User talk:Go for it!/archive01

Philosophy nav

Look, you've basically reverted ALL my changes I have ever made to Template:Philosophy topics. Stop insisting on making the philnav your own place. I already explained why your categorisation isn't perfect. Ideas like "Theism" and concepts like "deduction" don't go together. In my version, they are correctly separated. Also, your formatting puts too much padding and wastes space. And stop going behind my back and starting a new template, ie Template:Philosophy Quick Topic Guide. Not only are you wasting server space, you are cluttering it up with redundancies and the title is now much longer. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Infinity0 16:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Besides, that goes both ways. Every time I make a change, you change it. So I'm sure I feel exactly the same way you do. Go for it! 09:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summaries

Dear Go for It!,

I have a request. When you're adding categories and templates to the philosophy articles, would you please also leave an at least brief edit summary, e.g. adding template or whatever? That way I won't feel that I need to check the article in the same way or with the same intent as if some editor were making a content change. I spend a lot of time just checking changes to a particular set of philosophy articles, and it helps not to do so needlessly. Thanks. Jeremy J. Shapiro 02:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll jot down edit notes as you requested. Sorry for the inconvenience. Go for it! 09:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do this. Jeremy J. Shapiro 03:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy Portal box

Hi GFI,

Whilst is a good thing (an excellent thing) that there is now a Philosphy portal, you appear to be going over the top with placing the {Philosophy portal} template on articles. As a rule, this sort of thing (along with navigation boxes) should never detract from the article itself.

On the whole, I would rather see portal links like this placed at the bottom of articles in the See also and External links section along with links to sister projects. I would also recommend toning down the template box by reducing the text to just 'Philosophy portal' and use the smaller more standard Image:Portal.gif. -- Solipsist 07:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I'm inclined to agree with you concerning the more specialized articles, while it may be advantageous to place the portal at the top on the most general of philosophy articles (like the major topic lists, the philosophy main article, the branches of philosophy, and a few others. I've noticed that Socrates' face clashes with the portraits on the biography articles, but I wasn't sure what to do about it. Thanks for the tip. I'll start experimenting to implement a smaller portal box, and will pay more attention to the "detraction" issue. Go for it! 09:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Question on AfD

Just as a minor note to your question on the AfD, you should check out this guideline for general notability qualifiers. I think you asked about circulation, and the magic number seems to be 5,000. --Michael ^(talk) 08:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

talk:Meaning of life

Template: Philosophy topics

Hi there. You've opted to revise the closure of this debate. I'd like to ask why. When I originally closed it, I decided there was no agreement that the template should actually be deleted (you use the word 'majority', which isn't enough to delete). It's clear that you want it deleted, but I don't think the debate mandates that, even though you've added it to the bottom of TfD with instructions to delete. Could you please explain this? Thanks. -Splash^talk 15:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seen you around the wiki "philosophy department"

Dude, lay off the caffeine. Seriously, I'm worried about you. KSchutte 21:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Procrastination

Hi Go for it!

Thank you for your message. I hate it when people remove things I wrote... and I don't even get a discussion about the merits of trimming the "theories" section. It's just deleted... What should I do? Is a mediator a danger for our article version? Or do the actions of a mediator just put a stop to pianoman's intentions? --Keimzelle 09:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation of vandalism is insulting and uninformed

Please actually read Wikipedia:Vandalism before citing it. I've scanned over the archives of the WikiProject Philosophy talk pages and cannot find anything to suggest that 'the template's design was backed' by the project -- can you help me out? In fact, the only thing I can find is an editor sharing my sentiment about the external links on Template talk:Philosophy topics. Additionally, are you aware of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, which linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy in the template definately falls under, and probably Portal:Philosophy and Category:Philosophy as well?—jiy (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I'm glad you asked. The template underwent 2 TfD discussions, in which Philosophy WikiProject members saved/ratified the template, and hence, the design. Since then, the template has become an integral part of WikiProject policy and instructions on Wikimedia:WikiProject Philosophy and its subpages, one of which specifies placement policies for the template. The template is also included in the project's template toolbox, and is displayed on the project page itself.

