User talk:David Levy/Archive8

Hello, and welcome to my talk page.

My user page redirects here because I doubt that anyone would care to read about me or my interests.

I'll attempt to respond to any questions or constructive criticisms pertaining to my participation in the Wikipedia community as soon as possible.

Thanks for dropping by.

—Lifeisunfair

Talk:Gasoline

Thanks for getting this one off the dime (finally). I just didn't know how it should be done. hydnjo talk 15:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'm glad to help. I learned of this dispute via the request for comment, but I ended up becoming as passionately involved as many of the original parties. I'm glad that it (hopefully) has concluded. Now we just have to wait for an admin to move the article back to Gasoline. I can understand why some might be reluctant to do so, lest they invoke the wrath of the Petrol faction. (Of course, that applies to most situations of this nature.) Ideally, someone from the UK or another British English country (Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) will do the honors...er, I mean honours. —Lifeisunfair 18:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To see deja vu all over again take a look at Yoghurt. Yoghurts my eyes but maybe that's just me. Kind of the same thing happened there. Some user moved Yogurt to Yoghurt and nobody noticed for a while (about a month). And then when a user tried to move it back all hell broke loose. The difference being that not as much attention was paid to the vote as was in the Gasoline/Petrol debate and of course the organized (or is it organised) side won out, so it remains Yoghurt. I just don't like the stealthy way that it is being done. Cheers I mean regards of course,  ;-) hydnjo talk 21:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and take a look at the "See also" bs that's I seem to have triggered at Yoghurt. ;-) hydnjo talk 21:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been trying not to involve myself in the great Yogurt/Yoghurt debate, but my curiosity finally drew me in. It isn't quite the same as the Gasoline/Petrol situation, but it's very similar. See my assessment below. —Lifeisunfair 04:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My sincere congratulations. While some (including me) were becoming silly and frivolous, you held fast and especially held your (our) ground in the face of some pounding criticism. I'm impressed with your integrity and regard for this project. You have, by your example, shown more than you imagine. Thanks, hydnjo talk 02:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your praise means more to me than I can possibly express. It feels wonderful to know that someone appreciates my efforts and cares enough to convey such warm sentiments. Thank you! —Lifeisunfair 04:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, you certainly took poor Ed behind the woodshed today. Your point by point rebuttal of his comments were ... well, ... on point. I found myself feeling however, that you had him on the ropes long enough. On another topic, your editing skills and your "street smarts" here seem to belie your time on board. I really don't care on way or the other as to whether you are a reincarnation or not, I'm just happy to see someone being as constructive as you have been. And, if you're not a reincarnation then you're one hell of a fast study! ;-) hydnjo talk 19:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've never been able to allow standing arguments to remain uncontested. I don't need to have the last word, but I can't resist countering substantive (or even seemingly substantive) retorts.

Regarding the latter topic, this is my first and only Wikipedia identity. I have, however, contributed to various Internet communities (and occasionally dabbled in webmastery) since late 1996. And of course, before diving in, I attempted to learn as much about the Wikipedia editing process as possible (via observation). I still ended up making some silly mistakes in the beginning (such as "moving" an article by copying and pasting it), but I haven't done too much damage. :-) —Lifeisunfair 20:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well anyway your contributions from day one didn't appear to be the work of a neophyte but then I didn't realize/realise that you had the benefit of pre-study. I'm sure our paths will join and cross over time. Regards, hydnjo talk 21:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Who gets to remove this Pagename from WP:RFC, anyone or an admin? hydnjo talk 15:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I wouldn't feel comfortable removing it without some sort of mandate. —Lifeisunfair 15:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

De-listing from WP:RFC and WP:RM

The following Q & A is from WP:HD:

How does an article listed on these pages (specifically: was Petrol (Gasoline) and is now Gasoline) ultimately get de-listed? hydnjo talk 20:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If there is no doubt at all that the dispute is over, you can just remove it. It is helpful when people do this, as otherwise RFC becomes very congested. You should list it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article content disputes archive. Cheers, smoddy 20:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Go for it! You deserve the satisfaction. ;-) hydnjo talk 22:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't honestly say that "there is no doubt at all that the dispute is over," so I think that we should leave the RfC in place for the time being. The page move has transpired, however, so I will remove that request. —Lifeisunfair 02:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about pulling Uncle Ed's gasoline (petrol) and petrol (gasoline) listing from WP:RFC. It adds nothing but a little more confusion where none is needed. hydnjo talk 18:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. :-) —Lifeisunfair 18:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gasoline

