User talk:Happy-melon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:45, 9 February 2008

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

GR templates

You say that you'd write a fix for the GR templates if someone could find a full {{Cite}} for each option. Just wanted to let you know: since the sources used are all web sources, it would be better to use {{Cite web}}. For the six GR[number] templates, here are the links that they go to:

I don't know what all items you'd like for the cite web template (I'm not familiar with it, generally using <ref> and </ref> instead), but these links are all that's provided, so if you have a chance, you'll be able to find what you want. If I'm wrong, and if this is unclear, please let me know. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The GR template deletion has been snowball closed. Can you now go through with the template work? Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Malinaccier (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another: congrats! - Dafyd (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fifth: congratulations!! jj137 (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to update your userbox. :) jj137 (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations :) - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and congratulations! Earth bending master 15:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me too! κaτaʟaveno^T_C 15:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, now get to work! :) Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I know we haven't been in contact for a while, but I never forget nice things. :) GlassCobra 16:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hmellon, nice to see you passed with such a good percentage. :) If you need any help, just call; I'm usually here. · AndonicO ^Hail! 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and you're welcome from me too! Much deserved -- I admire your grace under pressure, patience and persistence. --Melty girl (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dittos as well-now don't let the bastards get you down ;0) SkierRMH (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratz, well deserved AP Shinobi (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Wish I had known about your RfA; I would have offered my unequivocal support. Looks like you didn't need it after all! — Music Maker 5376 21:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Happy editing! Burner0718^{(Jibba Jabba!)} 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Best of luck with the admin tools. :) - PeaceNT (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD#T3 templates

Hello again. It seems both of us have created templates for CSD#T3. Yours is more like some of the current CSD tags, mine followed the scheme of some of the CSD:I categories, modeling itself after templates like Template:Di-orphaned fair use. I went through and tagged about 140 templates and notified their authors about a week ago, so the template I've been using is a little more high-use at the moment. Template:Db-T3-notice, Template:Old template, and Template:Db-deporph are what I created and implemented. Also see: Category:Deprecated or orphaned templates, Category:Deprecated or orphaned templates more than 7 days old, and Category:Deprecated or orphaned templates with invalid timestamp.

Personally, I don't care what the layout looks like, I'm really more concerned about another battle of CSD#T3. Feel free to modify / move / merge whatever you'd like, just be sure to leave redirects so my Twinkle script doesn't get screwed up. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review archives

This seems to be going well. I had a quick look through the peer review subpages and spotted one glitch here, and a related one here.

I've fixed this particular case, so this is just a heads up: not sure how common this kind of thing is likely to be. Geometry guy 17:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted a few more things:

MelonBot seems to be missing "/archive 1" examples;
I also spotted one "/1" example that got skipped;
I not stupid has archives 1 and 3 switched, with some links correct, some not (maybe I will fix this one);
Liverpool F.C. needs to be permuted 1->3->4->1. I'm not sure about the links. This will be a pain to fix and discussion 3 is still active.

Apart from this, the archives up to letter N are looking great! Geometry guy 18:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The /archive1 bug has struck again: this is a bad one! Geometry guy 18:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the problem is when the article name ends in a number: I've seen several more examples. I'm sorry I didn't spot this sooner. Geometry guy 18:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politician fair-use templates TfD

As a result of this discussion all the templates were deleted, so this is just a friendly reminder of the merge proposal because images like Image:AlbertSaunders.jpg now do not have any licensing info. I also have a question for you in the TfD that may be relevant to the creation of {{non-free politician photo}}. –Pomte 15:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilove

Happy Editing, Dusti^talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re: Template:Old template

As I said before, I don't mind layout changes or redirection of templates, however, you've unilaterally changed the fundamental way in which these templates can be tagged. It is not a requirement of the speedy deletion criterion that the duplicated template be listed; as such, that could should be modified to make that parameter entirely optional. I can say after tagging several hundred of these that it simply is not necessary to tell which template these are duplicates of. It is up to administrators' discretion whether or not these templates are needed or not. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. I commented here without having looked at your contributions, and frankly, I'm appalled. It's one thing to make unilateral changes to a community template; it's quite another to use rollback and undo on speedy taggings that I have made. That's simply unacceptable, and I suggest you read up on WP:ROLLBACK. It is never used on anything except clear cases of vandalism. You've been an admin for about a week; I've been around a bit longer. We may have differences on the interpretation of T3, however, that's something you discuss. You don't simply start going through the contributions of another admin, make whatever reverts you want to, and say nothing. I'm pretty disappointed in your behavior.

Going past all of that, as I've said in the past on WT:CSD, I interpret T3 to apply to deprecated and orphaned templates, regardless of examples. You're free to disagree with this interpretation, but reverts are unquestionably the wrong way to go about stating your opposition. Either is modifying the templates that I worked on (without consultation), changing their behavior, and then leaving quite a mess behind for someone else to clean up. There is no requirement in T3 that I list which templates they are a duplicate of, and I will continue to not list that information. If you feel I should be using TfD, G6, or some other system, you're free to discuss that with me. But please first fix the mess you've made. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the {{db-t3}} and {{old template}} so that the pages that were already tagged with the second one are no longer creating error messages. To do this I added a different parameter to db-t3 that allows the user to type out the reason by hand if they wish. In many cases, esp. when it's clear that the template could only be used in one article, it's easy enough to check how the template was replaced. For example, the 1960 AFL west season template was replaced by a simple table. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shit. Well, it seems that well Carl updated the {{old template}} and {{db-t3}} templates, the seven-day notice was inadvertently removed. Thus, an admin saw the taggings and had no reason not to delete the templates. It seems something needs to be modified in order to get {{old template}} to warn about the seven days notice (and perhaps not categorize them as well). I haven't looked too much into how the templates are currently set up, so at this point, I'm unsure how everything is currently operating.

I agree that undeleting for the purpose of waiting a few more days seems silly. The admin seemed to have made a good-faith effort. The issue of whether or not T3 can be used for deprecated and orphaned templates doesn't really seem like it needs discussion. Admins are free to use their discretion on these cases. I'm tagging and notifying people based on my discretion, when in reality, I could simply delete these templates under G6. I'm trying to do the right thing with these old, unused templates. One way or another, they need to be cleaned out, and T3 seems like a perfectly reasonable solution. I've spoke with Carl, and he seems to agree (thus, the reason= modifications by him). Though, you'll have to ask him for his specific views. Sorry if this response feels hurried -- it was. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Old template/date was set to one day instead of seven days. There was also an issue with Template:Old template. Both have been fixed. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Mixed Drinks comments

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I saw your comments regarding yourself at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed Drinks#Participants. Speaking as one basically brain-dead bot boy to another who describes himself as such, it's nice to know that there's someone else out there who can do the same sort of thing and actually admit it. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happy‑melon 09:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more "Congrats"

I must add my congratulations to the outpouring of accolades. And I must confess to a slight bout of blushing at being mentioned in your admin request interview. I hope to eventually become an impressive enough contributer to do justice to your mentorship! SkyllaLaFey (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:HProll

A tag has been placed on Template:HProll requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.