User talk:Oskilian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Calling programmers

We need coders for the WikiProject Disambigation fixer. We need to make a program to make faster and easier the fixing of links. We will be happy if you could check the project. You can Help! --Neo139 09:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No, thx -Osk

[edit] re: your Proposed Deletions request

I am going to cancel your request as declined. I understand your issue of perceived fairness but the two are not exactly equivalent. The important distinction is that one is in the Template-space of the project and the other is in a sub-page of the User-space. See Template:User macosx for more.

Wikipedia's compromise on infobox templates is that they are not generally allowed in the template space but may be allowable in the userspace. Infoboxes created anywhere other than in the userspace are subject to speedy-deletion.

I don't pretend to understand the logic behind the current compromise but I must also admit that I never understood the controversy over userboxes. I don't personally use them. Sorry. Rossami (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rat (zodiac)

Hi. In your last edit to this article, you seem to have confused me with another editor. That editor made other changes to the article besides removing the Not verified tag so, if the zodiac is your thing, you might want to look at those as well.

I had not looked at the edit history or anything - I only looked at the article, saw it made claims and lacked sources, and thought it needed a sources tag.. I probably thought the same thing tha you did! :) Cheers. --Mal 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think I made any confusions: I added the not verified tag again, and I didn't try to say who was responsible for removing it. I just saw the tag was not there anymore, there were no dramatic changes to the article, and there were no responses to my message on the talk page, so I just put it again. Don't take it personally, ok? Oskilian 15:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't taking anything personally. :) I just wanted to clear up any possible confusion. Some of the other articles in the Chinese zodiac series are similarly unverified (though given the subject matter, some may well be unverifiable). --Mal 18:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)