When does it (if ever) end? WTF is wrong here. Does the agenda of the few dissenters require a lifetime of keystrokes to keep them (the dissenters) under control or will they (the dissenters) kind of die out after a while. While I continue to be impressed by you're patience in this matter, I'm also confident that you could be contributing in other more constructive ways. If I can be of any help here (short of kneecapping of course) please let me know, my patience is at a lower threshold than yours. However, I'm also committed to this project first and the community second so long as it supports the first objective. There are those, who in this matter don't seem to care about anything but supporting a pre-scripted agenda, no matter the merits. In fact they just recently show up saying Hey, I didn't know 'bout this so lets have a do-over. Clearly this is an orchestrated attempt to corrupt the process under which they (the dissenters) don't approve of the result. Cheers, hydnjo talk 03:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above, and I don't intend to continue investing time and effort in this discussion ad infinitum. There are some other articles that I'd like to work on, and I also have plenty of real-life matters to address. Hopefully, we're witnessing the debate's death throes. —Lifeisunfair 03:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK I'll be as optimistic as you are. You do have a calming effect with your strait-forwardness. With crossed fingers then, cheers and best wishes, hydnjo talk 04:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jeez! Are you confidant about the "death throes" part? I recall some time ago our Secretary of State Defense referring to a few dead-enders in Iraq. ;-) hydnjo talk 23:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, as you noted previously, I'm being optimistic (and perhaps unrealistic). If this nonsense continues beyond the immediate future, I'll try to pull myself away. (Again, that might be unrealistic, given my apparent gluttony for punishment.) —Lifeisunfair 04:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems that you are correct. Oh rats. I hope we aren't being "watchlisted". Cheers, ;-) hydnjo talk 00:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yoghurt vs. Yogurt

After you review the discussion at Talk:Yoghurt, what is your gut feel. I'm hard pressed to discern a strong preference (except along the usual party lines) as to which is the more appropriate Pagename. Sorry to press you into service again but what do you think? We may not be as adept as you at fixing things but we'll give it a go if you if you think this article is misnamed. Thanks in advance, hydnjo talk 03:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, your words are too kind. Indeed, I do believe that the article is misnamed. Yogurt was the original title, and appears to be the far more common spelling. Even in the UK, it seems to be catching on.

I will say, however, that the move to Yoghurt was not entirely without merit, given the Turkish etymology.

On the other hand, it's obvious that the vote was unfairly stacked by members of the UK Wikipedians' Notice Board, who blindly supported Yoghurt because they were rallied to action on the basis of national loyalty.

If a new vote begins, you can rest assured that I'll make my opinion known on the Yoghurt talk page. For now, it appears that the formal debate has ended, and I wouldn't feel comfortable stirring things up (no pun intended). —Lifeisunfair 04:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gasoline/Petrol

Did you read my most recent replies to you, dated 01:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)? You responded to only one. —Lifeisunfair 04:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I haven't read them yet as I don't usually wiki on weekends, but before I read them I want to apologize for contributing to the animosity on Talk:Petrol. I'm saying this now just incase your new replies cause me to feel, shall we say , "less apologetic" :) If so, however, I understand your motivation. That page seems to bring out the aggressive side of me because I've already had to apologize recently to another editor (Yama). I have a strong belief in the doctrine of "encyclopedia first, community second" which puts me at odds with the original author "policy" (which is actually just a suggestion). I understand it's potential benefits for the community; that being the prevention of drawn-out debates over such minimally important things like spelling, however it is my belief (and many others) that it also has the potential to compromise the quality of the encyclopedia. While the original author of Gasoline happened to choose the best name for the article, the original author of Check didn't, which you know because you voted to move it to Cheque. There wasn't any opposition to that particular move, however anybody could have easily rounded up enough die-hard pure AE supporters to keep it at the "original" page no matter how well anyone proved the appropriateness of "Cheque". ...Wow, I didn't plan to write this much and now my apology seems like a soapbox, so once more; I'm sorry for possibly promoting hostility between us.   —Teknic^T-M-C 08:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've read everything and am pleased to say that all is well. I respect your rebuttals and have replied to most of them (apologies included when necessary). Sorry about the "unfair" analogies; they were pretty juvenile.   —Teknic^T-M-C 10:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apologies accepted; please see my new replies. —Lifeisunfair 05:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the supporting words. :) The archive2 page has been deleted. --Golbez 22:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't let Yama bait me anymore. Isn't it obvious that since I don't have any drama in my own life, I fall right into it here? Just say, "Bastique, leave it alone. Just don't repond." I'm really a kind, loving, sweet and wonderful person. Yama is just the type that brings out the absolute worst in me. Thanks for letting me share. ℬastique▼^talk 02:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good change

