Hi -- because of your previous involvement in maintaining and improving Wikipedia templates, I thought you would be interested in plans to create a new template. The new template would be appropriate for two main cases: where an article is getting too large, and someone wishes to propose a new 'spin-out' article; and where a 'spin-out' article on the subject already exists but detail is still accumulating in the main article. The proposed name for the new template is Template:Movedetail, and I suggest that planning take place at Template talk:Movedetail.

Hope to see you there! -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia in Spanish, I hope to you learn so much from us, like us from you (sorry me english) Alexan My talk page 01:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Estimad@ amig@ wikipedista. Desde este preciso momento en el que has decidido inscribirte en este Magno Proyecto, eres propietario del conocimiento de los miles, que como tu, han decidido compartirlo con los demás. Suerte en tus colaboraciones, pregunta cuando tengas dudas, léete las páginas que aquí te dejo y, por favor, colabora con muchos artículos nuevos. Gracias. 195.219.17.99 05:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

...issue of transparent PNG files displaying improperly in some browsers

This issue is a problem from a nonfree browser not a problem of PNG format. ¿Convert a free site for Best viewed with MSIE? Fix the problem or change the browser not the image.

I am not referring to any one browser in particular. For example, older versions of Opera contain this problem. People should update to newer versions, but it is unreasonable to expect everyone to do this.

For the record, I am a Firefox user.

only results in a 1KB difference

These icons are used in hundreds of articles. A bit reduction in each one is a greet reduction for the server.

Overall, this reduction is very, very small. Such a tiny benefit is not worth the disadvantage of using an image that displays improperly for some people.

Sorry, you can see my english is not very goos. Regards. --Sanbec 12:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is much better than my Spanish. —Lifeisunfair 12:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about this one, so I'm giving in, as I said on the talk page. I just wanted to say "thank you very much" for being nice and humoring me by not re-reverting the template after I reverted it. You made your case clearly and without any scorn of arrogance, something that was a breath of fresh air for me. Thanks. Matt Yeager 06:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, thank you very much for participating in the discussion and considering my reasoning. That was a breath of fresh air for me. —Lifeisunfair 19:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on Texture's talk page. User:Nichalp/sg 19:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I see you've reverted the png icons on the merging templates to gif format. I didn't know about the issue you've said on the history page (being that png images and transparency don't display correctly on some browsers), but on this page, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Rules_of_thumb, at point 10 if I'm not mistaken, it is stated that icon images and other types of images similar should be svg or png when only raster image is available and such is the case. Gif should be for animation. jpg photographic. I won't put them back in png without your approval, I'm not forcing you, but maybe the image use policy page should be more precise. Optimager 21:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for discussing this with me!

Note that the section in question is entitled "Rules of thumb." The American Heritage Dictionary defines a "rule of thumb" as "a useful principle having wide application but not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable in every situation." That's precisely what these rules are.

In most cases, it is preferable to use the PNG format (instead of the GIF format) for static icons, but the merger icons are unusual exceptions. They're very small (in terms of dimensions), and this has two pertinent effects:

1. The importance of the transparent background is much greater, because the images otherwise can be difficult to recognize. (A larger PNG simply doesn't look quite as good, but remains acceptable, especially given the reduced file size.)

2. Even in GIF format, the file sizes already are very small. The tiny reduction (1KB) is not nearly enough to justify the problem cited above.

Thanks again for being courteous enough to consider my edit summaries and initiate this discussion. I sincerely hope that I've explained my position to your satisfaction. —Lifeisunfair 22:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I understand now. I didn't know that Rules of thumb meant something like that. I accept your edits, they can remain as gif, what you said makes sense. Thanks for the info, I'm new around here at editing (with an account, at least). Optimager 23:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you've been adding a great deal of information to the various article status templates, and I'm writing to inquire about a portion of the text.

I recognize the benefits of the stating the associated category and listing the related templates in a "see also" section, and I agree that these templates should not be inserted via subst.

I don't, however, understand why you're including the sentence "This template is a self-reference." with a link to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. The rule in question does not apply to article status notices within the template namespace, but this statement/link combination seems to imply that such templates are in violation and should not be used.

Could you please explain your reasoning behind the inclusion of this statement? Thank you! —Lifeisunfair 17:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The common use for it would not be Wikipedia:Subst but it would be great if it does work with it.

They are are self-references are they not? From how i see it, there are some templates that do not self-reference because they refer to other article in content, but there are some templates such as status templates which refer to Wikipedia maintenance.

This is the same with articles and categories.

They are not in violation; I am just marking them to let people be aware of it.

Plus, I would like to put all those See Also references to other related templates into one template itself to be used in each of those templates.

Would that be a good idea?

-- Zondor 17:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The common use for it would not be Wikipedia:Subst but it would be great if it does work with it."

Why would that be useful? These messages are intended to be temporary and easily removed, and should be readily identifiable via automated means by those who wish to mirror the actual article content elsewhere.

"They are are self-references are they not?"

Yes, but they're the type that is explicitly permitted.

"They are not in violation; I am just marking them to let people be aware of it."

1. How is it beneficial for "people be [made] aware of it"? Why should this particular ordinary element of Wikipedia be singled out for notation (as opposed to noting that "this template is rectangular" or "this template is blue"?

2. Don't you realize that referring to such a template as a "self-reference" while simultaneously including a link to a page entitled "Avoid self-references" strongly implies that the template should be avoided?

"Plus, I would like to put all those See Also references to other related templates into one template itself to be used in each of those templates. Would that be a good idea?"

My understanding is that it's best to avoid embedding one template within another (because of server strain issues). —Lifeisunfair 17:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It can be very useful. For example, the AFD templates are often used for Subst to put less strain on the servers or whatever. So adding noinclude tags will muck it up because Subst will include everything. Why is it that way I wonder because it would be appropriate otherwise. People may think its spamming, but I am just giving it extra attention it should deserves. Perhaps Avoid self-references should be renamed to Manage self-references to avoid any connotations. -- Zondor 18:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. I understand why the use of the subst method sometimes is desirable. As I mentioned above, however, these particular templates should not be inserted in this manner; it's better for them to appear in the article bodies in shorthand form (surrounded by double curly brackets). This makes them easier to identify and remove (particularly by outside publishers of the articles).

