all entries with: ~~~~

Archive #1 | Archive #2 | Archive #3

Contents

[edit] April 1

Honestly, it's April Fools' Day. I know Wikipedia is serious business but lighten up a bit, only admins could see it, and they're probably most in need of a laugh 'round here. Also, don't WP:DTTR. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 02:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither Ryan's edits nor Viridae's edits were vandalism, and throwing a vandal template on their talk page is seriously inappropriate. I hate April Fools jokes more than anybody, but let's not lose sight of reality. - auburnpilot talk 03:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've responded on my talk page, but I think it's time you reread some of our core policies and guidelines. For one, Ryan is free to remove any content from his talk page at any time. There is nothing inappropriate about removing your misguided warning. - auburnpilot talk 03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I support your block here, David, despite the unblock request being granted. I've been looking through Viridae's edits, and they show a real lack of judgement. See my post on Viridae's talk page in a few minutes. Carcharoth (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't about to help this year. Good to see you kept on top of it. Given the users who acted up this time also did so last year, I certainly saw basis in your blocks. All the best, --cj | talk 13:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: VPR - check today's date

Aw come on! WP:DTTR. Did you actually read what I commented out? As the second comment says it works better without the stuff I commented out. I'll go back and explain in the comment what I did and hope you don't object. If you revert again, I'll leave it alone and assume that your adherence to guidelines (even on April 1st) takes precendence over your sense of humor. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:Viridae

Hi David, I've undone your block of this user. He was given the bare minimum of warnings and his disruption was fairly limited. It seems discourteous to me to block a user in good standing under these circumstances. I will understand if you wish to contes this action. Best, ~ Riana ⁂ 12:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked Omegatron. See the button at the top right that says "log out"? Press it and don't press it again until April 2. John Reaves 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The only other way to stop the edit warring at MediaWiki:Tagline (or any other MediaWiki page) is to seek emergency desysopping and/or an arbitration case. If someone gets desysopped over using admin tools to play April Fools jokes, then that should put an end to it next year. David, I would make a statement like this at arbitration if you chose to take it there. Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
David, I wasn't aware of how far this had escalated or that the tagline was being edit warred over (things picked up since I last checked I suppose). I thought you were blocking based on the state of things about an hour or two ago, in which case I feel an unblock would have been appropriate. Feel free to reblock or have me do it. Sorry for being hasty. John Reaves 13:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, sorry this is a week late, I've been away. Just letting you know that while I continue to beleive that blocking an established user with a minimum of warning is inappropriate, I can understand how your actions were justifiable under the circumstances. You're absolutely right that my unblock was not based in policy, and you have my apologies. If you wish to pursue this further you are welcome to. once again, apologies. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I thinked you dropped this somewhere...

Here, I think you dropped this somewhere. Maybe a kitten will help turn that frown upside down! ViridaeTalk 12:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI thread

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MediaWiki:Tagline edit warring, an ANI thread I started involving actions taken by you. Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The delete thingy

It was a one time deal, don't worry.

Plus, it's April 1st, how can you not prank someone? Kwsn (Ni!) 14:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Full protection on Grandfather paradox?