I have incorporated this into Template:Personal. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About {{Tv-stub}}

I saw you changed the scope of this template back to what it was originally. Could you consider tagging technical articles with {{Broadcasting-stub}} rather than {{Tv-stub}}? Differential use of Tv-stub vs. Radio-stub for "all topics" vs. "programmes" is quite confusing and I'd not gotten around to moving non-program items out of Tv-stub into Broadcasting-stub yet since the change of scope. A sub-template/category could be made {{Tv-bcast-stub}} (consistent with US-bcast-stub, Canada-bcast-stub, and UK-bcast-stub} for specific Tv-related technology, but that would need to be proposed at WP:WSS/C as a "proposed stub type". For a full discussion of the thinking and actions around the whole broadcasting/station stub type area, see the "Category:Station-stubs" section of WP:WSS/C.

I'm not going to revert your reversion of scope at this time until I've had a chance to do the re-stubbing of appropriate articles from Tv-stub to Broadcasting-stub, which won't be for a while (call it an eternity in Wiki-time).

Cheers.

I'm watching this page, so you can respond here to maintain conversation continuity.

Courtland 17:09, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

I'm new to this discussion, so please bear with me. My attention was drawn to the {{Tv-stub}} template because EdwinHJ switched "programme" to "program." I was going to revert it (because spellings should not be changed purely for the sake of conforming to a particular variety of English), when I noticed several entries that didn't fit this description. (When these have been weeded out, maybe the word "programming" should be substituted, so as to accommodate readers of both British and American English. This applies to the {{Radio-stub}} template, as well.)

I recall that the TV stub templates were extremely disorganized (with {{Tv-stub}} and the defunct {{Tvseries-stub}} used interchangeably), and I agree that major reform is in order. There are, however, some issues.

Firstly, it's my opinion that radio and television broadcasts should not be lumped together. {{Radio-bcast-stub}} and the aforementioned {{Tv-bcast-stub}} would be a logical separation.

Secondly, some of the technical stubs to which I was referring do not belong in the category of "broadcasting." Examples are:

Boob tube, Digital cable, D-VHS, High-key lighting, Jib (television), SCTE, Television director, V-chip, VHS-C, VideoPlus, W-VHS

{{Tv-tech-stub}} (perhaps as a sub-template of {{tech-stub}}) would be more suitable.

—Lifeisunfair 19:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About lumping radio and tv broadcasting together

The majority of the items under broadcasting are either stations, channels, networks, towers, or companies. My reasoning for not splitting radio and tv is that for many of these a person in a particular geographical area would be familiar with both a tv station and a radio station in the same area and I thought it best to serve the geographical axis over the transmission mode axis with respect to persons expanding stubs. Does this rationale for keeping them together seem reasonable to you? this did go by ths Stub Sorting WikiProject forum and was approved as it currently stands ... not that this stands in the way of changing it, just pointing out it wasn't a quick fix decision Courtland 00:52, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Only if the stub templates were very regionally specific (meaning that North American stations were divided by market) would that make sense to me. (Obviously, that would be highly impractical.) Even then, many people follow one broadcast medium and not the other. I, for example, know far more about television (including that of some other countries) than I do about radio.

I feel that {{Broadcasting-stub}} has been misnamed, because many elements of radio and television (such as production and some technologies) have little or no connection to broadcasting. A more suitable name would be {{Radio-tv-stub}}.