2. You haven't explained (and I don't understand) why "extra attention" should be paid to the fact that these templates contain self-references. How is this information supposed to affect the manner in which the templates are utilized? In other words, in what way should a person put this knowledge to use, acting differently because he/she read your notation? —Lifeisunfair 18:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If they are subst'able then its an extra advantage in flexibilty. For example, I can reproduce the literal content of one of these templates to show you. A portal skeleton template could benefit from noinclude information but its primary use is in conjunction with subst. I am rewording my messages to: "This template is a self-reference and so is part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopaedic content." and "This category is a self-reference and so is part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopaedic content.". Hope thats better. It's easy to know that the articles in the Wikipedia namespace is part of the project but not the encyclopaedic content. For templates and categories it would be a little difficult because some are self-reference and some are not. My underlying agenda is to mark all self-references so in the future one can easily programatically remove them. This would be beneficial for a distinct separation between project and content. Perhaps, all self-references would fall into one big category of Cat:Wikipedia self-references? In conjunction with stealth templates? -- Zondor 15:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually seek out particular users for votes, but having seen Margaret Turnbull through the VfU I'd like to see it pass the subsequent AfD, located here. You didn't actually comment on the content and of course you're free to delete, keep, abstain etc. Just thought I'd pass it along because you commented twice on the VfU. Marskell 23:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for using ugly as a verb! SchmuckyTheCat 19:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see you changed back an edit I had made at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, regarding whether cleanup tags should go in talk pages or article spaces, noting that the consensus was that they could go into articles. Please could you refer me to the discussion that this consensus was reached at? Thanks, Enchanter 19:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't one unified discussion. This issue has arisen on several occasions at various templates' talk pages. I don't recall exactly which ones, but the older, less specific templates are the most likely. (The newer, more specific templates were patterned after the existing ones.)

As I referenced in my edit summary, none of these templates use the "CoffeeRoll" style (which was formally selected as the design for all talk page templates.) Article templates come in variety of colors (blue for cleanup, purple for mergers and splits, etc.), but talk page templates always should use the "CoffeeRoll" format. If a template doesn't, it's a safe assumption that it's either the product of a consensus for article placement or a specialized version of a such a template. A talk page link (which many of the templates in question contain) is another clear indication of article placement (because it obvious doesn't make sense to refer readers to a page that they're looking at). —Lifeisunfair 21:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is here. Please join! Pilatus 19:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Your merge templates were a perfect solution - Just to let you know that I've started to use them in closing debates since today as a trial basis (and hopefully it all works well). :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 06:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for contacting me! I've seen these used by a couple of other sysops so far, and there don't appear to be any problems.

I designed {{afd-mergefrom}} for placement on the article's talk page (hence the "CoffeeRoll" coloring). My reasoning is that it's appropriate to add a large, colored tag to an article that's intended to become a redirect (just as we do with {{merging}}), but it's preferable to avoid adding such a banner to the surviving article (which generally is in no danger of deletion).

Thanks again for using my templates and taking the time to write! —Lifeisunfair 12:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not seeing the message. I've noticed it now. :) - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I realize how easy it is to overlook messages on a cluttered talk page.  :) —Lifeisunfair 04:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About your edit to {{disambig}}. Dab pages that list topics are doing so incorrectly - contrary to the manual of style. The previous wording of "which lists articles that may otherwise share" was fundamentally correct, while "a list of topics associated" is wrong. Would you consider discussing this somewhere.--Commander Keane 05:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By "topics," I meant both article links and singe-sentence mentions of alternative connotations that lack dedicated articles (but often contain links to related articles). I wasn't referring to pages that contain full-fledged write-ups of disparate topics (which, of course, is incorrect).

I do see how "topics" isn't the best word to convey the intended message, and I just changed it to "meanings," which hopefully is less ambiguous. Thanks very much for bringing this issue to my attention (instead of reverting). I sincerely appreciate it. If you still have concerns regarding the wording, I'm more than willing to discuss them at the template's talk page. —Lifeisunfair 14:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate, I had to revert this time. See the talk as to why. I'm happy to discuss changes - but it's an important template so we have to get it right.--Commander Keane 15:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeisunfair,
I'd suggest that your comments to me at WP:DRV were patronising at best. Despite my personal disregard for blogs in general, an examination of the argument shows that the "keep" side made no case: No links demonstrating mentions in media, no statements in parliment about Bloggin Toires, etc etc. Had they done so, I'd happily have seen this article kept. These aren't meant to be me-too pile-ons, they are meant to be debates. That I have a different view than you is no reason to malign my character.
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd suggest that your comments to me at WP:DRV were patronising at best."

The advice in question was written without condescension. (I even included the word "respectfully," purely as a means of conveying the fact that no disrespect was intended.) I'm sorry that you viewed it as some sort of insult.

"Despite my personal disregard for blogs in general, an examination of the argument shows that the "keep" side made no case: No links demonstrating mentions in media, no statements in parliment about Bloggin Toires, etc etc. Had they done so, I'd happily have seen this article kept. These aren't meant to be me-too pile-ons, they are meant to be debates."

Suffice it to say, I disagree with your assessment, as do most of the WP:DRV voters (including "delete" voters from the AfD debate). I'm not suggesting that you change your mind, but merely that you accept the outcome and move on (instead of harping on how wrong all of us are).

I cited an example of a recent situation in which I found myself in a similar position. I still disagree with the TfD consensus, but I realize that my opinion is in the vast minority (and therefore must be overridden). Yes, this is frustrating, but such is life.

"That I have a different view than you is no reason to malign my character."

