User talk:Metamagician3000/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Transhumanism template

I've decided to write to you personally as you seem to be open to discussion. Would you please reconsider your deletion of the "User transhumanist" userbox? By speedy deleting it, rather than taking it to TfD, you placed the onus on those who want it undeleted, and it may well not survive simply because transhumanist is not as well known a philosophical position as, say, feminism or atheism. Both "User feminist" and (I believe) "User atheist" have recently been restored, as have many userboxes that indicate that an individual subscribes to a particular religious viewpoint. Whether or not such boxes are restored should not depend on the popularity of a particular philosophy or religion, or on the vagaries of who turns up to vote. Rather, the pattern of recent debates has been to accept that a mere unaggressive statement that a user subscribes to a particular philosophical or religious view is not, in itself, divisive. I can see how the anti-transhumanist box could be considered divisive, as it attacks a philosophical view, but whether or not the unaggressive expression of a view is divisive cannot depend on whether or not someone creates a userbox attacking it.

Note that this does not affect me personally. I have a personal policy of not using viewpoint templates. Indeed, I would ultimately like to see viewpoint userboxes kept out of template space on the ground that this is not the purpose of template space. However, I believe that a new policy would be required for this to happen (I'd actually be happy to help develop such a policy and work for its acceptance). Under current policy, "User transhumanist" should be treated consistently with, for example, "User feminist". Inconsistency of this type worries me - I think that all reputable positions should be treated equally unless there is some distinguishing feature such as one userbox having aggressive wording (arguably the case with the recent "User objectivist" box). Although I freely admit to being sympathetic to transhumanism, I would feel the same way if the box in question were "User creationist" (i.e. related to a viewpoint with which I am out of sympathy). Mere statements of subscription to a view should not be taken as divisive unless the view in question is such as to bring Wikipedia into disrepute, as would be the case with, say, "User Nazi" or "User racial supremacist". There is no issue like that here.

Thanks for considering my views. I apologise for the length of this, but sometimes a few paras are needed to do justice to one's reasons. Metamagician3000 03:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• The above is what I placed on the talk page of Dmcdevit, to which s/he responds below (with my reply following). Metamagician3000

Several points in response. First, I want to reiterate that the existence of divisive templates, even the fact that other templates that might be considered in the same category passed TfD (which, actually I don't keep track of, and am not part of this userbox stuff), does not justify the existence of divisive templates. Several people have pointed out to me that templates like the feminist one or whatever their favorite example is, survive, but, barring a change to the WP:CSD itself, that does not change the fact that divisive templates are to be deleted, and may be deleted speedily, without the use of TfD. I might even take a look at the feminist one, but I'm not very gung-ho about userboxes, and don't think it's worth the battle.

Now, as to whether the two templates are diviseive or not: I think so, and here's why. Divisive does not have to mean "it attacks a philosophical view." Rather, all it has to do is, as divisive means, to cause divisions within this community. A pair of templates that puts one group of Wikipedians on one ideolgical pole (pro-transhumanism) and another group opposite them on the anti-transhumanism side, polarizes the community regarding a controversial issue, and is in general harmful. Also harmful is that now rather than a bunch of people with these views, we have a list of a bunch of people with these views (through WhatLinksHere), and such lists have been utilized for coordinated vote-stacking attempts and stuff like that. So I disagree with the statement "Mere statements of subscription to a view should not be taken as divisive unless the view in question is such as to bring Wikipedia into disrepute." There are reasons other than that, as I mentioned. The purpose of the "inflammatory" part of the CSD may be to prevent templates that bring the encyclopedia into disrepute, but the "divisive" part of that CSD is just as important, and speaks directly to why I deleted the templates. The thing is, anyone can put this stuff on their userpages in text, or I'll even subst the wikisource of the deleted templates there for them, but having the temlate is wrong because of the divisivenss. This is why I judged those two templates (especially together) as worthy of deletion, and why I used speedy deletion. I hope you understand why I've chosen to make the deletions. Thanks. :-) Dmcdevit·t 08:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but I respectfully disagree. I think that the community has already spoken on how it interprets "divisiveness" by accepting templates such as the ones I mentioned. It seems to be widely accepted — though not by a small group of people who have been rather militant about the issue (in good faith and all that) — that merely indicating a philosophical position is not divisive. I really think it is terribly over-sensitive to think that it is. However, I can see that I am not going to change your mind on this, and I respect the fact that you've thought it through and come to your own conclusions.