I also feel that national television networks and cable/satellite channels should not be lumped together with local broadcasters (in the United States, at least).

As I see it, we should have the following templates or ones similar to them:

  R {{Radio-tv-stub}} (Radio & television stubs)
  N    {{Radio-tv-tech-stub}} (Radio & television technologies stubs — also a sub-template of {{tech-stub}})
  N    {{Radio-bcast-stub}} (Radio broadcaster stubs)
  N       {{Canada-radio-bcast-stub}} (Canada radio broadcaster stubs)
  N       {{UK-radio-bcast-stub}} (United Kingdom radio broadcaster stubs)
             {{BBC-stub}} (British Broadcasting Corporation stubs)
  N       {{US-radio-bcast-stub}} (United States radio broadcaster stubs)
  N    {{Radio-bio-stub}} (Radio biographical stubs)      
  R    {{Radio-prog-stub}} (Radio programming stubs)
  N       {{Canada-radio-prog-stub}} (Canada radio programming stubs)
  N       {{UK-radio-prog-stub}} (United Kingdom radio programming stubs)
             {{BBC-stub}} (British Broadcasting Corporation stubs)
  N       {{US-radio-prog-stub}} (United States radio programming stubs)
  N    {{Tv-bcast-stub}} (Television broadcaster stubs)
  N       {{Canada-tv-bcast-stub}} (Canada television broadcaster stubs)
  N       {{UK-tv-bcast-stub}} (United Kingdom television broadcaster stubs)
             {{BBC-stub}} (British Broadcasting Corporation stubs)
  N       {{US-tv-bcast-local-stub}} (United States local television broadcaster stubs)
  N       {{US-tv-bcast-natl-stub}} (United States national television broadcaster stubs)
             {{PBS stub}} (Public Broadcasting Service stubs)
       {{Tv-bio-stub}} (Television biographical stubs)
  R    {{Tv-prog-stub}} (Television programming stubs)
  N       {{Canada-tv-prog-stub}} (Canada television programming stubs)
  R       {{UK-tv-prog-stub}} (United Kingdom television programming stubs)
             {{BBC-stub}} (British Broadcasting Corporation stubs)
             {{Doctorwho-stub}} (Doctor Who stubs)
  R       {{US-tv-prog-stub}} (United States television programming stubs)
             {{Buffyverse-stub}} (Buffyverse stubs)
             {{PBS stub}} (Public Broadcasting Service stubs)
             {{ST-stub}} (Star Trek stubs)
                {{ST-ep-stub}} (Star Trek episode stubs)
          {{Nickelodeon-stub}} (Nickelodeon stubs)
          {{Soap-char-stub}} (Soap opera character stubs)
  
  N = new
  R = renamed

And as a sub-template of {{Corp-stub}}:

{{Media-co-stub}} (media companies stubs — encompassing all aspects of media production and publication, which typically overlap)

{{Website-stub}} (Website stubs) should be moved elsewhere.

I've omitted redirects (for the sake of convenience) and the Hong Kong / Singapore stub templates (because I'm unsure of the extent to which these should be subdivided). Shouldn't some additional English-speaking countries (such as Australia and New Zealand) be included?

I might have gone slightly overboard with some of the subdivision that I did include, but you get the idea. This merely is a rough outline (and I'm not asserting any sort of authority). —Lifeisunfair 08:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

to continue conversation I would suggest we take this to WP:WSS/C, where I've put a link to this discussion under the heading Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#Suggested_changes_from_another_quarter. Courtland 16:32, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Understood. :-) —Lifeisunfair 16:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{spoiler-other}} template

The text {{spoiler-other|other [[Whedonverse]] entities}} produces the following:

(Mentally replace "Lifeisunfair" with the name of a Whedonverse series or character.)

—Lifeisunfair 16:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vote comments

I understand you have strong feelings on certain issues, but please stop commenting on every single vote. When you comment on votes you agree with, you're being remarkably redundant (essentially "me too!"). When you comment on votes you disagree with, you tend to just repeat your previous comments and also tend to be abrasive and condescending. I invite you to return your concentration and energy back to the encyclopedia articles, and not get so stressed about silly templates. -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my remarks seem abrasive and condescending. From my perspective, yours have come across as arrogant and dismissive, but I'm willing to assume that my interpretations are as inaccurate as yours are.