Ditto. —Lifeisunfair 00:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Bah. I still feel that your comments came across as condescending, and that the "respectfully" was about as useful as "Don't be mad when I say this", but I am totally undone by the artful way thay you nested the bullet points with colour. Bah. I'll go do something useful now. - brenneman^(t)(c)
• Oh! Almost forgot - I'll take "Ditto" to mean that you feel like I've insulted you back, so I'm sorry. Not my intent. Handshakes all around, etc. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lifeisunfair. Discussion on this award at WP:BAP has been at a standstill for almost two months. Since you were previously involved in the decision-making, please consider reviving the discussion. If no attempts are made within a week, it will be archived. Thanks, Sango123 (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hey there,

I saw your discussion on the proposed new barnstar, did you create that image? It's beautiful, congratulations. I think the general trend seems to be going that way. I really liked the globe one as well, but I think it would be better for geography. the UN one is nice too, but maybe too national with all those flags, maybe for some UN barnstar in future. the one with the tower of Babel is good too but too big I think... how many more votes do we need, are you familiar with the rules for creating new barnstars? great work, keep it up :-) cheers Gryffindor 01:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was just replying to you at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals when you posted the above message. As I mentioned there, this is a straw poll — an informal means of gauging opinion. There is no official number of votes required, and it's become obvious that the proposal will succeed.

And yes, I did create the Rosetta barnstar image. Thanks very much for your kind words! —Lifeisunfair 01:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes I just saw it. Awesome. Please let me know if there any new developments regarding this barnstar, or if you ever need assistance in anything. Gryffindor 01:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think nobody will notice the difference unless they have it watchlisted, I was thinking of adding an optional date parameter to the other members of the template:cleanup family... but thought maybe that would be too bold. My original idea was to try to make an undated {{cleanup}} default to the current month/year, but it doesn't seem possible. What I mean is if (in the template)...

1. ...one changed {{{1| }}} to {{{1|{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}} the date noted in the cleanup tag would continue to update every month, thus changing the category each article is in, unless the template was substed onto the article, which would be best avoided at all costs.
2. ...one changed {{{1| }}} to {{{1|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}}, all future articles would default to the month and year that that change was made.

Any work-around you can think of for this? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I was in the process of adding an optional date parameter to {{cleanup-section}} when you replied. (This shouldn't be controversial, as it doesn't require the creation of a new category.) Did I do this correctly?

I'm afraid that I'm stumped regarding a solution to the problem that you described. Ideally, the MediaWiki software would be updated to include such functionality (and eliminate the need for "if" templates). —Lifeisunfair 14:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who's up. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that the two images you used as examples that were wrongly tagged {{badJPEG}} were your own. I apologize if I offended you in some way, but I don't think that calling for the template to be deleted altogether because I made a couple mistakes was the appropriate response. —Bkell 06:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't offended, and I assure you that I didn't nominate the template for deletion for any personal reasons. I used those images as examples because I noticed them on my watchlist. (That's how I learned of this template's existence.) I nominated the template for deletion because it appears as though it's being indiscriminately applied (both in wording and practice) to all non-photographic JPEG images. (I have only two on my watchlist, and both were tagged, so I find it difficult to believe that you "made a couple mistakes" when rapidly tagging over 1,800 images.) As I said, many of these images undoubtedly are from JPEG sources (and cannot be visually improved). If an existing image can be saved more efficiently as a PNG or SVG file, why not simply perform the conversion (instead of tagging it and waiting for someone else to do the real work)? —Lifeisunfair 07:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that none of the images that can be tagged can simply be resaved as a PNG or SVG file. That would defeat the entire purpose, since the JPEG compression artifacts would still be there, and the resulting file size would always be greater. In order to fix these JPEGs, someone has to either find that the original image was a GIF or PNG, and upload that instead, or get out some graphics software and redraw the image themselves. This is not a trivial task. Mysid has been doing some excellent work over the past few days redrawing JPEGs in SVG format, and I've done a few myself, although the best I can do with the software I have is to redraw them as PNGs. The {{badJPEG}} tag exists for the same reason the {{Cleanup-image}} tag does: the actual cleanup process will take a while, and in many cases whoever tags the image does not have the resources to do the cleanup work themselves.

In response to your other concern, as you noted I have tagged about 1,800 images in the past week. I am currently going through the Logos category and finding inappropriate JPEGs there (I'm somewhere in the middle of the C's). Nearly all of the images in that category that are in JPEG format would be happier as PNGs, but there are a few that I have skipped because I felt that JPEG is the best choice: Image:05 WSOP logo edited.jpg, Image:103 qvgd millions.jpg, Image:114203.jpg, Image:17N-manifesto.jpg, Image:2005 wsop logo.jpg, Image:2005poster.jpg, Image:20th Television.jpg, Image:320kidzone.jpg, and so on, and we aren't even close to the letter A yet. So I have tried not to indiscriminately apply this tag to all JPEGs that are not photographs. But I am only human, after all, and what I'm doing isn't especially exciting, so occasionally I find that I've zoned out for the past few images. Maybe it was during one of those periods I tagged both of your images (they would have been right next to each other in the list, you know).

More likely what happened was something like this: Let's look at Image:Call for Help US.jpg. The orange square that contains the C does have a bunch of gradients and different colors, but on a quick glance I might have thought it was two big blocks of different shades of orange separated by that little squiggle. The same for the big blue square that contains HELP: in a quick glance I probably saw maybe eight or nine different shades of blue there, sharply separated, and missed the subtle gradients. So it's a more complex image than I originally saw, and that's why it was tagged. My two-second evaluation of the image was incorrect.

I would invite you to take a look at Category:Images with inappropriate JPEG compression if you haven't already, and see the images that have been tagged. You will see that the vast majority need to be redrawn. Images like the two you presented are exceptions, and were tagged because I made a mistake. The template itself is still valuable tool for identifying areas of Wikipedia that need improvement. —Bkell 18:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that none of the images that can be tagged can simply be resaved as a PNG or SVG file. That would defeat the entire purpose, since the JPEG compression artifacts would still be there, and the resulting file size would always be greater.

The part about the compression artifacts is correct, but the part about the file size is not; it often would be increased in a straight conversion, but not "always." For example, see this image. I just converted it to a PNG file (without performing any other edits), and this reduced the file size by 49.6%.

In order to fix these JPEGs, someone has to either find that the original image was a GIF or PNG, and upload that instead,

Why would someone have converted a GIF file or PNG file to the JPEG format before uploading it?

or get out some graphics software and redraw the image themselves.

For the entries that I'm seeing in this category, that simply isn't a valid option (because they're copyrighted images from official sources).

So it's a more complex image than I originally saw, and that's why it was tagged. My two-second evaluation of the image was incorrect.

Perhaps you should spend more than two seconds evaluating each image. :)

I would invite you to take a look at Category:Images with inappropriate JPEG compression if you haven't already, and see the images that have been tagged. You will see that the vast majority need to be redrawn.

