User talk:174.3.98.236

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, 174.3.98.236, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Laurinavicius (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Do us all a favor and use preview, please--Criticism of Islam has dozens and dozens of tiny edits cluttering up the article history. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

about editing the MoS[edit]

You asked about why you can't edit the MoS. You will be able to if you register an account on Wikipedia. Because of the MoS's importance (or at least what we hope is its importance), it is not open to editing by anonymous users. Welcome on board. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

<ref> Tag Help[edit]

{{helpme}}

I am trying to implement the system of having 2 references in List_of_U.S._presidents#Notes & List_of_U.S._presidents#References into the article Borough_President#Bronx_Borough_Presidents.

Please fix!:O174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the problem that was causing the cite errors. You had an unclosed <ref> tag. It still is a little unreadable, but that should get you past your problem. Regards --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Criticism of Islam. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Information.svgThank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Criticism of Islam, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
  • The same applies to List of mayors of New York City, where it is even worse: you made 52 consecutive edits, most of them tiny, and none of them with an edit summary. This makes it very hard for other editors to work on the article, and I would remind you that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not necessary to provide an edit summary, or to do all edits in on sitting. Some people have bad computers and poor connections so they must save often. Sorry this is the Case.174.3.98.236 (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)174.3.98.236 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Finland[edit]

Sorry, my revert of your edit was a mistake. I was going the reverse it, but you beat me to it. Thank you for you understanding :-) Marek.69 talk 03:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

About your edits on 1903 Tour de France[edit]

Hi,

Thank you for your edits on 1903 Tour de France. While I can see that is not vandalism at all, I reverted some of it.You changed the collapsed table that hid the riders ranked 11 to 21. Your edit summary for that was "do not use unnecessary emphasis". Bolding the name of the winner was unneccessary, so good work in removing that! But I don't agree on the collapsed table. I agree that unnecessary emphasis should not be used, but in this case it is not unnecessary. I try to make the Tour de France articles as consistent as possible, and in some years more than one hundred riders finished. If all of them would be shown in the table, the table would be too large. External sources that do not show all finishers, usually show only the first 10 cyclists, so it is logical to always give the first ten cyclists, and hide the others.

You also separated the stage type icons from the stage lengths. That was a good idea, so simple that I am surprised that I did not think of it sooner. However, grouping them is not useful, as that suggests that the stages are somehow grouped too.

The 1903 Tour de France article is currently nominated for Good Article. Maybe that is the reason that you found the article, I don't know. One of the requirements for a good article is that it is stable. If you think that my reverts were wrong, I would kindly ask you to discuss them on the talk page (or on the good article review page). I don't own the article, so if your reasons are better than mine, the changes will be made. Thank you! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Register?[edit]

I see that you are serious in your edits on Wikipedia. You might want to consider to register. It is free, makes your editing easier, makes you actually more anonymous and makes your edits easier to distinguish from vandalism. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative. Face-smile.svg

Hello, 174.3.98.236, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some tips to get you started:

  1. ^ Example reference. http://www.example.com. Accessed January 1, 1900.
  • To create an article, use the article wizard.
  • Consider joining a WikiProject.
  • Use two apostrophes for italic text (''italic text''), three apostrophes for bold text ('''bold text'''), five apostrophes for bold and italic text ('''''Bold and italic text'''''), two brackets for an internal link ([[page name]]), two brackets and a pipe (|) for an internal link with different text to be displayed ([[page name|text to be displayed]]), the link, including the http:// prefix, for external links (http://www.example.com), one bracket and a space for an external link with different text to be displayed ([http://www.example.com Text to be displayed]), and two curly brackets for {{templates}}. See this page for more formatting marks.

Also take a look at some of these pages:

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing!


Again, welcome! Samwb123Please read 16:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Fruit is much better! Thank you!174.3.98.236 (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

6 tabs[edit]

I've replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability#Wasting Time. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 174.3.98.236. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kings of Rome[edit]

If changing sub-headers makes articles internally consistent and easier to read, please do change them: article content generally refers back to article title. Your recent edit summaries are very helpful, by the way! Have you considered registering? Yes, I'm a nag... Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

LInks[edit]

ANI Notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can't just go about making changes to guidelines and policies like you have. I've blocked you for 3 hours - you are causing a bit of disruption. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Some free advice, worth every penny[edit]

Although people have been judging your actions too harshly and too hastily, allow me to advise you that you're going about this in a way that tends to incite such reactions.

I could offer you more specific advice on how to avoid these problems, if you're interested.--Father Goose (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, man, there are ways of sidestepping most of the hostility and distrust you've been facing. Which is more important to you: getting your changes accepted, or calling people out on their distrust, which will just stir up more hostility? Learn how to surf the wave, not beat your fists against it.