As for redundancy, the purpose of these discussions is not to list each viewpoint once, but to establish consensus. This occurs when most members of a group convey the same or similar opinions. Agreement should be expressed, not repressed. But of course, you're welcome to interact (or not interact) to the extent that you see fit. —Lifeisunfair 18:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquette

I'd like you to read the above page, because I fear you really don't understand how to interact productively.

On a public page like Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, you should be polite and "argue facts, not personalities". This means that you should probably direct your comments (like I have) towards the issue, not the people. These talk pages last for a long time, and comments directed at people are of low value.

On the other hand, on a User's talk page, like this one, it is entirely appropriate to refer to "you" more often, since that is the context. In the future, if you want to discuss my behavior or attitude, please do so on my talk page. On Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, please talk to the issue -- describe your position and don't challenge me.

If you want to move the conversation from the Spoiler talk page to my talk page, do so and then reply to my original message as I'm suggesting. -- Netoholic @ 23:36, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Netoholic, you're lecturing again. It doesn't become you. Courtland 00:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

"I'd like you to read the above page,"

I read it before I made my first Wikipedia edit.

"because I fear you really don't understand how to interact productively."

Yeah, I'm the condescending one.

Since when is declaring the equivalent of "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong!" the gold standard of productivity?

"On a public page like Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, you should be polite and 'argue facts, not personalities'."

I am arguing facts. You engaged in behavior that I deem inappropriate, and I addressed this behavior. I didn't say, "I'm intelligent and Netoholic's a crazy moron!" (which is not my belief).

"This means that you should probably direct your comments (like I have) towards the issue, not the people."

1. Your idea of addressing the issue is to ignore a clear consensus, repeatedly state your minority opinion as though it's a widely accepted belief, impose this decision upon the community (while announcing your intention to revert any and all contrary edits), and dismiss all pertinent criticisms as personal attacks.

2. You dedicated your most recent Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning reply (in its entirety) to criticizing me, thereby disregarding the content of my previous reply that you claim is absent.

3. Your uncalled-for (in my assessment) editing is a relevant editorial issue. How am I supposed to discuss this without referencing the fact that you're responsible for these acts?

—Lifeisunfair 01:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. You're going way too far in your "fight". I have some ideas, but your premature vote and attitude are really interfering. I removed your vote because there is no consensus even on the format of it (see Wikipedia:Survey guidelines). -- Netoholic @ 14:32, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that this explanation is probably the clearest you've described your position. I really wish you would do something similar on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, because, having just noticed it, I can see there may be some validity to it. I still think we can get by with just two templates if we tweak a bit. Are you willing to discuss? -- Netoholic @ 14:44, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

re:Netoholic

see User:Netoholic/mentoring#Community_comments

Recommendation on Templates

I recommend you and the other party (Netoholic) to initiate a mediation procedure. The other party has received the same request. I hope you will be wise enough to agree to collaborate. If you agree to undergo the procedure, please state so on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. Yours sincerely, Sikon 17:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• FYI, Neto was blocked for 3RR. I also had a lengthy conversation with him and one of his mentors. I hope that it'll have effect. Radiant_>|< 23:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-date

Thank you for taking the time to so carefully update my tools page. Cheers, DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. After changing the template's name (to conform to all of the other cleanup tags), it would have been rather irresponsible for me not to have cleaned up the resultant redirects. :-) —Lifeisunfair 15:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

I hereby award you The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar for your efforts above and beyond the call. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much! You've helped to brighten my weekend. :-) —Lifeisunfair 15:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An observation

For someone who frequently complains about people "stalking" him, you've demonstrated an unusual propensity to revert my changes (on pages that you haven't edited before). A colored box and icon were first added to the {{merge}} template in May, but it wasn't until after I introduced my design (one month later) that you took an interest in maintaining the "longer-standing version."

Just today, you reverted my thirteen-hour-old changes to the {{split}} tag — another template that you hadn't edited before.