I know that it's being vandalized because it's linked to from Google, but so far, the vandals have been IPs or new members. I don't see why semi-protection isn't sufficient? No need to go into full blast full protection unless there's a dispute going on or for some reason, established users are vandalizing the article. Gary King (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed that the article was previously semiprotected first. Still, full seems a bit excessive since I thought that was usually reserved for articles where established users debated on an article so neither side was 'right' and had to resolve the issue before editing again. I would imagine the attention the article is getting is also beneficial in that people might want to improve it since it's really popular now, but again, I'm just an idealist :) Gary King (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Thank you for your "warning", but we are trying to have a little holiday humor here, so please remember that nobody cares that you don't have the holiday spirit and would like to remind you that you need to get out once and a while. Our community is looking for a good laugh and will not find overly stick-in-the-mud individuals pleasant or welcome. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so once a year it's custom to ease back a bit and relax. If you'd like to have a little more humor, I suggest trying to enjoy the holiday rather than oppress it. Thank you. --Charitwo talk 17:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your links to Uncyclopedia perfectly illustrate the correct "community" for such nonsense. At Wikipedia, your edit was patent vandalism. If you do it again, I hope that you'll find the same degree of "humor" in your block. —David Levy 17:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You'd think so wouldn't you? You need to get the block out of your head and worry about more serious offenses like affecting the entire site as a whole or blanking the entire ANI (it happened twice). Rather than worrying about a simple find/replace in notepad that makes people think they're dyslexic for an April Fools prank, a diff that I was watching mind you. And you're trying to scare me with block threats, you have more important things to worry about David. Go do something useful for a change and stop bothering me.
Another thing, your talk page is 344 sections and 332kb long, you could stand a good archiving, how about having some consideration for those who choose to contact you and allow some decent page loads.
And before I leave this huge page, I ever so humbly request you keep conversations on the same page. If I leave you a message on your talk page, I will be watching for a reply on your talk page, not my own. Goodday, sir. --Charitwo talk 18:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
1. I don't recall accusing you of failing to contribute productively to our community or of contributing primarily to Uncyclopedia (which I didn't even know that you'd edited). I merely noted that "such nonsense" belongs at the latter, not that you belong there.
2. What makes you think that I'm ignoring more serious offenses? I've issued numerous warnings (including one to Kwsn for the "Nuke this page" edit) and two blocks (of sysops involved in the tagline vandalism) today.
I don't know what leads you to believe that I've singled you out, as I merely reverted your vandalism and issued a polite warning used in such situations every day of the year.
3. No, I'm not trying to scare you. I'm warning you that if you continue to vandalise pages, you'll be blocked. Again, this is standard procedure. If you don't want me to "bother" you, simply refrain from committing vandalism. It's that simple.
4. I thank you for the reminder to archive my talk page (which I shall do shortly), but I'll also note that because the page that you vandalised was so large, my first attempt to revert the edit actually caused my browser to freeze.
5. I'll gladly respond here if that's your preference, but given the fact that I initiated our communication on your talk page, shouldn't you have followed your own advice? —David Levy 18:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
1. It was a diff that I was actually watching and was going to revert in due time, I was never intending on leaving it like that. It was a fast swap and a fast fix.
2. I'm saying my dyslexic swap was trivial to warn for, it did actually fool a few people. You merely got to it before I did.
3. I'm not vandalizing anything, it was limited to one edit on one page, it was controlled. I can understand if I replaced a certain word with something offensive, like what was in the tagline or something.
4. haythx, the length of AN/I wasn't an issue for me, it was the edit conflicts.
5. A warning template isn't exactly the start of a conversation.
ok bye --Charitwo talk 01:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
1/2. I believe you, but that doesn't make it okay.
3. I'm sorry, but your edit was vandalism. Was it the worst vandalism imaginable? No, of course not. It wasn't even close to that. But it was vandalism, and I responded accordingly (with a polite warning).
4. Yeah, I also encountered a couple of edit conflicts, but that happens quite often.
5. Your initial post to my talk page certainly appears to be a direct reply, but that's fine. I'll gladly post wherever people prefer. —David Levy 02:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page

If you can find one person who got confused and/or offended because of a changed link that was up for 11 minutes, feel free to block me. --Merovingian (T, C) 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. While I don't find April Fools jokes to be amusing or constructive, your blocks were completely out of line. A simple friendly note asking them not to do so, not a canned template and then an against-policy block would be fine. Your blocks were are completely unacceptable behavior. Are you open for recall? If so, I would start one. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I only know about the Viridae case, and one out-of-line block is quite enough, so that addresses your first point. I can't really tell you anything about the other two blocks.
About your second point: Your cited claim was disruption. According to Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption, the policy for vandalism disruption was "persistent vandalism," which was clearly not, at least in the case of Viridae, the case. As I said, a friendly note asking for them to stop would have been enough. Additionally, the edits were clearly meant as good-faith humor. About your point on vandalising millions of articles, so now if a new user vandalizes a single mainspace article, (s)he should be warned lightly, but if (s)he vandalizes a template, (s)he should be indef blocked immediately for vandalizing the probably large number of articles that the template is transcluded onto? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Too much has already been said on the matter. As was pointed out on my talk, my edit was, in relation to others, particularly unobtrusive. Also, I can assure you that I would have reverted myself if the edit had not been noticed for, say, an hour. I'm surprised it survived for 11 minutes. Anyways, I appreciate your commitment to hard work on Wikipedia, even on silly days. --Merovingian (T, C) 10:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the timeline of events, so there was no need for that. Please tell me where this polite warning you mentioned was. All I saw was a template intended for new users that was not likely to be taken seriously. Merovingian, it's not that I don't appreciated David's work, it's just that I think he showed exceptionally poor judgment on this case. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I now realize I overreacted. While I still disagree with what you did, you have your own opinion,; I shouldn't have posted such an inflammatory message. Thanks for your well wishes on my illness; I'm feeling a bit better now. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent blocks