I'll be your advocate if you're willing to learn how to finesse these situations. But I can't help you if you want to rage against the thoughtlessness of others. They'll still be thoughtless and they'll still act against you for calling them out on it. Follow me to get past these problems. Please.--Father Goose (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

wp:wtut Protection[edit]

This was a version that was not even edited by me. And this version was made after the rfc expired. So:
  • I did elicit comment.
  • You are reverting (mind you, at least) an edit that was not only agreed on by consensus, but was not selfwritten.174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Protecting this page for 10 days... shorter than when I left BOTH requests for comments up, before I made an edit. If I need only 10 days to wait, then why was I blocked, and why was this blocked?174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I haven't reverted anything, or blocked anyone, or protected anything for ten days (in connection with that article). Stifle (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Your last point = moot174.3.98.236 (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop[edit]

Why are you replacing the otheruses1 template with otheruses template minus the title, e.g. [1]? The title is useful please stop. I'm reverting those edits. Paul August 02:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:100110100[edit]

So, if you plan on using that account again, I can undelete what was on the user and talk pages there, if you'd like.--Father Goose (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#I_Need_Help_So_That_The_Templates_Work[edit]

It is not possible to use that particular template to achieve the effect you seem to be pursuing. However, wikitext does allow the colour changes to be effected through other means. To colour text, use the code <span style="color:red">Text goes here</span>. Alternately, text can be coloured within the table syntax by using

| style="color:red" | red text here

Colouring the background of a table is slightly more difficult. It is difficult to explain here, but you may like to peruse Help:Table and meta:Table background colors for a more thorough understanding. Cheers, Intelligentsium 22:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The code of the template could not handle tables without major modifications, which would probably make the template useless for its functions now. It may be possible to create a new template that could handle tables, but it more likely than not would be redundant to manually coding a table to have a coloured background. Intelligentsium 00:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me. It would not be easier to put the table into the template; in fact, it may be more difficult as well as confusing to do so. To code a template to handle a table, I would have to put a table on the template page. Then, I would have to set all the table options (i.e., headers, rows, cells, &c.) as variables, because one may not need three cells, or four; two may be sufficient, but at the same time there may arise a situation where one would need three or four. Thus, you would have to specify, by way of a parameter, which ones you want. However, there is little difference between, for example, typing | header1 = foo and simply typing ! foo in the table. I also foresee some difficulties in how one would input cells into the table. Moreover, the template is already used on multiple pages, so editing it would cause it to break on those pages. Intelligentsium 15:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
To input the cells, one would naturally use parameters, or arguments (such as | name = value). However, the difficulties lie in how one would name the cells (i.e., 1x1, or cell1) and how one would tell which are which. As each cell may have different CSS, this may make coding them more confusing than simply coding the table manually. In a manually coded table, it is fairly easy to tell what section of code would affect what cell, but in a template, this become confusing. There are also many options for table CSS, and how specific or unspecific to be with these with regards to template parameters might also be a hindrance. Intelligentsium 23:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Perodic table[edit]

Oh, that's what you were removing! Ha ha, sorry misunderstanding on my part! I thought you were vandalzing or something. Ha ha, sorry I kinda don not trust IPs dude... Adult Swim Addict (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasnt paying much attention dude. Sorry man! Adult Swim Addict (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey no hard feelings right? Adult Swim Addict (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Good, good. I got in a edit war with an IP one time, so sometimes I kinda get tenous. But I understand that your way was better on periodic table. Alright, well Happy EDiting! Adult Swim Addict (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a fine example of why using edit summaries is so important -- something like "unnecessary hatnote" for [2] and "redundant" for [3] works better than "try to figure out what I'm doing, and why".--Father Goose (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

ROC[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 174.3.98.236. You have new messages at Talk:Republic_of_China#Hatnote_Improvement.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Explain[edit]

Editwarring over some useful cross-reference links? Please explain before deleting again. AldaronT/C 15:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. never mind. (Really stupid rule, BTW. But a rule's a rule.) AldaronT/C 15:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Boston College[edit]

On User talk:Seduisant, you wrote:

I think we should use {{other}} instead of {{for2}} because the specificity is not required.174.3.98.236 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

For example, the disambig descriobes (but does not list) a research institution, which is not an academic institution.174.3.98.236 (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this, so I'm leaving it alone; maybe it should be taken to the BC Talk page. By the way, you seem serious, and you might want to consider registering if you plan on sticking around. Thanks. --Seduisant (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Editprotected[edit]

Please could you observe the instructions on the template:

This template should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus.

and stop adding it when it is not appropriate. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Gameplay of WoW[edit]

How is it useless? I would assert that it wasn't. Also, sorry for the reversion via rollback. The series of edits you made made it look like it was vandalizing. Mea culpa. --Izno (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  1. That doesn't stop a hatnote from being used here...
  2. See #1.
  3. How does this even matter?
In effect, I still don't see much a reason. Your edit stands until this discussion is over though, I suppose. Is there a real reason?... --Izno (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For2[edit]

Please stop replacing {{For2}} with {{dablink}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Relocated here to maintain conversation
Why not?174.3.98.236 (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Because it is not useful to do so. You seem to have something against {{For2}}, but you have not sought any consensus. The template exists, other editors have used it, and there is nothing to indicate that it is incorrect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The template itself is useless. If you really have to know, it is just {{dablink}} with a bunch of words and parameters.174.3.98.236 (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
It is just dablink with words and parameters, which makes it useful. Again, if you feel it is useless, bring it to WP:TfD to see if there is consensus. But I see you already have, and are continuing to prematurely act as if you have consensus. Since there isn't consensus, please stop removing it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

174.3.99.176[edit]

Is your IP currently 174.3.99.176 (talk · contribs) ? (Has your IP address changed a couple of days ago, or so, from this one to another?) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)