To be clear, you have every right to monitor my contribution log. Just stop objecting when others act in kind. —Lifeisunfair 2 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself. In order to see at a glance what the state of the Merge templates is, I monitor Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Merging and splitting. -- Netoholic @ July 3, 2005 14:45 (UTC)

"Don't flatter yourself."

You mean like this?

"In order to see at a glance what the state of the Merge templates is,"

You mean the merge templates that you never edited until after I did, despite the fact that others had implemented the types of changes to which you object?

"I monitor Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Merging and splitting."

Prove it. You can't, just as you can't prove that others are "stalking" your edits (as opposed to simply encountering them coincidentally.)

And if you're so familiar with that page, why are you disregarding the fact that almost all of the cleanup templates use colored boxes? —Lifeisunfair 3 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

Also, the {{split}} tag had used a colored box since May (well over a month). If you've been monitoring Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, why did you never edit it until thirteen hours after I did? —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)

Merge template

Sorry, if it wasn't clear, I meant my comment for Radiant, and wasn't replying to you. As for reverting the page to the "consensus" version and then protecting it, that would be even more out of line. Violetriga was in fact only marginally involved, and hadn't taken part in the edit war. Anyway, this is no big deal, since the issue will presumably be resolved by the vote. — Dan | Talk 4 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)

It was clear that you were addressing Radiant. I was just adding my 2¢. And yes, the voting should take care of this dispute.  :-) —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)

This whole issue is just stupid. Why not leave well enough alone? --Zpb52 July 6, 2005 02:17 (UTC)

There exists significant disagreement regarding which design is "well enough" to leave alone; hence the voting. If you prefer my design, you can vote for it, but there's no sense in reverting back and forth. —Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 02:25 (UTC)

CSS alternative

Add this to your User:Lifeisunfair/monobook.css or equivalent based on your skin preference (see m:Help:User style):

#merge {
    margin-left: auto;
    margin-right: auto;
    text-align: center;
    background:#f5edf5;
    width:85%;
    border:1px solid #cf9fff;
    border-collapse: collapse;
    margin-bottom: 1em
}

Then go view Template:Mergeto and Template:Mergefrom, which I've converted to use open CSS styling. -- Netoholic @ July 4, 2005 03:44 (UTC)

That's interesting, and I sincerely appreciate your effort, but this doesn't replace the other design to my satisfaction. The images are missing, and I seriously doubt that many users are aware of this feature's existence. (I certainly wasn't.) —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)

Users can be notified via documentation on the template's talk page. Also, the loss of the image is minor, correctable, and a separate consideration. The vote already shows that there is a significant divide. Would you force your preference onto others, or consider an option which allows everyone to make their own choice? -- Netoholic @ July 4, 2005 04:03 (UTC)

What percentage of users do you think will ever see the templates' talk pages? I'd be surprised if it exceeds 1%.

The image is a major part of the design (not a minor, separate consideration). Please explain how its loss is correctable. (If you mean via CSS, the above objection applies.)

I'm not attempting to force my preference on others. I'm allowing the eventual voting results to determine the template's wording and style. If the options that I oppose prevail, so be it. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 04:40 (UTC)

You don't want an edit war, yet you start one on my talk page. If I want something deleted from my talk page, I'll delete it. I don't need you reposting it there. Zpb52 July 6, 2005 02:46 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't revert any deleted remarks on your talk page. I merely copied your comment from my talk page and added a reply (just as I'm doing now). —Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

i'm sorry

i'm being a jerk. sorry Zpb52 July 6, 2005 03:37 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Please try to be more careful in the future. :-) —Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)

Be grateful. Not everybody apologizes, though. Hey, you said it: life is unfair. Zpb52 July 6, 2005 03:44 (UTC)

What deleted material did you believe that I'd reposted here, and why? —Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It's a dead issue. Zpb52 July 6, 2005 03:54 (UTC)

Recent changes on Template talk:Merge

You made an edit with no edit summery. When i did a diff, it shownd the only change beign the removal of gkhan's remarks, it did not show them being inserted eslewhere. It also did not show any new commetns from you. Either the diff was in error or I mis read it badly, or possibly your edit didn't do what you intended it to do. Sorry. i should have checked with you and assumed good faith. DES 6 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)

This is the "diff" page that you referenced. Please scroll down.