Again, logos should not be redrawn. —Lifeisunfair 20:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess not "always." Perhaps that was hyperbole. Even if the file size is reduced, though, conversion to PNG won't get rid of any compression artifacts in the JPEG.

I don't know why people convert things to JPEGs, but it happens. Maybe they took a screenshot instead of just saving the image, and they saved the screenshot as a JPEG. Or maybe they have some mistaken idea that it would be better to convert the image to a JPEG, because JPEG always preserves colors better than GIF (which is generally true for things like photos, due to GIF's color depth limitations) or that JPEG is the "preferred" format for Wikipedia (which is not true). And even if the user performed no conversion, there still might be an "original" image in GIF or PNG format. For example, a corporation might have its logo in JPEG format on some Web pages and in GIF format on others.

I still don't understand why people insist that logos should not be redrawn. If a logo is redrawn by a Wikipedian to make the image clearer or the file size smaller, but the resolution is not changed, I don't see how this can affect the fair use status of the image. (In fact, I'm not even sure that the resolution of the image has anything to do with "fair use," but I'll play along.) And the JPEG compression artifacts that are present in a logo in JPEG format are obviously not part of the logo, so losing them is fine.

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that logos don't belong on Wikipedia at all, because I don't see what they add to articles, and they are certainly copyrighted and so invite intellectual property hassles. But the existence of thousands of them is a good indicator that I've been outvoted, so I won't fight that. If we're going to have them, though, we should get the crispest, cleanest versions we can. —Bkell 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By "redrawn," do you mean "cleaned up and saved in a different file format" or do you mean "replicated from scratch"? The former is perfectly fine (in my assessment), and I was under the impression that we were discussing the latter. —Lifeisunfair 23:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either would be fine. Why would replicating the logo from scratch be a problem? Do you think it violates copyright law in some way, or do you think it would yield an image that is not "equivalent" to the original, or is there some other problem I'm not seeing? (By the way, I think we can just continue this conversation here, instead of having to copy it over to my talk page as well.) —Bkell 23:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that we possess the legal right to display an unauthorized imitation of a copyrighted/trademarked logo. No matter how skilled the creator, it almost certainly would contain some slight variations that set it apart from the real thing. Even if it appears to be perfect, none of us are qualified to judge. Therefore, only an officially issued version (perhaps with obvious compression artifacts removed) should be used. —Lifeisunfair 00:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, it should be noted that what copyright and trademark are protecting is not the pixel-by-pixel color values of a JPEG from an official source, but rather the overall "image" represented. So we don't need to be so paranoid about getting the logo directly from a corporate Web page and preserving it exactly as is for a Wikipedia article.

Second, consider an example: Image:007.svg, drawn by Gmaxwell. Extremely close inspection might reveal some slight differences from the "real" 007 logo, such as the shape of the curve of the upper part of the hole in the first zero, and the end of the gun barrel. But these differences are immaterial. It does just as good of a job in the James Bond article as the "real" 007 logo would. There is no injustice being done by these almost imperceptible differences. This drawing is still covered by the trademark laws that cover the "real" 007 logo, due to their similarity. And if it would qualify as "fair use" to use an official 007 image, then why would it not be fair use to use a redrawn version in the same way? What does it matter if the copy of the logo on Wikipedia is a byte-for-byte identical copy of an "official" version, or a copy that someone made from scratch? The question of whether an infinitely scalable image like this SVG version still qualifies as fair use might be a different matter, but that's not what we're discussing here. —Bkell 01:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, as I perceive it, is that we're permitted to use these logos under very specific conditions. I'm not a legal expert, but I don't believe that we're entitled to display what essentially amounts to a knockoff of an official image. I'm not saying that our version needs to be a pixel-for-pixel duplicate of any particular file, but it should fall 100% within the organization's registered specifications. Otherwise, it's an inaccurate representation, and I don't see how that can qualify as fair use. —Lifeisunfair 01:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are only registered specifications for a logo in the very specific case of registered trademarks, and trademark law doesn't have a concept of "fair use" (that's part of copyright law). In a nutshell, trademark law prohibits people or organizations from using a trademark, or a confusingly similar mark, on competing products or services. This is to protect consumers, so that trademarks can be reliably associated with specific products (i.e., so that when I go to the store and buy Brand ABC milk, I know that it was actually produced by ABC Company, and not fraudulently labeled "ABC" by the nefarious XYZ Company, trying to make a penny off the good name of ABC). This doesn't really apply to Wikipedia, except maybe in articles that would incorporate trademarks of other encyclopedias, or the like. Under trademark law, I think Wikipedia should have no problem displaying logos of most organizations, since there isn't competition.

It's copyright law that comes into play. Copyright is the right to reproduce, or to authorize others to reproduce, intellectual property. The "fair use" clause is what Wikipedia claims in order to use logos in articles. This is the same clause that is invoked to allow excerpts from books, scans of CD cover art, and so forth to be used. It has nothing to do with the fact that these logos are the trademarks of organizations (because that's covered by trademark law, not copyright law). The exact conditions under which fair use may be claimed are a little fuzzy; see [1] for an overview. As far as I can tell, though, the important point here is that copyright law doesn't distinguish between methods of reproduction. So, if we're going to claim fair use, it doesn't matter if we copy the image byte-for-byte, or if we reproduce it from scratch.

