User talk:Ligulem

---

Archive Index | Archive

Flag update

→ Moved to and responded on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Country_flag_alias_Pakistan:_Bordered_or_not?. Please consider adding further posts over there. --Ligulem 09:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC) '

Mop Nom

Thanks for kind nomination - now added to WP:RfA. My answers seem somewhat long compared to others - still better to be open about my attitudes than seem to be overly reserved :-) David Ruben ^Talk 03:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting and all the best for your RfA. The length of your answers is fine. --Ligulem 09:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nom Successful - thank you for the original nom, and guiding me through the process. Well done to yourself too on your first nominating  :-) This just a quick note as I really must get some sleep tonight (i posted a longer note for now on my talk page). The list of admin "how to" pages suddenly seems rather daunting and will need careful re-reading, so i will try to be as careful and considerate as all those who supported and opposed cautioned. Many thanks, Yours David Ruben ^Talk 04:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. --Ligulem 15:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the intrusion. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I just don't see why this should be needed. --Ligulem 22:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RFA

In response to your query, [1]. Yours, (Radiant) 09:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen that. No need to notify me. --Ligulem 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

HTML comments break re-directs

I re-inserted it below the re-direct this time. Will it still break the re-direct?? Georgia guy 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

External links

Please don't add those spammy links again.

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Responded on your talk. --Ligulem 00:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeking a solution

Hello, Ligulem -- I was wondering whether you or any of the other wiki template whizzards has figured out a way to store and retrieve a variable so that it can be used later by another template. I have a situation where I am in "so deep" that I can't invoke another template from the one I am working on (WP gives me the dreaded "red-line" when I try to do so); therefore, in order to complete my project efficiently, I need to store a variable that it determines and retrieve it for use by another template. I realize that in theory (i.e., "input variables only") this is not possible, but I have always worked on the assumption that for a brilliant programmer nothing is impossible (which is, of course, why I am asking you.) -- Polaris999 06:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I know of no way to store anything while inside a template. --Ligulem 08:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me the sad news, now I can give up on that and turn my thoughts to something else! -- Polaris999 08:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Apollo for Eclipse

First of all, sorry this is long-winded. I should add a warning to my user page that people shouldn't try contacting me asking an opinion on Wikipedia's operations, because it can get wordy. =)

All right, allow me to elaborate:

One must first consider the reasoning on why CSD G11 exists at all. Specifically, it exists because Wikipedia does not like spammy corporate stuff that is also likely copied out of some marketing material, and (like the G11 definition and {{db-spam}} template says) would need "to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". Because before this rule came into effect, it was perfectly okay - theoretically - to dump marketing drivel to Wikipedia. Users were expected to completely rewrite it. Basically, G11 came to effect because no one rewrote the stuff and it was often riddled with other problems.

However, one must remember that CSD aren't meant to be like "just kill anything that may look almost like these"; it's meant to be "if the article can, at all, be saved, do so, but if if really appears hopeless and in blatant violation of these rules, delete it". In this case, there's not much to rewrite; One can't claim that if we're choosing between deletion and rewrite, the deletion is immediately the easier way. It's a stub article.

Furthermore - and this is a big issue - it's not advertisatory in tone. There's no kilobytes of worth of marketing buzzwords that make your head spin if you're a programming geek, or put loving glow in your eyes if you're the guy in charge of buying software for the geeks to use. It's matter-of-factly in its three-sentence glory. It could pass for a real article if it only explained why this software product is relevant at all in grand scheme of things, and that is why I prodded it.

And on the contrary: The article is not empty, and it has other information besides of an external link. It explains what the application does and has release information. It has context. I don't think it's speedy-deletable under any other criteria. However, on a cursory glance it does appear to fail the notability and as such I think it's deletable on other grounds.

I did look at another article that was deleted in this debate - Visual Paradigm SDE Community Edition (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links). Now that is spam. I'd have deleted that article without batting an eye. Yuck! Just look at all those marketroid words! That article stank!

But note I said the article stank. I didn't say it stank because it was removed from this list. It stank entirely on its own merits.

Now, here's another conundrum: Articles are supposed to be stand-alone. That includes debates about them. This isn't a sub-article of the list, so decisions involving the list should have no impact on this article. If a content dispute escalates to the point that people are proposing deletion of other articles, it's a good signal for everyone involved to take a breath and rethink of the thing. List articles are troublesome as they are already, and use of external links in lists is a thorny subject I'd rather avoid, because one can get Flamed for proposing anything at all in regards to those.

And just because someone "enforces a standard" on some page doesn't mean it's immediately a good idea to go "enforcing a standard" elsewhere. Deletion is always case-by-case. I've noted that proposing deletions as a part of content dispute is not generally very constructive. Someone with less sense of humour might think it's disruptive.

My advice? Seek third-party mediation on List of UML tools debate. Don't let the dispute spill on completely unrelated articles. And above all, if the Community decides to do something that's against what you thought, don't try to fight - there's always a good possibility that other people are actually wiser than you. (Happens to me all the time.) Instead, propose another mighty good idea that swings the opinion to your side again.

In short: Spam is spam, however, normal stuff doesn't automatically become spam by association.

(I won't take sides in the List of UML tools debate myself. In my opinion, this sort of list should probably rather be turned into a category. A comparison article, which some are proposing in the talk page, would be much more useful.)

And thanks for noticing the conflict of interest on Apollo for Eclipse article. I've added it to the PROD reason. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

template problem

Hi - Can you take a look at User talk:MJCdetroit#Infobox City question...? The issue seems to be extra line feeds from optional parameters, but I haven't been able to figure out a way to escape them without destroying the table (see [2] for what I've tried). I suspect one solution might be to convert the whole thing to HTML rather than use the the wikitable syntax. I'd prefer something slightly less intrusive. Any ideas? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

See my post on Template_talk:Infobox_City#It_is_really_screwed_up. The template is screwed up indeed, even for my taste. --Ligulem 12:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Block

Yeah. I would appreciate not getting such nasty boxes on my talk page for having done some minor technical edits on an article. I wonder how this bot got ever approved. --Ligulem 23:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ligulem, if you view a simple notification on your talk page that an article that you worked on needs cleanup as "nasty", that says more about you than it does abuot the actions of the bot. You seem a disagreeable individual, please do not post to my talk page or my bots talk page again in future. This is an explicit request. Any violation of this will be considered harassment and reported to an admin. - PocklingtonDan 08:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)