Portal and category links are common (especially on portals), so I can't believe they are against policy, and I found nothing about them in Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. But, with respect to the self-reference to the project, I have to agree with you. It's gone. Go for it! 14:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the two TfD discussions, and there was no positive consensus with regards to the use of external links in the design. Again, I only see the same editor sharing my sentiment and you replying. WikiProject members voting to keep the template is not the same thing endorsing the design of the template; surviving TfD only suggests there was a lack of consensus to delete it, not neccessarily that its existence and design has been ratified. Where is the discussion between WikiProject members that this is the approved design, or for that matter, discussion to establish which topics are suitable for inclusion in this template? The page history shows only you and Infinity0 exchanging edits, and you two hardly constitute a WikiProject.—jiy (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting to keep the template is the same thing as endorsing the design of the template. It was the whole template that was at issue. If the design didn't meet with their satisfaction, they wouldn't have saved it. Go for it! 00:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, template for deletion votes cannot be interpreted to be wholesale endorments of the template, as many based their votes on the potential of the template being useful, not neccesarily its current manifestation. Again, where is the positive discussion regarding this template's design and content?—jiy (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with you. If the design was not to enough users' satisfaction, it would not have been saved. The "potential" argument was a minority position on the winning side. Saving it was an endorsement of the design. Go for it! 00:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually looked at the discussion? Most of the votes say something like "good idea", "I can see use in this", "keep but make smaller". Voting based on potential and not neccesarily the exact design was hardly the minor position (and when I said voting based on potential I was describing voting for any template, not just this one). Once again, refer me to the solid, tangible consensus about design that says external links should be included in this template.—jiy (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Count the votes. Of the keep position, "potential" was the minority position. Once again, I don't agree with you. The design was supported. But you are entitled to your opinion, and merely restating your position will not cause me to change mine. Do you have any new arguments? Go for it! 00:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy

Please consider combining edits into a smaller number of edits. With a huge cloud of edits, it becomes more difficult to find other people's edits and it shoves older edits off the history page. Not a big deal, but I think it is a kindness for your fellow editors. Hu 01:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best to save up edits. Thanks for the advice. Go for it! 01:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth

Thanks for the cleanup on the Middle-earth portal. I've been trying to revive work on this and Wiki Middle-earth in general. --CBD ☎ ^✉ 10:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a temporary fix for the overlapping boxes, but I'll take a look at the Philosophy portal to see how it is working there. If it automatically adjusts to the size of the text in the box that'd be a big improvement over the current Middle-earth portal format. Thanks. --CBD ☎ ^✉ 11:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The new format looks great. Thanks for the help. --CBD ☎ ^✉ 12:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added edit buttons to make it easier for inexperienced users to edit the portal. Can take some/all of them out later if we want the page to be more stable. Thanks again for your help. --CBD ☎ ^✉ 13:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Browsebarbetter template

Hi, noted you've added a browsebarbetter template to the top of the Portal:Classical Civilisation page. Is this part of a portal drive? Should i be adding it to other portals?

on another note any suggestions on Classical philosophers that you feel are worthy for the portals' page would be greatly appreciated. Pydos 11:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the spelling etc. Hope there wasn't too much you needed to adjust. Pydos 15:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

will do my best. Check the class. civ portal soon to see which philosopher i add! Pydos 12:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - it always nice to receive a compliment about my work. On the adjustment point i know very little about computers (though my smattering of latin suggests 'macro' means large). If you explain it i'm willing to help Pydos 15:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. I'll give it some thought. I may have some free time over Christmas (sodding history A2 permitting). Pydos 16:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Category schemes

Thanks a lot for your work on that awefully badly written page. I hope you will continue. I think more stuff needs to be cut from there which does not belong on that page. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bar

Section restored after user Go for it! attempted to hide it by deleting it. Hu

Hi, I don't think the "browserbar" is a good idea; would you undo your additions? It's usually best to discuss things like this before making changes to lots of articles. — Matt Crypto 15:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, you've pasted this thing into a TON of articles. This thing is not useful for most of those articles. In most cases, it's just clutter. Oceania, Americas? How does this benefit them? Is there a reason you're doing this? If you think something like this needs to be on every page, the appropriate place to discuss it is at the village pump. Please don't continue slapping this onto every page you happen across. (This message is also on the browsebarbetter talk page.) -- Dpark 16:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously need to discuss this. This is totally useless on most of the pages you've put it on. It might be useful to have something like this on some of the portals and categories, but not every page. In any event, you should let the contributors to pages decide if they think this is useful on the pages they edit. This template spam you've done is just not appropriate. -- Dpark 16:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for adding the bar, but I've removed it as I thought it just wasted the valuable space of the portal. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I must agree with Dpark on this. Something like this needs to be put up for discussion before hand. I'm afraid that pasting this bar unilaterally on as many articles/Portals as you have done borders on spamming (or at least that's how it's likely to be perceived). Besides, as already said, it is pointless to have this on the Portals, for instance. Please start a discussion before proceeding with this. Regards, Redux 17:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bar again