Now, after having said all that, I should also remark that I am not a lawyer. —Bkell 01:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it were realistic to expect a logo reproduced from scratch to be substantially identical to the "real thing," there would be no problem. It isn't the mechanism that I believe is inappropriate; it's the likely outcome (an inaccurate representation of someone else's intellectual property). —Lifeisunfair 02:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll agree with that, although I might be more optimistic about the likely outcome. In any case, I certainly won't complain if someone takes a JPEG from a company's Web page, fixes the artifacts in some graphics program, and then uploads that as a PNG. If someone later comes along with a redrawn version, and it's inaccurate or crappily done, we can always revert back to the previous image. Keep in mind, though, that the "original" JPEG image might itself be an inaccurate representation of intellectual property; consider the Mountain Dew logo to the right. ;-) —Bkell 02:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify something that might be misunderstood, I don't want the job of redrawing logos to fall to Joe Newbie, who will pull out Microsoft Paint and puke out a badly drawn bitmap. I expect that if these logos are redrawn, it will be done with some professional-level graphics program. This is one reason the {{badJPEG}} tag shouldn't be viewed in the same light as, for example, the {{no license}} tag, where if the problem isn't fixed in a week the image will be deleted. If a JPEG version is the best we have at the moment, then by all means use it in articles. The {{badJPEG}} tag should be viewed as a "wishlist" rather than an ultimatum. —Bkell 02:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of someone converting an image to a JPEG before uploading to Wikipedia: Image:Republic of the Rio Grande.jpg, which was converted from http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/m/mx-rgr.gif before being uploaded. I couldn't find an example at the time, but I thought I'd let you know just in case you were still skeptical. ;-) —Bkell 18:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent improvement of the wording of the template. —Bkell 23:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!  :) —Lifeisunfair 23:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I have adjusted Pearle to use just "cleanup" now. I don't think there's really much point in changing all the existing cleanup-dates to cleanup. We have a lot of template redirects where people use whatever they're most familar with, and we don't try to canonicalize them. These should work their way out of the system in about a year, anyway, as articles get cleaned up. (Or sooner, if we make a concerted effort.) -- Beland 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My revert was purely in support of a guideline endorsed by the Wikimedia developers and the ArbCom. It adds nothing to the discussion to sling an insult at me. If you want to do that, use my talk page. -- Netoholic @ 17:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of deliberately insulting anyone; my questions are sincere. —Lifeisunfair 08:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your sincere personal criticisms to a private talk page. -- Netoholic @ 08:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk pages aren't private. —Lifeisunfair 08:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At this point is where other people might continue to bicker over petty word interpretation. I'm done with this thread. Just please keep template talk pages on the topic of the template. "Comment on the edit, not the editor" and soforth. -- Netoholic @ 08:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not splitting hairs. Anyone can view our talk pages.

I believe that my questions (which you've yet to answer) are relevant to the template. Nonetheless, I have respected your request by replying here. —Lifeisunfair 08:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You asked two questions, only one had to do with the template. I answered it. -- Netoholic @ 08:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The questions to which I referred:

Have your editing restrictions been lifted? If so, does this mean that you intend to go right back to template revert warring?

The answers to these queries directly impact {{spoiler}} and other templates. —Lifeisunfair 08:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, thank you for your support. I'm now an ADMINISTRATOR. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:36, Dec. 17, 2005

Congratulations! You'll be a terrific sysop. I've been meaning to get around to creating a user page, and I finally have done so. —Lifeisunfair 11:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm yes I see your point about the product colors, but I liked it better before. It doesn't go with my other colors now... too dark. Oh well I guess there are hundreds of editors using this template. If nobody else objects, it's cool. Just creating this section in case anybody else wants to discuss...Herostratus 06:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the template in my user page. But shouldn't the one be updated as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing#Browsers Kucing 23:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my wrong reversion. And thanks for reverting it. – Adrian | Talk 22:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that we've been asked by the MediaWiki developers to limit the use of conditional templates as much as possible. (Please see Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates).

I've reinstated {{cleanup-date}}, and we need you to reset Pearle to use it instead of the reformatted {{cleanup}} tag (and ideally replace all of the instances that it added).

I sincerely apologize for having steered you down the wrong path, and I hope that the resultant inconvenience is minimal. —Lifeisunfair 02:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I've switched back and am cleaning up now. -- Beland 05:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was looking over my talk page, and I remembered dealing with you over Template:Exploding animals (see User_talk:Lifeisunfair#Template:Exploding_animals up there)... and it came to mind that you were remarkably level-headed and nice. Your edit count and experience at Wikipedia looked good to me, so I checked up Wikipedia:List_of_administrators and you weren't listed there, so I'm assuming you're not an admin already. I was planning on nominating you at WP:RFA, but I figured that I should check with you first to make sure that you don't have some moral aversion to adminship or something. ;)

Would you be willing to accept a nomination? Matt Yeager 06:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, in that vein...

And good luck to you! Matt Yeager 00:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is functioning normally. A user attempted to rename Category:United States television networks and Category:United States radio networks without bringing the matter to WP:CFD. I swapped the tags to reverse the process. The same user also performed a copy-and-paste move of List of United States cable and satellite television networks to List of American cable and satellite television networks, the latter of which was speedily deleted. I intend to nominate the two new categories for deletion after the bot has finished emptying Category:American radio networks. —Lifeisunfair 03:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for clarifying that for me. :)

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 04:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. :) —Lifeisunfair 04:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I confronted User:Ronald20 about the clipboard jobs (i.e. cut/paste) on his talk page and got no response. Thus, I would support stronger action if this continues. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:17, Dec. 22, 2005

Happy holidays. -- Netoholic @ 16:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was clear by now. I find your username to be negative, and contributes to a negative atmosphere. If an anonymous user with little Wikipedia experience were to vandalize and then be disciplined by a user named "LifeisUnfair" I can see them getting the wrong idea and quitting. If you changed your username I would support you. freestylefrappe 19:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... whereas I think this is nonsense, and your username is creative and interesting. Are you sure you want to change it? — Dan | talk 02:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid so. This isn't the first time that someone has taken issue with my username, and it likely wouldn't be the last. If I'm to be a sysop, I want to serve the community in the most effective manner possible, so it probably is best for me to switch to my real name (which presumably shouldn't be objectionable to anyone other than anti-Semites). —Lifeisunfair 04:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your request has been fulfilled. Regards — Dan | talk 04:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an absolute farce that you've had to change your name just because someone opposed you for not liking your old name. Anyhow, good luck with your RFA. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 07:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first time that someone has taken issue with my username, and it likely wouldn't have been the last. If I'm to be a sysop, I want to serve the community in the most effective manner possible, so it probably was best for me to switch to my real name (which presumably shouldn't be objectionable to anyone other than anti-Semites). —David Levy 07:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say... The change in username also means a very large number of Jewish RFAs of late...! חנוכה שמח ובהצלחה jnothman ^talk 11:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I remain baffled by how the developers can possibly be taken as being less than clear at any point. From day one, Jamesday said that meta-templates cause noticable database strain, and should be avoided. Phil Sandifer 06:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote myself from Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates:

I merely want to understand the nature and extent of the problem. I'm more than willing to abide by the developers' recommendations, but Jamesday's statements on this page are not particularly specific. "Using resources unnecessarily is not helpful," but how should we define "unnecessarily"? (Technically, all templates are unnecessary.) Should we merely "work at reducing the use of qif," or should we ban it entirely?