I just wanted to drop a note saying that fully support your blocks earlier today. Screwing with the Tagline was simply unacceptable, as I clearly told Omegatron when he did it the first time. Viridae also went far overboard with these ridiculous "pranks." I'm disappointed that both John Reaves and Riana unblocked. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to echo MZMcBride's sentiment, especially since I noticed you've been getting beaten up pretty badly for the past couple days. It's nice to see that some people still take the encyclopedia with some degree of seriousness - hang in there. east.718 at 06:44, April 2, 2008

[edit] Yeah, I am sorry about that

Yeah, I am sorry about that. I know that I sometimes make a mistake. Please excuse me on that one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April Fools' Day guideline

David, given what happened this year, I don't think the current guidelines or policies go far enough. It would be nice not to have to do this, but what happened this year didn't encourage me - and since the Wikipedia community continually grows and changes, there will always be some people willing to engage in this sort of behaviour. I'm thinking of gathering some evidence and links to discussions about this year, and the last few years, and then proposing a guideline for community approval. Would you be able to help with this, or suggest the best places to advertise this? Does anything already exist? Would this be best handled as a new page or sections or notes in existing guidelines and policies? Also, is this best done now (while the iron is hot) or in a month or so? Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! I just noticed that discussion of this nature already is underway at Wikipedia talk:April Fools' Day, though I'm thinking that it might be better to wait until everyone's a bit calmer. —David Levy 15:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Some good discussion there, great poems, and a link to a nice collection of gags. Now, if only the more irresponsible gags can be avoided next year, it should be fine. Carcharoth (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Gerbil

David, an editor can do with their userpage more or less as they wish, within bounds of policy. There isn't any policy forbidding a person from removing a warning from their userpage. Even the guideline on the issue clearly says "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user" David, you're out of line. Being tempted to revert the removal is your problem, not Ryans, and you're out of line for making it a problem for Ryan since you would be acting outside the bounds of policy and guideline. There's been a long history of hijinx on Wikipedia on April Fool's day. It's tradition around here 2004200520062007. You know this. Templating Ryan was completely unnecessary, when a polite message asking him to stop would have sufficed. Instead, you're issuing warnings, demanding promises, and the like. Shame on you. SHAME on you. Ryan deserves an apology from you. Your insensitivity and actions outside of the bounds of policy and guideline have lead to his announcement to the effect he's quitting Wikipedia. This was entirely avoidable had you acted in a more appropriate manner. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree think warnings were excessive, since Ryan should already know not to make edits like this. But, Hammersoft, I think you're being too harsh on David. Nobody should have to spend time cleaning up nonsense added by other admins to protected pages, and I can sympatize with the frustration of running into that sort of thing.
In any case, it may be better to let the matter pass, instead of complaining at either the admins who made blocks or the admins who were blocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Takes Manhattan

This is a very big event; we have commitments made with Columbia University, and there are reporters coming from the The Wall Street Journal, WNYC New York Public Radio, and maybe The New Yorker. Last time we postponed, and the weather was just fine. Anyway, if there is a bit of rain, it will be light. And you can't really predict the future: if there is at all a possibility of your coming, you and your friend must register here before 8 PM EST.--Pharos (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's even a small chance you can come, you should still register. There's no downside to registering and not coming, but there is a distinct downside to coming and not registering on time (we'll have trouble letting you in).--Pharos (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. If you'd like to participate in drafting it, please feel free. Cla68 (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

I've informed an administrator. I'm not too sure how vandal control works on Wikipedia, but I hope he'll take appropriate action. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FreeContentMeta and derivatives

Best take this up with you instead of the mostly unwatched Template talk:FreeContentMeta - there's really no reason for the boxes to be that shade of green. It's immediately eye-grabbing against the faint blues, greys, and whites of normal backgrounds. I know the need to disambiguate sister projects and free wikis, but this is the wrong way to do it: we should be advertising our wikis first. I've edited the DW wikia box as a bold test to make it look different but not too different: see Template:TardisIndexFile. Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TardisIndexFile

