User talk:Jc37/Archive/03: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:47, 23 April 2008

User:Jc37/Top quotes User:Jc37/NavBar

The Hat

Ah, but whose hat?

Re: (And with a quiet whoosh the hat passes the threshhold of the ring's circumference : ))

The part about the hat made me think of Oddjob hurling his hat in Goldfinger and beheading a statue with it. Doczilla (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that would make it a C Ring (the odds being astronomical, of course), rather than just a hole in one? Though personally I suppose one could just make an existential grab for the brass ring : ) - jc37 12:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

That was classy! :) Pedro : Chat 11:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm just in a poetic mood : ) - jc37 12:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doczilla's RfA

.:

Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla!

:.

File:Godzilla(01)reverse.jpg	Thanks for !voting! Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!" Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. I am deeply grateful.	jc37 Thank you for casting the ?th vote (the nom, a.k.a. co-nom with strong support even though you initiated the nomination) in my RfA. While I never was sure I wanted adminship, I was always gratified that someone wanted me for it.

"The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." - Michael Althsuler

Doczilla _RAWR! 05:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home Page

Talk Page

Joke Alert

Presents

Rouge

Rouge

That was a tough close... Well done. Someone had to and you are a mensch for deciding to do it. I expect someone will DRV you, so if someone does and I don't notice, would you please give me a nudge. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone actually suggested that I might want to close that one since I hadn't been involved in the discussion, and I think that person was serious. Oh, yeah, that would have been a fun way to close my first XfD. Doczilla _RAWR! 17:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that was well thought out. Nice job. --Kbdank71 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the general view on admins wheelwarring against category deletions? This is a particularly touchy issue for many I know but the fact that a number of admins have reinserted the category on their pages to effectively recreate it seems to be an issue. DRV might be necessary to get the two discussions happening together and get a consistent view on the situation? (other discussion) (And yes, I realise that the concept is intended to be humour but it not taken that way by some or many :) ) Ansell 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See VegaDark's comment in the thread below. Though honestly, it "not being worth the drama" doesn't sound like a "good enough" answer for me. I think that this is something that needs to be dealt with in one way or other. - jc37 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, but the category has been restored. I have inquired on the restoring admin's talk page as to why. I would highly suggest you not re-delete the category (although extremely tempting), as to not wheel-war. An AN/I thread can be started up if I don't get a satisfactory response (i.e., any result other than redeletion). VegaDark (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just what do you think you're doing?

Just what do you think you're doing?[1]

As long as people refuse to depopulate the category, a de facto category exists. I recreated nothing! All I did was change the font color. Time to get real.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should propose some policy disallowing editors to be in UCFD'd categories. Until then, you can't do much about it other than request they remove it (or remove it yourself, which is likely to cause drama). Currently there is no policy regarding either the removing or the re-adding of deleted user categories to user pages. Personally I'd advocate a bot to patrol every deleted category, and remove the category from all such userpages periodically. Nothing will stop the editors from simply re-adding the category again each time, but at least they will have to work for it. VegaDark (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few other options/proposals as well. But I wonder: Should we allow the "possibility of drama" to prevent us from doing "what is right"? - jc37 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot to remove deleted user categories from user pages. While particularly motivated users will still be able to circumvent the process by adding {{nobots}} to their page, this bot would cut a significant amount of users out of such pages, and would help a lot for initial category emptying. VegaDark (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering here, what would it take to get the software changed to not show categories that don't exist? Obviously a check of all wikilinks including categories has to be made to determine if the target exists when displaying any page in order to color the link blue or red, would it be so hard to not show the red ones? Then all you'd need to deal with is recreation which is ~~drama~~ speediable. --Kbdank71 14:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar idea kbd. Especially considering a recent similar, though decidedly different, discussion concerning "hidden categories". Personally, when thinking even about categories which are redlinked in mainspace, we simply have had too much disruption along those lines. I think it might be a good idea to suggest that all redlinked categories (when not preceeded by a colon) should not show up on a page, nor group said page in a category. One could still create a category using a coloned redlink, and once the page is created then allow the category to "appear" and "group" pages. This also adds a touch of technical knowledge requirement that maybe, just possibly, might slow down well meaning but uninformed category creators. This would be, I presume, a simple addition to the software, but make a world of difference to those who maintain category-space. - jc37 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same, and I thought of a possible solution to making the creation of such categories easier. When you go in to the edit window, or perhaps as a warning after you save or preview your edit, there can be some big red notice saying how the category you added doesn't currently exist, and will not show up on the page until it is created, with a link to create the category. I don't know if Special:Wantedcategories could still function if it were done like this, however, and if it did, we would still have the problem of inappropriate categories showing up there that shouldn't actually be created. Perhaps more users would simply get rid of the category from their userpage if it no longer showed up at the bottom of their page, however. VegaDark (talk) 21:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think "wantedcategories" should become a thing of the past. Article talk pages (and other more general discussion pages) exist for just such purposes. I don't think requiring someone to understand adding a colon, and creating a page, is establishing too high a learning curve. Categories should be created with thought, not knee-jerk impulse.