I'm not saying, "let's all continue to use these templates until we're told not to." I'm saying, "let's be told what not to do, and hopefully no one will try to do it."

Every pertinent comment by Jamesday that I've read has been something along the lines of "try to avoid using those" or "try to reduce their use." I've never seen him recommend an outright ban. If he does feel that way, I want him to say so, thereby putting to rest all doubts. This, however, would not change my template use in the slightest, because I already have decided to err on the side of caution (by avoiding conditional templates completely). I'm speaking on behalf of the community, which I believe is entitled to a first-hand apprisal of the situation.

Perhaps you've privy to some of Jamesday's comments with which I'm unfamiliar, or maybe your understanding of his intentions is clearer than mine. Regardless, you've misrepresented my stance on this issue. —David Levy 06:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the usage of the words "should be avoided". I have learned now the hard way that you interpret this as "don't ever create and use any template that calls another template". If you say everywhere "avoid to use that", everybody seeks reasons to demonstrate that his or her uses qualify as an exception. I also asked on WP:AUM whether there are any exceptions that qualify as noble ones, ones that are not expected to be removed. But I got no answer. So I suspect now there aren't any. Furthermore I would propose to stop saying we ignore the developers. This is not correct. – Adrian | Talk 11:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 05:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 05:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go David go! :) Congratulations. Matt Yeager 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gratz teh adminship. Now back-stab them all by changing your name back, lol. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:53, Dec. 28, 2005

CONGRATS!! (And yeah, I agree with Freak. Go for it!) I look foreward to seeing you around _fD pages, and good luck with el mop and broom! -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 06:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm glad to have someone as good as you alongside me as an admin, as I'm sure you'll do just fine. If you have any questions, ranging from the simplest protection (and now semi) to rangeblocks and taboo issues, feel free to ask myself or any of the other admins/mop weilders. Again, congrats, and I'm sure you'll be great. My theory: you start out as a new contributor and mess up tons just learning the ropes. Then you graduate and become experienced; they hand you the mop. You mess up tons, and then you learn from it, and the cycle continues. Good luck learning the ropes, and have fun! -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 06:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --King of All the Franks 12:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Congrats on adminship! -- Jbamb 13:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, my plan is coming to fruition. Soon my agents will have fully infiltrated the cabal. Mwa-ha-ha-ha. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have blocked User:Miskin and User:Macedonia for 3RRvios on Macedonians (ethnic group). I protected that article due to the edit-warring before I became aware of your block. I have offered to lift their blocks so that they can negotiate and reach an acceptable solution to their dispute on the talk page sooner than wait for their blocks to expire. IMO rehabilitation is more important than punishment on Wikipedia. I just thought it appropriate to tell you what I've done. Thanks. Izehar 14:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, sorry about the trouble for Bobbydoop. I'm not convinced that he is following Wikipedia etiquette, but I may [have] nominated him for 3RR too soon. We'll see if we can work it out in a hopefully less confrontational manner. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 04:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. He's now editing here, making the same changes in the Bronx Science article: 152.163.100.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) An AOL account... Great. Tfine80 05:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now created this account SnoodleGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), editing on St. John's. Tfine80 05:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think userboxen are probably a bad thing too. I'm iffy on the babel ones, and dislike pretty much everything else, but I suppose the problem with trying to delete them is that all the people who have already been distracted by their baubles don't want them to go. It's too bad they were not nipped in the bud at an earlier point. --Improv 06:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of Wikipedia:Revert:

A revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time.

I'm not sure now - could you block User:Anittas and User:Ghirlandajo who have violated the 3RR according to my strict definition. I would do it, except I have already said I won't - the revert war continues. Izehar 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS those two users are listed at WP:AN/3RR. Izehar 16:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it - IMO it's best to turn a blind eye and not get involved. Izehar 17:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* I see you blocked - it's probably best. I bet that once I check my e-mail, my mailbox will be full of "unblock me" messages. These will of course be ignored, just ike the last time... I think I should keep away from 3RRvios and go and live a quiet peaceful life on AfD and stub-sorting :-) Izehar 18:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David. I noticed that you blocked this user for 3RR violation. Would you please list the reverts you counted against him on his talk page? Perhaps I missed it, but I do not see more than three. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David. I was hoping you counted them wrong, but it's obvious that it was me who made a counting error. It's a pity to lose Ghirla for 24 hours—he is otherwise a really fine contributor who makes tons of high-quality edits around holidays. I can only hope he'll be more careful in future.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Ezhiki. He counted very well. And speaking about his fine contributor and high-quality edits....So much to speak about them....I know he hates Poland and me also but..."This piece of trash" ??? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Izehar&diff=next&oldid=33244436 ???

Look who's talking about! Good joke, Ghirlandajo! What about you Ghirlandajo? They didn't start the RfC against you for nothing I suppose!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ghirlandajo ????

Just look at his contributions:

• Calling names, ad hominem attacks and usage of offensive language
  • Calling Poles Polacks [2]
  • When asked to apologize or stay on topic, he replied with [3]
  • Offensive language [4], "zombie", revert zombie, [5],
  • Suggestions of being intoxicated by obscure Polish hack writers, ignorance, ad hominem arguments, calling the arguments of the opponents slurs and hysteria, offensive language, ethnic slurs... all is there, in one edit diff. Also, bizarre accusations of some sort of conspiracy [6]
  • [7] [8] if this statement is a personal opinion of Halibutt, Molobo, Rydel, and Co, you may continue gaping at your cheap Polish propaganda booklets about alleged Russian massacres, which I daresay are "not considered a credible source even by Wikipedia" as well
  • ad hominem attack , later even strengthened; rvv a revert maniac: can't we block him?, [9], [10]
  • [11] racist ethnic generalizations and accuasion of incivility on behalf of the entire Polish nation