Please stop edit warring with this template. First, the link is internal as Wikia is a sister site; it is run by the WikeMedia Foundation, so there is no misleading involved. Why would the wikiasite: prefix exsist otherwise. Second, a revert should always be marked as a minor edit; please refrain from acusing my af "abusing" it. — Edokter • Talk • 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Please read our Wikia article. Wikia is not a sister site, nor is it run by the Wikimedia Foundation (a non-profit organization). It's an independent, for-profit venture operated by Wikia, Incorporated (a separate company co-founded by Jimmy Wales).
Like various interwiki links to non-Wikimedia wikis, the "wikiasite" prefix exists in the MediaWiki software (used by many sites with no connection to Wikimedia or Wikia) as a matter of technical convenience, not as a policy-based decision by the Wikimedia Foundation.
2. No, the reversion of an intentional, good-faith edit usually shouldn't be labeled "minor." (I haven't the foggiest idea of what led you to believe that. It certainly wasn't anything on the page to which you linked.) I've already referred you to Help:Minor edit, on which it's explained that "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."
No offense, but I'm taken aback by the fact that an administrator could be under the above misconceptions. —David Levy 23:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Edokter is mistaken about the sister site thing, but I must clear up something else for you, David. These templates are all supposed to use the interwiki link format, but were temporarily switched to full links when something had broken on Wikia's servers. We just forgot to change them back. There's no real meaning behind it, nor is there any policy that says you must do one or the other. It's a purely technical thing. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of the above, and it has no bearing on my edits. I also removed the "plainlinks" class from some of these templates, as there is no valid reason to exclude the external link icon.
This was discussed somewhere a while back (long before these templates were created). As was noted at the time, the existence of an interwiki prefix (and this applies to the "wikiasite" prefix as well) does not mean that such sites have any special status that sets them apart from other sites; it's merely a means of making it more convenient for people to link to them, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Wikipedia uses external link icons when linking to external sites. That we possess the technical capability to avoid doing this is irrelevant. We can easily do this with any link (via the aforementioned "plainlinks" class), but that doesn't mean that we should.
On the English Wikipedia, it's widely understood that external links (those to non-Wikimedia projects) bear the icon and that those lacking the icon are internal (links to Wikimedia projects). In this case, these templates have been somewhat controversial. This is due to the concern that the linked sites might be mistaken for sister projects, so making the links appear internal is ill-advised. —David Levy 06:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You want an icon to show that it's an EL, even if it's in the EL section of the page? Fine, but what about just adding the EL icon manually, instead of changing the link? Does anything change if that icon is there or not? No. Do I care if it's there or not? No. The m:interwiki map isn't just there for kicks, and it's actually meant to be used, and for good reason. If it makes you feel better then I'll add the EL icon manually to the templates. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be fine. I don't care about the technical method used to display the links; I merely want to make it as clear as possible that these aren't Wikimedia sites. —David Levy 06:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Shweet. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikia and Wikimedia do have a connection. Adding the icon manually is equally convulted; why not just add the link in the most convenient method available, and not resort to any weird external link construct or extra images? I am trying to keep everyting as simple as possible and the two of you are not helping; roughly half (if not more) wikia linkboxes are broken due to the 'wikia:' links not working anymore. Whenever I come accross any of those, I intend to fix them, and do so in a foolproof way. So no, I'm not happy. That icon suggests it is an external link, while in truth it is a valid wikilink. — Edokter • Talk • 09:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're complaining about. The above solution breaks nothing and serves an important purpose. I don't know what you mean by "valid wikilink" or what "connection" between Wikimedia and Wikia you believe justifies referring to them as "sister sites." (The fact that Wikia was founded by people affiliated with Wikimedia?)
Again, Wikia is a separate company that is not "run by the Wikimedia Foundation." This should made be clear to readers (who don't care about what type of code is used or how this impacts what they see). Why do you object to that? —David Levy 09:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It has shown that link without an icon for years, and Wikia is (was) regarded as an informal sister project, as it was founded by Jimbo. That is one of the reason the 'wikia:' interwiki map existed in the first place. However, I'll drop the icon subject. — Edokter • Talk • 16:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; I'm glad to hear it. Just for the record, I'll direct your attention to the interwiki map. Note that my friend's (non-Wikia) wiki is on that list, and I assure you that he isn't named Jimbo and the wiki isn't regarded as an informal sister project.  :-)
On an unrelated note, what is the status of the "minor edit" issue? —David Levy 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, not worth bickering about. Reading WP:MINOR again, I may have erred on the revert/dispute part, but it's just a little "m" I myself usually ignore. Calling it prone to abuse is overrating it's purpose. — Edokter • Talk • 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It isn't just a little "m." When a user hides minor edits (via the "Hide minor edits" link) on his/her watchlist or the recent changes list, edits labeled "minor" are omitted.
In other words, while this presumably wasn't your intention, you were partially hiding your reversions from review. That's why "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." —David Levy 21:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] btw