All that said, I hope that someone will make another attempt to get policy changed so that we can have more consistent outcomes. I'd like to see a policy that does actually get all such templates out of template space, not because they are divisive but just because template space is really there as a tool for us all to use, and not for relatively frivolous purposes. Of course, the last attempt to get community acceptance of a new policy failed. Then again, that was at the height of the userbox wars.

Anyway, thanks for taking the trouble to read my arguments and to respond with such courtesy. :) Metamagician3000 00:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

To me, there is that essential difference between "This user supports X" and "this user is interested in X". Perhaps it is the Daoist in me, but you can't take a position without creating distinctions in the world, or among Wikipedians. If "this user supports X", then there is necessarily another "this user opposes X" who is stands on the opposite side of a now polarized community. As Zhuangzi says, "Without an Other, there is no Self"; we are defined by oppositions, and to present that philosophical position necessarily creates those who identify differently from you as a subset of Wikipedians, when before there were no distinctions. And even saying your views is just not that necessary for the encyclopedia to justify it (or what would you think if next time you read the politics column in your newspaper, it had a "by Joe Schmoe (ALP)" or "by Jane Schmane (LPA)"). I would much rather that all the people who are interested in these issues would say simply that, and it actually conveys more meaning for the encyclopedia. That's not necessarily how we ought to create our deletion policy (though perhaps; it wouldn't sadden me), but just good practice for serious encyclopedia editors anyway, I would hope. You know, I maybe qualify as pro-choice and could put that userbox up, but I sure am not "interested" in the issue and am not ging to edit the topic. ;-)

As for policy, actually I think what we're doing is just that. I'm not going to do anthing that's too hasty or disruptive, but a little testing out of the new-ish and controversial speedy deletion criterion, along with working out through consensus on TfD and DRV what that criterion means when deletions are contested, will make the policy. I believe that eventually, we will have a pretty firm grasp of what the community thinks does and does not qualify, and administrators will comply (and when they don't, they wil be reversed). Of course, there will always be borderline cases, just as there is for, say, our vanity CSD, but the common interpretation of that has settled. (And it was through consensus discussions that the definition of it changed from biographies, to articles about any amount of people, to explicitly including clubs and bands, some of which had been undeleted early on when enterprising admins stretched the CSD for bands, etc.). The best way to get a policy on this is, I think, to feel out where the community stands on this, and then write a policy afterwords that everyone can agree is the convention. This is much how the CSD expansion from last July happened. (So I actually think discussions like these are productive, if not just brain exercise.) Dmcdevit·t 08:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, and again for your courtesy. I'm not comfortable with making policy that way, or with the idea that statements about oneself which are not worded in an aggressive or provocative manner can reasonably be perceived as "divisive" by any community. But discussion like this can only be productive. Metamagician3000 08:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a bit of a non sequitur, but hopefully a productive one as well: would you accept my nomination for adminship? I like your demeanor, so I've just been spending a while looking over your contributions and I see a lot of good sense and reasonableness and no cause for concern. I would be pleased to nominate you. (Don't hesitate to ask me any questions you might have about what it entails before saying yes or no.) Dmcdevit·t 18:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm honoured to be asked by you — someone I respect. Yes, I'm prepared to serve. :) If successful, I'll try to use my powers for good. Metamagician3000 23:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And you are nominated. Follow the instructions here to complete the nomination. :-) Dmcdevit·t 04:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Result: 'kept deleted' even through undelete won 18:16. I think you'd like to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#Vote_counting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. This poor little userbox is caught up in a much bigger argument. Anyway, I've made a comment. Metamagician3000 02:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD: Religious rivalry in Glasgow

Can you review your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious rivalry in Glasgow? I think you may have been confused on the WP:POINT. Fan1967 03:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• You are quite correct. Metamagician3000 03:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• No harm done. He's not the first author who decided if his article's going down, he'll take another one with it. Fan1967 03:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hello, Metamagician3000/Archive 2, and thank you for vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 62/2/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. As I acclimate myself to my new tools, feel free to let me know how you believe I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! RadioKirk talk to me 05:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transclusion

Hi Metamagician3000 - I've transcluded all the Wikipedia:Deletion review articles listed there. Unfortunately, I got an edit conflict and overwrote your changes, however I've put the changes you made into the DR subpages so nothing has been missed. I'm now writing some instructions on how to list on DR. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RL Jetley

Thanks for the praise. I try. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well!