• Trying to escalate the conflict at Talk:History of Belarus by posting this comment at Portal:Russia/New article announcements. The notice was finally removed after Wojsyl asked him to stay cool [12]
• Accusations of:
  • ...breaking the wiki rules: (though later removed [13])
  • ...paranoia
  • ...bad faith: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]
  • ...ignorance: [21], [22], "fantasies", rm Polish idiosyncrasies, [23], rv ignorant nonsense, [24], [25],
  • ...offensive behaviour: changing Halibutt's comment into something he finds offensive and then accusing him] of offence, [26],
  • ...POV-pushing, revisionism and propaganda: [27], [28], [29], [30], [
  • ...trolling and sockpuppetry: Accusing User:Aegis Maelstrom to be a troll [31] and a sockpuppet [32] (though he admitted he was wrong after some time in the latter case, he kept renewing his unexpected attacks like [33] or suggestions ad personam like this one), [34], [35], [36], megalomania and trolling, [37]
  • ...hysteria, dementia and mania: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44],
  • ...conspiracy: [45]

• Others
  • [46]
  • [47] (as well as an interesting explanation of why User:Rydel left wikipedia...
  • [48] accusations of Russophobia, nationalism and of having said what I never did.
  • [49] signing with other registered user's name
  • [50]
  • [51] accusations of hysteria
  • [52] moving articles around to prove his point
  • [53]
  • [54]
  • [55]
  • [56]
  • [57]
  • [58]
  • [59]
  • [60]

• • Removing Belarusan spelling from Belarusan articles and putting Russian spellings instead. For example, [61] - he removed Belarusian spelling from an article about the most famous Belarusian woman and re-instated Russian spelling of her name, with the following comment: "Belarusian spelling is as pertinent as swahili". The same happened with Usiaslau of Polatsk and Euphrosyne of Polatsk (removing the Belarusan spelling with the comment: "outlandish spelling corrected").

• Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
  • covered by Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ghirlandajo
  • [62] withdrawn as a sign of good will by Wojsyl after the revert war was stopped

So again look who's talking about! --156.17.130.10 19:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla seems VERY disturbed with his block. Do you think he should be unblocked? Izehar 22:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any policy backing to that block? I don't think there is - there is no proof that that anon is Ghirla - I'll be resetting the block to 24 hours. Izehar 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, no policy provides for a doubling of a 3RR block for evading it. Izehar 22:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry - I was thinking of bans (as opposed to mere 3RR blocks), where evasion causes the block timer to restart, not to double. Rest assured I will not mess with your blocks again. I am more concerned about losing a valuable contributor - we say don't bite the newbies, but we also don't want to lose experienced and valuable contributors who actually write articles, which is more that can be said for you or me. Anyway, I apologise - I still am against your 48 hour block and have never seen a precedent for that. Izehar 22:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'd like to make a proper apology with regard to my resetting your block. I guess I did not heed the "discuss with the blocking administrator" guideline. I think it would be best if there were no bitter feelings - if we are going to work here together, I see no point in it. Izehar 22:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my edit to the Macy's picture's description. I didn't see it. All I saw was the wreath, and a Christmastree. Chooserr 01:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rewording. I never did like the tone of the first sentence. It had an air of "You'll have to do better than that." Gazpacho 12:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Romanian_discrimination&diff=33248586&oldid=33248292

That shouldn't count under 3RR, it was a reversion of obvious anon vandalism and was made IGF. --Node 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David can you watch Anti-Romanian discrimination? Mikka makes revert war there, I reverted once. --203.188.144.61 23:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And here Transnistria --203.188.144.61 23:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(cur) (last) 23:36, 31 December 2005 203.188.144.61 (I report you 3RR)

(cur) (last) 23:26, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai m (Reverted edits by 82.112.114.133 (talk) to last version by Node ue)

(cur) (last) 23:05, 31 December 2005 82.112.114.133 (rv vandalism from node ue)

(cur) (last) 22:15, 31 December 2005 Node ue (Umm... Tag, it's antipolicy to re-introduce copyvio material. (other changes as well))

(cur) (last) 21:49, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai m (Reverted edits by 163.20.85.7 (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)

(cur) (last) 21:29, 31 December 2005 163.20.85.7 (rv)

(cur) (last) 21:05, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai (→Economy - rm repetition)

(cur) (last) 21:01, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai (→Others (in Romanian language))

(cur) (last) 20:57, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai m (Reverted edits by 203.167.27.254 (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)

(cur) (last) 18:05, 31 December 2005 203.167.27.254 (stop it right there ASSHOLE)

(cur) (last) 17:46, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai m (Reverted edits by 161.53.9.188 (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)

(cur) (last) 08:05, 31 December 2005 161.53.9.188 (rv BBC reference Transnistria:"Misery in a pariah state")

(cur) (last) 07:26, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai (→Names)

(cur) (last) 07:18, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai (→Administrative regions)

(cur) (last) 07:15, 31 December 2005 JarlaxleArtemis m

(cur) (last) 07:13, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai (→Bibliography)

revert war made by mikka. He was warned once. He refused to cooperate. He erased valid sources. --202.175.182.76 23:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care his reasons. He as contributor should know not to revert more than 3 times and to edit in the same time. --202.175.182.76 23:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He as admin tries to impose his POV. Instead of talking on the talk page he wants to impose his POV version. Very bad from an Admin to do that. Looks very bad. --202.175.182.76 23:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David, please can you unblock Transnistria page? It seems that this bias Admin had some large edits there, then he blocked the page. I don't agree with him to removed so much refereces including very neutral from BBC.

Wish you all the best in 2006! Bonaparte talk 10:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, I'm feeling a little bit lost as to how we can deal with the situation on Stuyvesant High School. The account Bobbydoop is no longer responding to the talk page, but an anonymous IP with an editing pattern similar to Bobbydoop continues the "debate".. one that is going no where. I've tried to request an outside perspective from the Mediation Cabal, though nothing has come of it yet. As an example of the way the "debate" is going.. the anonymous IP said at one point, "is there any proof that he didn't die? the article specifically states that he died", which is interesting seeing that the (long) article did not say he died, and furthermore the "dead" person is well and alive as of December 2005 according to multiple external sources. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 16:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you chose not to block a nationalist revert warrior, User:Vasile, for 3RR violation whereas you blocked myself for exactly the same. Vasile deletes my edits whenever he can find them, spawns revert wars, and you are lending him your support. You are not neutral, face it.