I just wanted to note a few things:

  • According to WP:SRD, soft redirects are a guideline and not a policy.
  • I can feel free to remove comments from my talk page after I've read them, I am in no way obligated to reply to anyone should I not feel a reply is warranted. It may be considered rude to do this, but by doing so, it acknowledges that I have infact read said messages, so to speak.
  • You're making a mountain out of a molehill, my talk page is not disrupting the project in anyway having it like that. I'm pretty sure there are better things you can do with your time, or are there not? (I don't know, I'm not you. Only you know what you do with your time.)
  • Borderline stalking me by keeping tabs on my edits, kinda creepy especially when I'm not doing anything wrong. The invisible text and edit summaries were a little uncivil, but that was mainly out of frustration. That has since ceased.
  • It was not intent to "abuse the minor edit functionality", my preferences have the "mark all edits minor as default" box ticked, because I'm a wikignome-type. If I feel an edit is a "major edit" I uncheck the box, but sometimes I may forget to do so.

You can reply here, because I certainly won't be reading /Messages, just like you said. :) --Charitwo talk 02:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The soft redirect issue is purely peripheral. The problem is that you've deliberately attempted to prevent users from communicating with you via your talk page. As that's the sole legitimate primary purpose of said page, anything else constitutes abuse.
2. Indeed, you're allowed to remove messages from your talk page (which is why I didn't restore any). And indeed, you aren't obligated to reply to anyone, but you aren't entitled to hinder people's attempts at communication.
3. "Keeping tabs on [your] edits"? I have your user/talk pages watchlisted (along with those of every of user whose talk page I've edited over the past three years).
4. Thanks for the explanation regarding the "minor edits." Please try to be more careful. —David Levy 02:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Welp, you just removed just about the only reason I visit Wikipedia for cause I get bored at work. So much for countervandalism! --Charitwo talk 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to roll back edits, you must be willing to receive messages from the users whose edits you roll back (and anyone else who takes issue). —David Levy 23:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a shame because I watchlisted the messages subpage. --Charitwo talk 00:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you intend to read the messages and respond if/when appropriate? —David Levy 01:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course. --Charitwo talk 02:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay then. I've re-enabled rollback. —David Levy 03:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I'm pleased to inform you that RyanGerbil has apparently decided to return. :) Enigma message Review 13:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image space templates

Hi, David - I'd definitely appreciate any help you can give me. Yesterday I found the sorry state of WP:TMIN as compared to WP:AMBOX. Also, the categorization system for image maintenance is a huge mess, with overlapping and redundant category for templates and maintenance subcategories - for example, we had both Category:Images without source and Category:Images with unknown source, as well as duplicate categories for image renaming and multitudes of other problems. Most of the problematic categories are caused by duplicate and/or redundant imagespace templates. Most of the templates lack documentation subpages and many are protected. The templates also often do not contain links to the applicable Wikipedia policy or guidelines. I'm hoping to start a standardization effort, and I guess you saw that I started yesterday with {{Rename media}} (to which I redirected {{ifr}}) and {{Convert to SVG and copy to Wikimedia Commons‎}}.

I'd like to standardize the imagespace cleanup templates with a metatemplate...I'm not particularly attached to {{Ambox}} for any reason, but it's already used by {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and was more convenient than writing a new metatemplate. I noticed you immediately reverted my changes with an edit summary that stated they weren't article space templates - I understand this, can you point me to a more appropriate metatemplate and/or to a place this has been discussed before? I had searched extensively and couldn't find anything, and imagespace isn't even listed at the Template Standardization Wikiproject. Also, if I need to raise this proposal in another forum, would love a pointer there. WP:TMIN has the feel of an abandoned or extremely low-traffic page and I doubt a posting there would attract any visibility.

Also, I noticed that you also reverted my transclusion of a {{documentation}} page (which undid my attempted recategorizations) and wikilinks to applicable policy in the text - why was that?