As far as your suggested notice, it might be too server intensive to have it check for categories in an edit every time. I dunno. I'd rather it just be a link to WP:CAT, which would have a more clear explanation in context of what categories are. - jc37 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it should be easy. Like I said above, it already checks for a category on every edit so it knows what color to make it. You can probably stop the process as well, a la if you forget to put in an edit summary ("Category does not exist, click Save Page again to save" or some such). I agree about the wantedcategories, though. --Kbdank71 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(de-dent) - I just had an idea. (I was thinking about templates which add categories when transcluding.)

a.) When we hit "see preview", if you scroll down to the "bottom" it actually shows the categories.

b.) When we edit a page, it shows at the "bottom" what templates are transcluded to the page.

What if redlinked categories only show then? (a-after "show preview", or b- as a "list" below the template list, or "c" - both)

That allows for page creation, but won't add them/group in them unless the page is created. - jc37 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Now we just need a boatload of discussion, consensus, and development. My newborn will probably be in college by the time it's implemented... :) --Kbdank71 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rofl, you just want another addition to the top of this page : p

So how do you think it would be best to get this ball rolling? - jc37 22:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things

First, nobody bothered to notify you that your closure of Cat:Rouge Admins is on DRV, so I thought I would tell you. There is also an AN/I thread about it. Second, I was wondering if making pages like this was standard practice. I have never seen anything like it, and personally I would have just deleted (although I don't really see the harm in it). Did you just decide that the page should be preserved and do that, or is there any policy/guideline saying to do that? VegaDark (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. I didn't see it. Though in hindsight I probably should have waited to comment. I was surprised when I re-read what I wrote. I think I was still asleep when I wrote it. I decided not to remove the whole thing, but instead did what we've done to comments at CFD/UCFD - I removed the more problematic text. - jc37 00:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I came here to ask you the same thing, since I nominated it for speedy G8 (which was declined). When I asked why it was declined, the admin noted that it had been moved. A check of the edit history revealed that it was you who moved it, not one of the members of the group flipping off the community again. What is your reasoning behind the move? Horologium (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the category talk page to Wikipedia-space as an archive? I did that as a courtesy, since the Wikipedia-space page still existed. To be honest, I think it's rather rare to find a Wikipedian category with a talk page discussion, so it's not something that happens very often. (I helped with something similar for "Admins open to recall".) I hope that clarifies. - jc37 00:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you not pull your hair out?

See more at: his talk page

Trying to help clean up over at UCFD, and I have to say, the sheer number of users who appear to be using wikipedia for nothing other than userboxes and user categories (aka WikiMySpace) is staggering. I'm beginning to think the argument "this user category fosters collaboration" is utter bullshit. When some of the members have no edits outside of their own user page, there is no collaborating going on.

And trying to figure out how the stupid category gets populated, when it seems that every user has their own version of the userbox in their userspace, and they're all wrapped in "includeonly" so I have to edit every damn user page to try and find which template feeds the category. It's enough to make me say screw this crap, I'll stick to CFD, where things are relatively normal.

How do you do it? --Kbdank71 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		for not going completely nuts at UCFD. Kbdank71 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but maybe sticking with the UCFD mess at all is indicative of being nuts in the first place. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you not strain your muscles? It looks like you performed the splits forwards and then upside down over at WP:UBX and its subpages. Actually, I don't even want to know. Here's an aerobatic barnstar.

–Pomte 15:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		For all the hard work JC37 does regarding categories, especially in light of all the grief I give him over it, I award thee this piece of tin I just knocked up. Don't bite on it too hard. Hiding T 16:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a category barnstar so I made one. If you can think of a better one, feel free to modify. Hiding T 16:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Long overdue for all the fine UCFD work you have been at for years. VegaDark (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did this become barnstar central?