I didn't include an edit summary, because I posted replies in two different sections. I'm sorry if this contributed to the confusion.

I accept your apology, but I was aware of the fact that you made an honest mistake (and didn't intend to remove my comments.) No worries.  :-) —Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)

Reordering votes on Template talk:Merge

You wrote in edit summary: "I don't see how the reordering was a problem." I agree with Netoholic here. Reformatting the votes was unnecessary and whoever closes the vote can count the votes just as easily as the time it took to reformat it.

The vote was initially cast without "Xs here and Ys there" and should not be changed now. There was a little interaction from vote to vote agreeing or disagreeing with previous votes that loses it sense when reformatted. I think that loss is unhelpful both to the vote-closer and to others who want to follow the course of the vote.

Furthermore, monkeying with vote/discussion pages should be discouraged anyway. DoubleBlue (Talk) 9 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. As you may already realize, I didn't perform the reformatting (and certainly didn't think that it was necessary). —Lifeisunfair 9 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)

Talk pages

I'm sorry, I know you've spent a lot of time refactoring template talk:merge and mean well but you simply cannot change what people say on talk pages. You have done this many times and it is not appropriate. violet/riga (t) 21:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The first round of voting has ended, so I archived all the comments. For the sake of convenience, I copied over the votes for wordings "B" and "E" (leaving behind the comments that pertained to the other wordings), and I explicitly noted this fact (providing a link to the full remarks).

If you felt that this was inappropriate, why didn't you simply restore the full remarks? —Lifeisunfair 21:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Because the changes were so extensive. By all means you can archive old talk page comments, but you should never strip down what people have said. In doing so you can easily lose the original context that it was written in. If there is to be a second round of voting (which by all means you can arrange) then it should start again and not include comments from a previous poll that have been cut down. violet/riga (t) 22:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the changes were extensive, but you objected only to a single section. You could have simply modified that section (by either removing the abbreviated remarks or copying the full remarks over), but you reverted the entire page (which I worked very hard to update).

The primary votes for wordings "B" and "E" are to be carried over from the first round. The point was to simply retain a list of such votes, thereby reminding the voters that they needn't vote again (unless they've changed their minds). In no way did I create the appearance that this list constituted the full remarks that were posted during the first round (most of which do not apply to the current round of voting). The original context was not lost, because readers were invited to view the full comments.

Nevertheless, I shall honor your opinion. —Lifeisunfair 22:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"Merge" templates voting

Don't copy the old votes. It's essentially vote-stacking. Do the run-off. My calculation shows A was only one vote behind B, and the closure was a bit early. A should be in the run-off. -- Netoholic @ 04:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Why shouldn't the round-one votes for "B" and "E" be carried over? Unless he/she makes a statement to the contrary, it's reasonable to assume that anyone who voted for a wording from among five options would continue to support the same wording when three of the non-selected options are removed.

2. How was the vote closure early? I didn't perform it until three hours after the announced deadline.

3. Wording "B" defeated wording "A" by 1 ½ votes, but the exact number is irrelevant. The terms of the voting (to which no one objected) indicated that "if one wording [did] not receive a majority of votes, a one-week runoff vote [would] be held between the two most popular wordings." The two most popular wordings were "E" and "B."

—Lifeisunfair 04:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you forget... I objected to the entire vote itself, including pointing out that you did not solicit comments on how it was to be run. -- Netoholic @ 05:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I repeatedly invited you to supply any specific objections to the actual, final voting terms (as opposed to fact that I wrote them). You did not (nor did anyone else). Had "A" placed second in the voting, you wouldn't be complaining now.

By default, runoff voting of any kind is not customary in this situation; had I not introduced such a rule, wording "E" (for which I voted) would be the outright winner.

Please address questions 1 and 2.

—Lifeisunfair 06:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"outright winner"? You have a lot to learn. The problem is... you alone defined the format and the options given in the vote. A vote that was extremely premature because the best choice may be something entirely different than just the five+two options. -- Netoholic @ 06:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Yes, the outright winner. Out of twenty-three respondents, eleven (almost half) selected wording "E" as their first choice . . . from among five options. Wording "A" was the first choice of only four people.