Thank you for any advice you can provide! With respect - Kelly hi! 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David. Regarding Template talk:Imbox: Could we change the heading of your "Proposed changes" section to something that can be used as a name when it is later discussed? How about "David L's proposal" or perhaps "Levy's proposal"? I changed my suggestion to "David G's colours". (Your family name is much better as a proposal name than my "Gothberg"...)
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] admin blocking

I noticed after you blocked admin User:Viridae that User:Riana unblocked him and said he didn't get a warning. First of all, this was blatent vandalism, no need for a warning. And it was very sexual in content. Although wikipedia does not cater to children, it also shouldn't throw sexuality into their faces if they aren't looking for it. I think both editors should be punished severly. The first editor was way out of line, and totally got away with it. The second editor is his friend, and was clearly unblocking him because of this, which is a total conflict of interest and also out of line. They should both be punished for this. Please do something, we shouldn't allow users (ESP admin!) get away with things like this. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infosphere link

I saw your edit on the Into the Wild Green Yonder article, that you changed the article link from an interwiki link to an external domain. I originally forgot to check the history and assumed that someone was tired of the old domain (futurama.overt-ops.com) I assume someone have precision'ed the link. However, since that was not the case, and I did not feel like making a "ninja" edit to explain that in a new summary, I am explaining myself here. While some of our content may non-free (such as images from the show), our text content are released under a Creative Commons license, something which an encouraged part of an interwiki link.

Remember that in order for our wiki even to become an interwiki link, it must fulfil some requirements (as described here and here). Since it went through that due to (A) it had content of relevance to the Wikimedia Foundation, (B) it was regularity updated and had a moderate amount of content, (C) had CC license and non-profit and (D) did not (and does not) contain anything illegal, it can be considered a useful Interwiki link for anything Futurama related. Your summary suggests that it is not a Wikimedia site, which is true, but so isn't Wikia, and they are linked to quite often (through interwiki links), among other sites.

Consider this my defence for "reverting" your edit. --Svippong 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a follow up for you, we have recently changed our license to a free license. I have linked you to the conversation there, you can also read our copyright statement. I give credit to you for the motivation. --Svippong 11:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If it's the right thing to do...

Why not do it? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit late, probably, but wanted to commend you on your handling of this. From what I could see, you were quite fair to both sides of the dispute and managed to be utterly and intelligently persuasive while doing so. I'm impressed. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica‎

Hey, no problem. I'm not the kind of person who gets upset when someone fixes my mistakes. Thanks for stepping in. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bold watchlist items

See here, specifically Brion's three bullets.

Also, using &nbsp; usually causes unsightly space, so I prefer <p></p>. I just filed bugzilla:14176 for a consistent way to disable MediaWiki messages. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar search

Howdy. Two things.

Thanks. Your advice/opinion is as always appreciated. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks. (1 more time at Image:Light-gray-border search box at top.png please, it still had the g7 tag and has been redeleted before I could update it!) Ta. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot approved: dabbing help needed

Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. PLease also pass on the message to anybody else who you may think might be willing to help. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Bloody hell, how could I have forgotten to do that? Shame on me - walk away from Wikipedia for two years, and your memory starts to go. Let this be a lesson to us all :) Páll (Die pienk olifant) 08:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ad subdirectory

What does that mean exactly? Did I screw up in replacing the image? --Stephen 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, learnt something new. --Stephen 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] problems with docs for one signature template

See Template_talk:Unsigned#the_example_for_User12_is_broken --Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asistance with formating

Hello, I would like to ask you for some help. Is there a way to evenly spread the text in two columns, across their height? See here. I'm trying to reproduce the bottom of this document for Wikisource. Also, I can't understand why the signature images on the right place themselves under the text line, and not next to it. Please help me if you can. Thanks in advance! diego_pmc (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please help...

I'm really sorry to bother, but I need your help.

This is a little embarressing. I changed my password yesterday, and I can't remember what it is. My username is Gladiator2 and now I can't get back in.

I have no idea how I can prove I'm Gladiator2, and I never gave wikipedia my email address...

If there's any way you could help me, I'd be really grateful. My email is [removed]

thanks,

Gladiator2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.54.126 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Since this user loves you so much, how can I not give you this to spread the love all around? --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ATT Header

David, I don't so much oppose ATT as I oppose trying to create a new process e.g., a non-consensus summary of policy pages. If you want to consolidate several policy pages into one at ATT you would likely have my support. But adding an additional layer of instruction creep is in my mind a flawed direction. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To better days

David, I can see that you've worked really hard on ATT and trying to get a consensus built there. I am sorry that we got off badly today in our relationship. I know that we both have a strong dedication to the project and probably have more in common than we have differences. I hope to work together with you in the future. Cheers and a pleasant evening. Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Our discussion at ATT

David, I've removed the section containing our dispute from yesterday. If you want ot return it, I won't object, but it seems to distract people from the more important issues and serves no purpose. I'll suppport your choice in the matter. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)