Seriously, though, congrats, you deserve every one of them. --Kbdank71 16:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I can't put into words how I appreciate them. (I think I tried, not very successfully, on your talk page at one point.) And thank you : ) - jc37 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having now had the opportunity to look at all of the user category and userbox guideline pages...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For clarifying, organizing, and developing guidance on user categories, through lots of little tweaks, some big changes, and countless comments at WP:UCFD, and for helping to bring practical significance to a formerly lonely userspace page. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

--Kbdank71 23:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

42

wow, I actually didn't even know about this until today. thank you very much sir! you know what they say (in case you don't its, The only thing worse then being talked about is not being talked about.~Oscar Wilde) I feel famous, I would put a dancing smiley on here if I could, in fact

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for making me feel like I'm part of the cast of Cheers Pewwer42 Talk 02:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context

The context was actually that they make a display of greater depth, therefore affect, rather than they cause, since it is an art not a science and nothing truly is caused, but it's no big deal. Hiding T 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are too short : )

What I meant is that they affect the perceiver. They effect (add) depth into the text.

But as you said, it's not that important. I'm just a stickler for grammar at times : )

Feel free to revert if you wish. - jc37 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're missing me. I knew what you meant, I'm telling you that I wasn't using the word affect in the context you took it to be used in. They affect (alter to produce) greater depth in the text. You are right that the result is an effect, but the effect is the result of artistic affect. However, I think effect is probably better as many people can miss the many meanings the word affect has. Hiding T 00:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've got me second guessing myself : )

"alter to produce" would seem to be "to effect", not "to affect". I effect a change, and the target is affected by the change I effected. Or am I missing something?

Can you tell I enjoy grammar? : )

(As an aside, we really should start edit warring over this... Greater fame and glory awaits us at WP:LAME : ) - jc37 00:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Scuse me for butting in, but maybe this might help: "Effect" is an action verb, "Affect" is a passive verb. One can effect a change that will affect others. Horologium (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean transitive and intransitive? I thought about that, but "affect" can also be a transitive verb. - jc37 01:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, get all technical on me... (big grin) After I posted, I saw that you said essentially the same thing on Hiding's talk page. FWIW, "Affect" can also be a noun as in "Patient's affect was blunted". Horologium (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you guys are coming at this from the wrong angle. I'm talking about the way an artist affects his work, Jc37 is talking about the effect the artistic affect achieves. I don't dispute Jc's usage, I simply dispute him telling me my context is wrong because the context he is reading it as is not the context in which I am using it. The context in this instance is that the text is being affected by the artistic introduction of images, and the work is affecting greater depth. Like I say, it's maybe an arts thing. It certainly seems to be a limited affectation in this discussion. All the best, Hiding T 11:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S. essentially it wasn't the wrong word, it was less-than-clear context? : )

(Ah, the effect of being affected while being affected by the effectiveness of the effect of the affectation of the effector's effective affecting effect. Infective, no? : ) - jc37 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My brain hurts. --Kbdank71 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jc is right, we should just ream the page until it gets protected in the wrong version and end up at arb-com. Maybe we could even escalate to wheel warring. Do they have a lamest whee war ever page yet? Hiding T 10:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's WP:STOCKS, but I'm sure we could find "something" here : ) - jc37 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

I know you don't check it every day. :P Horologium (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Koavf input

I realise this conversation is winding down, but I've added a comment regarding Koavf and speedy CfDs at Black Falcon's talk page. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 204: / Line 204: @@
 :::Sure, get all technical on me... (big grin) After I posted, I saw that you said essentially the same thing on Hiding's talk page. FWIW, "Affect" can also be a noun as in "Patient's affect was blunted". '''[[User:Horologium|<font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium</font>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Horologium|(talk)]]</small> 01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 ::::I still think you guys are coming at this from the wrong angle.  I'm talking about the way an artist affects his work, Jc37 is talking about the effect the artistic affect achieves. I don't dispute Jc's usage, I simply dispute him telling me my context is wrong because the context he is reading it as is not the context in which I am using it. The context in this instance is that the text is being affected by the artistic introduction of images, and the work is affecting greater depth.  Like I say, it's maybe an arts thing.  It certainly seems to be a limited affectation in this discussion. All the best, [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] <small>[[User talk:Hiding|T]] </small> 11:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
+:::::S. essentially it wasn't the wrong word, it was less-than-clear context? : )
+:::::(Ah, the effect of being affected while being affected by the effectiveness of the effect of the affectation of the effector's effective affecting effect. Infective, no? : ) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 :My brain hurts.  --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 ::I think Jc is right, we should just ream the page until it gets protected in the wrong version and end up at arb-com.  Maybe we could even escalate to wheel warring.  Do they have a lamest whee war ever page yet? [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] <small>[[User talk:Hiding|T]] </small> 10:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
+:::Well, there's [[WP:STOCKS]], but I'm sure we could find "something" [[:Category:Wikipedia lamest edit wars|here]] : ) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 == You've got mail ==