User talk:Pizza1512/Archive May 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Cuegloss template

Please use this template for glossary links; it makes them much easier to maintain. Ex.: {{Cuegloss|Century|century breaks}} instead of [[Glossary of cue sports terms#Century|century break]]s. Thanks. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxbridge

I don't think you've noticed that the piped link sister colleges actually goes to List of Oxbridge sister colleges so the unpiping re-include the data that it's going to be a Cambridge sister, which previous editors seem to have established a consensus as being piped, I notice a number of the links you adjusted are now reverted, so they may still feel a consensus has been reached. I'd suggest weighing in at the Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Oxford.--Alf melmac 20:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date links

Hi Pizza,

I noticed that you've added a lot of links to years recently. I'd like to point you to WP:MOSDATE and WP:CONTEXT where this is discussed, if you're not already aware of those guidelines.

To summarise, links to full dates (month and day) have to be included to make the date format change according to the reader's date preferences. But there's no need to link to years unless they help the reader. Although there's some disagreement about exactly what this means, most editors find that linking to recent years isn't a good idea because the page about the year is uninformative.

I apologise if you're already aware of this debate, and have decided that the links you added were useful. It just seemed to me that you believed all years should be linked.

Yours,

Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox at Ludwig van Beethoven

Hi. I saw your edit. I assume you dug an old version of the box out of the history and placed it there. If you had looked a bit further down the talk page, here in particular, you'd have seen a serious ongoing discussion among editors active on this and similar articles, about whether the infobox helps or hurts the article, and how to make it as helpful -- and not hurtful -- as possible. If you had looked here on the talk page, and here in the article itself and elsewhere, you'd have noticed that the infobox you left on the page was distinctly unhelpful, containing significant misinformation on Beethoven's alleged "birthday" (his birthdate isn't known), and his supposed "occupations"conductor and violinist (guess again), plus distracting and wildly anachronistic flag icons, and redundant info on "birthname" (he only had one name).

Please try to be a bit more careful and conscientious when making major revisions to high profile articles; especially when adding unsourced material on a subject you don't seem overly familiar with. I replaced your box for now with a trimmed and hopefully benign version from the talk page.

Additionally, your edits erased an important disambiguation link from the top of the article, and broke an image link, leaving garbage text displayed in the lead. I try to make a habit of using the "Show preview" button in the edit window before saving any significant edits in the article space. You might want to consider that.

You said on the talk page

If you change the infobox, you'll have to do the same with all the other composers!

...you may be interested to know that several active editors at WP:Composers are advocating precisely that. In the lengthy discussion here, a majority seem to feel the infoboxes add nothing to composer articles and often actively hurt them with vague, anachronistic or oversimplified, and thus misleading, info. I've been in the minority in arguing for infoboxes, which I think, if used judiciously and edited carefully, can be made benign to composers articles and even add value, at least for the casual reader/browser. I'm sorry to say that edits like this don't help me make that case.

If this is cranky and harsh I apologize, and I do assume good faith on your part, but I've sacrificed sleep tonight to fix this...Be well, —Turangalila talk 07:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

hey dude...if my guess is right, you are a proponent of infoboxes. i've visited the talk at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Infoboxes_for_composers, and it's my suggestion that if you, like i, wish to keep them, get over there and make your voice heard. --emerson7 | Talk 04:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help me

May I know how do I create a bot? Also I would like to create a menu like yours at the bottom of your userpage. The one that is fixed to the bottom. Please teach me. Thank you.Littleghostboo[ talk ] (Win an argument and leave your mark in history.) 08:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complex conjugate

Hi Pizza1512 . I undid your change to the Complex conjugate article, since per the math style manual, one should not force TeX to appear as PNG images inline, that makes the text be much larger than usual and does not look good. I also modified the link [[matrix]] to go to [[matrix (mathematics)|matrix]] since the former is a disambig. If you have comments, or you disagree, you can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] get well card

My adopter, NDCompuGeek is not doing so well. Can you sign his get well soon card? Spread the word please. Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 02:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Alot of your comments at User talk:Lover of the sand/pizza1512 are just general chatting it seems. Use email or an internet messenger for that type of content. I don't know a certain Wikipedia policy on this, but I'm pretty sure that isn't what the talk pages are for. Discuss articles and their edits on Wikipedia talk pages, don't use Wikipedia as a chat site/message board. Some general chatting is fine, but doing it alot (like on that talk page) is discouraged and certainly not what Wikipedia is used for. RobJ1981 05:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of free MMORPGs

Hi Pizza, I noticed you put Star Wars Combine back on the list. I've no problem with that if you can provide assertion of notability and third-party references for it. If that is the case, it should have it's own article created for it anyway. Thanks, Marasmusine 18:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, don't worry, I see now you were new edit patrolling. Marasmusine 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert of my edit on University of Cambridge

I full agree with you that the 1209 migration of scholars from Oxford to Cambridge is nothing to do with legends. I was removing that text, not adding it. Bluap 21:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Composer infoboxes

You recently spoke, on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, against the blanket removal of infoboxes from articles about composers, or in an attempt to reach a compromise solution. Despite around a dozen people doing so, there are claims that consensus for their blanket removal was reached. You may be interested in the ongoing debate on the former talk page. Andy Mabbett 10:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)