Blanking the natural reaction to your actions really doesn't help your case. And it looks bad on you too. Community Relations of Wikipedia 101: blanking comments, especially those you don't like, from your talk page gives the impression that you either couldn't care less about other user's opinions or that you want to hide something. No one was saying that you were spamming or that you did it on purpose. However, do not reinsert the bars without a proper discussion first. Thanks, Redux 18:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity

Ease of continuity of discussions on your talk page is of course up to you, you pretty much "own" this user space. I personally find it difficult to continue on with a thread that gets archived within hours. This lack of continuity makes it difficult to have a conversation with you. --hydnjo talk 23:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for getting back to me. My concern was placement of the browsebar on WP:ASK. When I got here I found the cupboard to be bare so I went to your archive to see if there was any context (there was) which resulted in my comment. I wanted to direct your attention to some of the history and rationale at ASK/Talk and why the strong feelings about keeping it as simple as possible. --hydnjo talk 04:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

Please stop reverting the Philosophy article, and discuess on the talk page instead. Otherwise we'll have an edit war. Infinity0 ^talk 12:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Yet Again

Well, you got rid of the comments on your talk page again. And you reinserted the bar without discussion, yet again. Do not do it again. If you do, you will be temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia. If you wish to be able to insert those bars without problems, I suggest that you start a discussion at the general forum for the Portals, and get consensus there for it. Thank you, Redux 13:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. The thing is: it doesn't really help that the bar is (or was) in every other Portal when you were the one to put it there, without a previous discussion in the general forum. A concert with one other user, done directly through your talk page and his does not suffice for consensus, not when your target-articles are as many as those. A general change, to be standard for all Portals, requires a previous discussion in the general forum, unless you were, for instance, repairing some code flaw. In the case of the Portals, it's very easy to see how this can be controvertial: the Portals do not have a standard format — although some sections are common to almost every one of them, they are not always structured in the same manner. In many Portals, the information that is being linked by the bar may already be linked or informed somewhere in the Portal itself, which makes it redundant and, thus, unnecessary. In other cases, the information might be deemed as unnecessary/not suited for the Portal at hand. Then again, in other Portals the people involved may find it superb and praise you for your idea. Let me give a practical example: in the Brazilian Portal, with which I'm directly involved, there's a section called "Categories", where all the Categories pertaining to Brazil are listed (or should be listed). The country-specific bar you added links to some of those Categories, which means it merely repeats the links that are already there (and in comparison with the section itself, the bar would be an "incomplete" version of it). Thus, in that Portal, I believe that the bar is redundant and unnecessary. The information is already there — and the remainder of the links in the bar are unsuited for a country-specific Portal. The situation will probably be the same in a great number of country-Portals, since most of them have a similar category. But that's not to say that the bar would be useless in all of them, since in some the section may be incomplete, or missing altogether. That's the kind of thing that can be decided in the general discussion: even if the bar is not to be added to every Portal, we could come up with a list of Portals where it might come in handy.
But the bottom line is: to implement a general inclusion, you'd have to make a case in the general forum, get consensus there and, once you have it, then go ahead with the change (and it's always a good idea to include in the edit summary a reference with a link, like as per decision at linktodiscussion. It's as I always say: promoting discussions before implementing that kind of action actually saves everybody time, not the other way around, because you don't have to keep going back and forth with every user that might have an objection or something to say about your action: if you have consensus, you're home free.
Of course, if you have already inserted the bar in the Portals, and you don't mind if it gets removed if/when the users involved with each Portal deem it unnecessary (or something else), then the situation is not ideal, but it should be fine, as long as it doesn't turn into an edit war, with them removing the bar and you re-inserting it — in that case, you might want to post a comment specific to that Portal, in the Portal's specific talk page, explaining why you believe that, for that specific Portal, the bar works fine (but do it before re-inserting it).
Sorry for the long post :S Regards, Redux 15:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]