Thanks for your congratulations. Now to see how all these shiny new tools work. :) Metamagician3000 08:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, congratulations! Just remember, absolute Wiki-power corrupts absolutely. (-; Anville 17:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still not quite sure how this happened so suddenly, but I'll do my best with it. :) Metamagician3000 00:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish to congratulate you on your recent success. Keep up the good work! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Siva1979^{Talk to me}. Metamagician3000 13:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audra Williams

Hi meta, regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audra Williams, and the "no consensus" closure. I count 5 deletes (inc nom.) against 2 keeps, with a further weak delete, a weak keep and a very weak keep. Obviously I voted and can't be impartial, but I would suggest that more than twice the number of deletes than keeps is above no consensus. I wasn't moved by either of the "keep" rationales, one was "Keep per Neufield", who actually voted "weak keep", and the other suggested the article should be kept because an entirely different article about an entirely different individual has not been challenged on AfD, and he believes the two to be equally notable. Such a rational would appear to flirt with WP:POINT, and when being given to support an article about a fairly unremarkable blogger and forum moderator I don't think it cuts any mustard. The individual in question seems to fall well short of WP:BIO, and I fail to see why being a forum moderator is grounds for notability. I know you're a relatively new admin and are just getting used to all this, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about this decision. Cheers, Deizio talk 01:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't gone back and checked, but I did spend a bit of time trying to sort out the count, and what you've written here sounds about right. That's 6 to 4 as a ratio of people saying to delete and people saying not to delete - less than consensus if we just went on votes. I'd say consensus in that sense would be 80 per cent, not 60 per cent, but that's not what ultimately matters. I didn't do this just on votes, and we're not supposed to think of it as a vote. I took into account that some people were qualifying it with "weak" or even "very weak". I also looked closely at the talk page for the article, where there is a lot of debate, as well as at the debate itself. I was tempted to delete, despite the fact that the delete numbers were only at about 60 per cent, but the people saying keep were adducing evidence that could amount to borderline notability - e.g. public interest over her dismissal and a publication in a magazine that may well have a circulation of over 5000. I may or may not have voted delete myself if I'd had a better level of personal expertise with the subject matter of this article - it seemed pretty damn borderline - but that is not the issue for a closing admin. From my viewpoint, I had to weigh up the fact that there was a significant proportion of people not just voting to keep (weakly or otherwise) but adducing plausible evidence of borderline notability. In the circumstances, I could not find a consensus to delete - and the proper thing to do is err on the side of keep if in doubt. I deliberately marked it as "no consensus, default keep" rather than simply "keep", as I would have in a more clear-cut case. That may make it easier for anyone who wants to to re-agitate the issue.

This was not an easy decision. All I can say is that I agonised over it and did my best. I stand by what I did, but I freely accept that someone else might have decided to delete and I'd have defended it as a reasonable exercise of admin discretion. If you want to get my decision reviewed, that's fine. I see the review mechanisms as a safety net to catch our mistakes, not as some kind of affront. Similarly, the closure doesn't rule out a further AfD at some point, perhaps with more definitive evidence. Metamagician3000 01:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• In light of all the above I defend to the death your reasoning for making (and ability to make) the decision, if not the decision itself, I think in totally borderline cases you have to relist, which can attract more neutral, experienced editors.. or of course let someone else close it ;) Anyway, great attitude to see from a new admin. I won't personally take this any further, I've learned from experience that it's just a huge pain in the ass to take a random afd to :drv just because you don't agree with the decision. Congrats and all the best with the tools, catch you further on down the trail... Deizio talk 02:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Your understanding and expression of confidence is much appreciated. I'll see you around. :) Metamagician3000 02:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

You asked for a response, and I am copying mine from the RFA page.

The comment about "UK trolls" was actually not meant to be what it was... and I will regret that remark until the end of days here at Wikipedia. Last June, Yoghurt and Gasoline pretty much quenched my taste for flame wars here. I've had a substantial number of edits since then. I'm certainly not a POV pusher. With m:OTRS, I've had to defend some fairly indefensable positions lately, often coming in to "owned" articles after this or that person complains. Our editors don't realize that quite often, their subject matter actually sees what's being written about them. Bastique 05:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

(lightdarkness was right...no matter how unimportant I claimed this vote was for me, I still can't sleep at night. Bastique 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry in a way to stay at neutral, but it's what feels right to me at the moment. I do understand that the process can be nervewracking, having just gone through it - and mine turned out to be an easy one. Good luck. If you don't succeed this time, by any chance, I'll be sympathetic next time. Metamagician3000 08:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And I've now moved to support, anyway. I'm prepared to accept the frank acknowledgements and explanations. Metamagician3000 13:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep template

No probs! Hope you're enjoying adminship! -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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 01:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi Metamagician3000/Archive 2,

Thank you for supporting my RFA! Unfortunately it did not succeed mainly because most opposers wanted me to spend more time on Wikipedia. Thank you for your faith in me & looking forward to your continued support in the future. And BTW congratulations on becoming admin. I'm sure you will be a fine one.