You might also want to check User_talk:Mikkalai for another veteran blocked from editing Wikipedia for having violated 3RR on the same article as myself fending off attacks by the same trollish anon. As best I know, Mikkalai is the most prolific contributor on the Eastern European topics and one of the top ten most active wikipedians ever. And he is going to leave too.

To spend such an amount of personal time on fighting vandalism and nationalist trolls - and to be blocked from editing while pursuring that very cause? It's just not worth it IMHO. Today, when I returned to post a farewell message, I looked through my 1500-entries watchlist and noticed templates blanked, articles vandalized for days. The Russian articles are too obscure to be featured in anyone else's watchlist i think. But I don't care. With mikka, the problem is so much bigger, as the amount of work he does is huge!!! You don't have anyone to replace him at all. These are your problems now. --Ghirla | talk 22:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David, I would like to wish you a Happy New Year! From Bonaparte talk 11:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted that template only once today. I edited it twice. In any case, I would rather us both be blocked than to have Jtdirl's 3RR violation go unanswered. She reverted two editors today.... and has been waging that revert war since at least August on that template. -- Netoholic @ 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I have an idea that I wanted to tell to you first. You have been looking at the template:Infobox President thing with Neto and me recently. I was dreaming about explicit template versions. I have an idea how to achieve that with the existing MediaWiki software.

We could do the following:

On template:Infobox President we could create (just as an example) template:Infobox President/33438160 and copy in there the contents of Template:Infobox_President&oldid=33438160.

In George W. Bush we could then write

{{Infobox President/33438160}}

This would mean that we want version oldid=33438160 transcluded there.

template:Infobox President/33438160 could be protected as it is not meant to ever change.

Please answer here. I'm watching this page. Thanks for looking at this! Adrian Buehlmann 18:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good to me.  :-) —David Levy 19:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm a bit concerned with that ugly number. But it might be ok for starting a broader discussion. I'm thinking about starting a page under the Wikipedia namespace. Maybe Wikipedia:Template versions. Adrian Buehlmann 20:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really bad idea. This makes any notion of a "standard" template disappear, it makes maintenance of the template namespace atrocious, it will cause more edit wars than we have now (as each individual article forks off it's own version). Take a look at WP:TFD.... people hate template forks. -- Netoholic @ 21:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Adrian was proposing a system of permanent template forks, I misunderstood; I thought that this was merely a means of transitioning articles from one version of a template to another. —David Levy 21:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this. I think you might have misunderstood it. My intention is not to enable forks. I would propose a standard conduct for template writers and editors that follows some rules. An important rule is that under template:Infobox President/33438160 shall not happen any development. That template is frozen for all times to be the exact version oldid=33438160 of Infobox President. And thus can be fully protected. It would just be some sort of a constant that can be used in articles, a name that can be used to transclude a distinct version of Infobox President. Development should only happen at template:Infobox President and it should flow freely there. Article editors would then have the opportunity to say, yes that new version is now ready and we do upgrade to that new parameters (or whaterver adaption is needed) and we now switch to the newer version of the template. Development could then proceed without disturbing articles. It would also be possible that if an article only uses stable template versions that if you look at an old revision of that article you get exactly that view when it was then. Today this is not possible. On the level of the article you always have the newest version of the template. For some templates and/or articles this is ok, but for some articles this might be not. Upgrading to a new version of a template sometimes needs some adaption, so adapting the article and switching to a new version of the template should ideally happen at the same time. Adrian Buehlmann 21:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Netoholic, but I did misunderstand your proposal, which I now strongly oppose. Sorry. —David Levy 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Could you explain why? Adrian Buehlmann 21:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal would result in template forking. Different editors would prefer different versions of a template, and would revert war over which one to use. Your idea also would require every article to be updated after every template edit (no matter how minor), unless we were to abandon the concept of uniformity.

Each template should have one active version (except during the type of short-term transition period that we suggested to Netoholic). If behind-the-scenes development is desired, that should be done on a sub-page. —David Levy 21:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think I got your point. Today we have the situation that articles can be individually protected but that does not hinder to change those if they transclude a template that is not protected. Thus the vandalism argument against meta-tmplates. I find that the vandalism argument applies to all templates, not only on metatemplates. We now also have the situation that if a template (one that is fully conformant to WP:AUM) is transcluded in a lot of articles it is very difficult to change that template becuase it immediately affects all articles. This also can lock the database for seconds, even if no qif is around the scene ("But, templates are in the more near term a threat because they take out lots of servers for a while if a popular template is changed" - Jamesday in User_talk:Jamesday#multiple DB servers?). I do not say that all articles always should use those explicit template versions. But there are situations where this might definitely be good. For example George W. Bush could specify a certain template version and if that article is semi-protected then the decision to take that version is also protected. The argument of the edit warring per article is a good one. Today it immediately happens on the template. See Firebugs reaction on GWB article. He saw that GWB looked bad, noticed it is due to the template. Then he saw that template had been change. He then said, ok I disagree with that so I revert that template change. Then immediately all already converted articles were affected and looked horribly broken, which lead to a whole group of editors fixing in parallel on several articles at once. Adrian Buehlmann 22:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the problems that arose, and that's why I suggested the aforementioned transition scheme to Netoholic. —David Levy 22:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for taking part in that discussion. I have now an idea how that proposal would be seen. Think it has not much of a chance. So I will definitely not start a new page. Thanks again for your thoughts. Adrian Buehlmann 22:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

What do you do with an anonymous user that leaves rude comments when I try to tell him his edits are NPOV? His edits are also full of "&"s and rhetoric questions and generally, style that doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. See User_talk:PeregrineAY

Peregrine_^AY 01:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, non-NPOV. Thanks. Peregrine_^AY 01:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am enforcing the limitations of fair use and WP:FU which goes above and beyond any talk page discussion though I apologize for not dropping a note on the talk page when removing the image, I should have at least left a note. Also in terms of bordering on vandalism whatever happened to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, I suggest you read up on those since you apparently don't remember them. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]