2. I was not alone in defining the format and options. While I drafted the initial RfC, Violet/Riga, DES, Dan and you contributed to its revision.

3. Violet/Riga protected the {{merge}} template and suggested holding a vote. The purpose was to resolve the edit war by determining the templates' general direction — not to etch their designs in stone, thereby precluding future discussion.

4. I'm still waiting for you to explain how the vote closure was early.

—Lifeisunfair 06:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• I've updated the templates per your suggestion. Could you please take a look at {{merging}} and {{mergedisputed}}? Radiant_>|< 11:41, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've updated {{merging}} and {{mergedisputed}} for conformity. Thanks again, Radiant! —Lifeisunfair 12:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• They show up as white, left-justified boxen on my computer (as opposed to centrified purple which I was expecting). Is the CSS okay? Radiant_>|< 12:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Your browser needs to reload the MediaWiki:Monobook.css file. Which browser are you using? —Lifeisunfair 12:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• the best one. Radiant_>|< 12:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Same here. Try holding down the shift key while reloading one of the templates. —Lifeisunfair 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• That works! Thanks. Radiant_>|< 13:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Lifeisunfair screwed this up. "merge" is supposed to be a CSS "id" (designated with #merge), not a CSS "class" (which he gave as .Merge). Looks he just mistakenly copied the "Talk-Notice" class, but that is not technically right in this case. Please fix it by copying the CSS code from User:Netoholic/monobook.css and fixing MediaWiki:onobook.css. -- Netoholic @ 15:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not screw anything up. Your proposed code results in a significantly different appearance (with considerably larger boxes). The original code was directly based upon the aforementioned "Talk-Notice" class, so I asked Radiant to add an equivalent "Merge" class to MediaWiki:Monobook.css, which he did. I did this, by the way, purely for the benefit of users who wish to manually override the template's default appearance.

And I don't know where you got the idea that the image wasn't included in the vote. —Lifeisunfair 16:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you did screw it up by having a basic misunderstanding about CSS usage. "Class" refers to an generic range of similarly formatted text. They are "general rules". In my latest version of Template:Merge, class="notice noprint" means simple that this is a text notice and that it shoudn't be printed - they each have their own "rules" defined that apply very broadly. "ID" on the other hand refers to a specific usage. So id="merge" refers to the merge-based templates. This is used for a more narrow scope of changes. In CSS, class characteristics are applied before ID, so you go from general settings to specific ones. -- Netoholic @ 16:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand that there are differences, but your id-based code failed to duplicate the template's appearance. If you can modify it to correct this problem, that will be fine. Otherwise, mine is the only CSS implementation that will function properly. The other option is to simply hard-code the template (as was voted upon), but I honestly want to accommodate those who dislike the colored box to the greatest extent possible (within the boundaries of the consensus). —Lifeisunfair 16:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Mine works perfectly, or at least will once an admin copies it to MediaWiki:Monobook.css. -- Netoholic @ 16:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Your code does not display properly (at least, not in Firefox). I went out of my way to accommodate you (which is not a requirement of the consensus), but that simply isn't good enough for you. You'd rather "screw up" the template's appearance for others. —Lifeisunfair 17:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you try describing what you see is the problem rather than continuing to be rude? -- Netoholic @ 17:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, your code causes the box to be considerably larger. It's taller, and spans the entire page width (instead of 85%). Here's a direct comparison (viewed in Firefox at the default text size). I removed the image from mine (on top), for the sake of parity. —Lifeisunfair 17:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. I was experimenting earlier. You must have copied by monbook.css when I had the width removed. Use the current version (17:20, 11 July 2005). -- Netoholic @ 17:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The height remains more than 1/3 greater, as seen here. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The one that seems to look best in Firefox and IE, as Monobook stands now, is Talk-Notice. see User:DoubleBlue/Sandbox. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the coloring and margin-bottom, the "Talk-Notice" and "Merge" classes are 100% identical. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic's personal version of Notoce noprint seems fine but it would need to be added to MediaWiki:Common.css. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The height is over 1/3 too great. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That height fits with most other boxes. Are you really so picky? -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)