Cheers

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 09:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure you'll make it next time. :) Metamagician3000 13:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CSD

You do realise that the orignal T1 (as reverted by Jimbo in the link given) had "and", and not "or" which you have just changed it to? (I'm not going to revert it myself, but just pointing it out so you won't be surprised if someone else does). Regards, MartinRe 00:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was already aware of the issue. I have traced through the diffs and arb com's comments about this, and I've put a detailed explanation of my thinking on the talk page. I very much doubt that when Jimbo restored T1 after it was deleted by Croatus horribilis that he meant to introduce a new rule that henceforth a userbox had to be both divisive and inflammatory to be deleted. Arb com. has certainly not interpreted his actions in that way. Metamagician3000 00:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this, but did see disagreement on the CSD talk about broading templates to or. Not that it shouldn't be updatable, but that there is not a stated decree or consensus for it yet. (Please put any replies to this on WP:CSD talk or on my talk). — xaosflux ^Talk 03:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:DRV

I've just listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA at Deletion Review, and I write simply to ask that you not infer any malign motive from my nomination; it is, I readily concede, likely untoward of me to have DRVed the discussion without first having written to you, but, inasmuch as the disposition for which I advocate is relist, it's likely best that the community decide in any case (after all, were I simply to renominate the article, I'd be in contravention not only of your reasonable request that one not reAfD the article for thirty days but also of the Wikiquette presumption that one's renominating an article soon after AfD closure is likely disruptive in view of WP:POINT and is proscribed by good manners). I understand entirely why you closed the AfD as you did, and I don't think your closure was unreasonable; I simply think my suggested disposition better to conform to policy and better to permit the community writ large to take a decision apropos of the article. In any case, I hope and trust that you won't think my having failed to write to be indecorous and will understand that I act in good faith. Cordially, Joe 19:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, btw, on the recent adminship; I generally don't vote on RfAs for which the outcome will clearly be that with which I agree, and so I didn't vote, but I was certainly happy to see that your request was successful. Joe 19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. In my opinion DRV is there to pick up our mistakes, so I'm not ever going to be resentful if someone DRVs one of my closures. I still think it was the best decision in the unusual circumstances, but it was a slightly "creative" one so perhaps it's a good idea for someone to ask the community what it thinks should happen. :) Best wishes, Metamagician3000 11:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highway's RfA

[edit] Re the currently uncited information on the Sexual harassment article

Meta, just FYI the info about the first SH policies is not my contribution but someone else's. If I had added it, there would have been a reference, period. (Frankly, I was not happy myself about it being added but those of us working on articles focusing on controversial topics must compromise and accept we will not always agree with what is written there--the same goes for topics such as race, abortion, religion, etc--and you need to accept this fact yourself.) If the person who added the material does not provide their source for the info in the next 24 hours, I'll try to dig it up myself and add it to the paragraph. Aine63 20:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding your frequent request to work with you to make the article the "best article in Wikipedia," I have to tell you that "the best" is a highly subjective term. What would be deemed "the best" by you is not necessarily deemed "the best" too others, me in particular. Plus, I must remind you that you and I are not the only contributors to the article, so it's not for you and I to decide. Besides, what I contribute at Wikipedia is not remotely motivated by a need for recognition. So, my position on the issue remains the same. I think you have made some great addtions and I hope you continue to do so. But if you continue to try to erase what others have contributed, be they my contributions or the contributions of others, I'll bring up the problem every time.Aine63 21:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, all that's understandable. I really do want to get along with you. I know we got off to a bad start, but I don't think you're a bad person. I just hope you now accept that I'm not either.

There are some general rules of thumb that are followed in trying to work up an article for "featured" status. E.g. a lead is three paras, and should be a summary of the whole article, criticism sections usually come at the end, every opinion should be attributed and anything at all controversial either sourced or ultimately deleted, articles should not be US-centric (or centric to any other country), articles should try to be pretty comprehensive. What you have sometimes seen as damage, or whatever, is my attempt to gradually get the article like that (and I admit that my understanding of all this was fairly vague at first, but it's become very good over time, and I always meant well; I was quite hurt by your accusation of vandalism).

I have to admit that I do have an ambition of eventually getting the article featured, but I can be patient. Beyond those rules of thumb, I agree that there's an element of subjectivity but we strive for NPOV. I'm pleased you think I've actually done some good additions to the article. Thanks for saying that. Metamagician3000 11:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

[edit] Closing AfDs

Hey Metamagician3000, thanks for closing some of these AfDs. Please take a look at the following diffs for the AfDs of Jetha Lila and Structures of the GLA. The {{subst:at}} code actually goes above the title, not below it. It can be pretty confusing at first, but it's best to do it this way so that the Mathbot works correctly when processing WP:AFD/Old. If you have any questions on closing AfDs, please don't hesitate to ask! --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Still getting used to it. :) Metamagician3000 10:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review for Structures of the GLA

Hi Metamagician, here's another AfD-related message for you. I noticed that an AfD you closed has been put up for review. As the AfD closer, your input, should you choose to give it, would be appreciated. I know that when I had an AfD I closed up for review, I felt pissed when I wasn't informed of it, so as a courtesy, I figured I should let you know. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The person who put it up for review also let me know. I was going to just abide the outcome, but if you think a comment would be valued I'll say something. It was a bit of a creative decision, but I thought a reasonable one in the circumstances. Metamagician3000 12:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, duh, I guess I didn't look clearly enough for a notification from Joe. I need to get my sign checked. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up on the deleteion review. I have voiced my opion on the page in hope that it will make a difference. I apreciate your understanding in the matter. TomStar81 05:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you! Hello, Metamagician3000/Archive 2 — The highest Thank you for your support comments comments and support on my recent Nomination for Adminship. It succeeded with a final tally of 85/11/6 and I am now an administrator. I will take all your comments to heart and hope to be a better editor and admin because of it. Bastique▼parlervoir 13:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Good luck, dude. Metamagician3000 15:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank-you

The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails. Thanks for your support! I pledge to serve both you and Jimbo Wales. If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate. For I am the very model of a grateful admin designate! ♫Bucketsofg✐♪

Congratulations. Good luck in your new role. Metamagician3000 15:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transhumanism

Transhumanism will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2006. --Loremaster 01:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Very good. As someone else commented to me, I wonder how many people will find out about transhumanism for the first time as a result of this article (and what they'll make of it). Should be interesting... Metamagician3000 12:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Metamagician, congratulations on being made a Wikipedia administrator! As one of your first assignments, would you please try to find out why the Featured Articles, including Transhumanism, have lost their stars, and why the Main Page FAs on the FA page are no longer shown in boldface. These changes seem to have coincided with a cryptic change made today in the TH article by User:Tobyk777. Thanks in advance.--StN 02:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The stars are back. The boldface is not, but is not of major concern. Please ignore my previous query.--StN 02:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed myself that "our" ;) article had lost its star. It took me a while to work out that it was something that had happened with the Featured Articles generally. Just a little mystery, I suppose. I'm glad the stars are back. Metamagician3000 03:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I expect the Case of the Missing Stars is a consequence of the metadata debate. Anville 22:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you very much for posting the content of the deleted userboxes to my talk page, they are now userfied. The other two are antiuserboxdeletion and evol-N. Thanks again. Loom91 15:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Have now found the other two and put them on your talk page. Metamagician3000 00:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Loom91 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

It looks like you've got a userbox off to the right of the topmost one. Seeing this in Firefox both on a Mac and on a Windows machine. Just a heads-up. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, it all looks fine on my screen, using Internet Explorer on a PC. The boxes are all stacked neatly on top of each other. Don't really know how to fix it so it looks right for you. I wonder what causes the difference. Metamagician3000 15:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's the fact that the one stray box — the Flying Spaghetti Monster one — has "float:center" and not "float:left". I'd fix it for you, but I feel kinda awkward editing someone else's user page. :) It's in that first line of text for your FSM box that says:

<div style="float:center; border: solid gray 1px; color: #3D2B1F; margin: 1px;">

Try changing it to:

<div style="float:left; border: solid gray 1px; color: #3D2B1F; margin: 1px;">

So it'll match with the others. I bet that'll fix it.

— WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. I fixed it. Thanks for your help, and if you check back here let me know whether it now looks right on your screen. Metamagician3000 01:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 01:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)