User talk:Locke Cole

If I leave a message on your talk page I will have it watchlisted and be aware of any replies you make there. If you leave me a note here there's a 50/50 chance I'll either reply on your talk page or reply here. If you favor one method over the other, please let me know in your comment here.

Notice

I have posted a complaint here about the ongoing incivility of Ohconfucius. Because the complaint cites incivility that he has directed towards you, I am notifying you directly. Best regards. Tennis expert (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Page blanking.

Hi. Is there a reason why you are blanking Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking? There are few good reasons to blank a page. If the content has been moved elsewhere, there should be a redirect rather than a blank page. --Srleffler (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was moved back to where it was moved from. It doesn't need to exist in two places. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI

You are the subject of an ANI here. Greg L (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your post here on my talk page. I responded there. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

MfD

Thanks for closing it: I was glad to have slept though it. The issue you raised in your post at the AW talk page concerning gaining community acceptance is the difficult one. I believe it must be trialled first in user space, and that (i) the composition of coordinators (non-admins only? mixed but not dominated by admins? no restrictions?), and (ii) how coordinators should be chosen in project space, be worked out first. What I fear is that it will be bleached in project space unless firmly fitted out to prevent that. Tony (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I've overturned your non-admin closure of the MfD, please see my rationale given there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Sorry"? Ahem ...

Locke, thanks for your new section User_talk:Tony1/AdminWatch#Coordinators; I've been thinking along similar lines, indeed a 3–2 split. But a few things need to be sorted out first; I'll respond there. Just one thing: is there a "not" missing from your second post? ("because issues of police misconduct should be investigated/decided/resolved by... police.") Tony (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Robo-date-zapping

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the problem with what's going on. Thanks for speaking up. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 02:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to the RfAr - I've left a statement. Hope you don't mind that I added myself as co-submitter; I want to make it very clear that as an administrator I disapprove of the behavior in question. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 19:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and no, I don't mind you taking on a co-filing status. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy

We are working on a consensus revision on Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Suggestions_and_compromise_versions and need more eyes. We'd be happy to have your input on this whenever you're able to contribute to the discussion. Cheers, --05:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1964

Sarah Palin has a Category:1964 births. To my mind, that resolves your issues, esp. if you put a link to the year 1964 in the blurb atop the cat page for every single cat that includes a year. Moreover, though I hate hate hate hate to say this, if you're determined to continue.. if all options for a content dispute have been exhausted, then the next step wouldn't be ArbCom, it would be the much-despised "let everyone on Wikipedia see the debate" option. I hate that crappy option. Truly. But it is the very last step for a content dispute. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you've already done the watchlist option. I hope your ArbCom initiative will be amicable. Best wishes. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Query

I think I'd prefer that you answer my question on your talk page. I am having a small problem with Oh_Confucius. Would you look at the situation and have some input? I am aware that you have seen him doing some questionable things on here as well. Leadingonward (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably the last person who should try and mediate a dispute involving that editor. Having said that, if you have something specific you'd like to point me to, by all means, please do. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done

I think that's all I need to say. Deb (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Dabomb87/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs

Hi—when you have the time, could you look at this, preferably the draft of proposed guidelines on linking chronological items? I am going to ask people from all sides of the debate to look at this; probably you, Masem, Lightmouse and a couple others. Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to propose changes on the talk page—I am open to all suggestions. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to your question, I would not object to it, no. The consensus supports your view that some method of autoformatting should be retained. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

The following temporary injunction has been passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking;

Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case concerning Korlzor

You have been helping fight vandalism inflicted by various IP sockpuppets of the blocked User:Korlzor. You may be interested in a sockpuppetry case I have opened here. Best regards. Tennis expert (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

video

Search for "video" on talk archive 14 to see a few recents discussion of the video --Enric Naval (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For bringing date delinking to the attention of arbcom

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For refusing to back down against autocrats attempting to make Wikipedia less useful and simple to use for our readers. Kendrick7talk 06:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No thank you for bringing this whole matter to the attention of the Arbitration committee. In my three, going on four, years as a registered user I've given out ten barnstars at most, counting yours. I was too lazy to make a fuss about this whole issue which had really gotten my goat, and too busy IRL to do what you have ultimately done. But you picked up the slack. I'm very happy that you did something, and I truly believe that you have the best interests of the project at heart. Good expletive job! -- Kendrick7^talk 08:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking/Workshop#Pages are not owned

Hi Locke, Septentrionalis was kind enough to drop me a line on my talk page, expressing his concern about my response to you. Although, as I explained there, I still believe I was right about the level of participation, I am persuaded by his view that my response gave the wrong impression about my intention when commenting. I would not wish to be seen as "mocking" any fellow editor and regret that I posted in a manner that allowed that judgement to be made. I offer my sincere apology to you for any upset I have caused to you and hope you would be willing to accept that in good faith. --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: AFD

Actually, they are related. They're all Xbox Live Arcade games. None of them so far meet WP:N, and it would be silly to nominate the entire category without first checking each page. I replied much the same way at the afd.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've replied again at the AFD, but I will take your advice, and nom them individually. It's easier anyway.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I am required by Wikipedia’s rules to alert you to the fact that you are the subject of an ANI here Greg L (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yay, more drama from the MOSNUM gang! —Locke Cole • t • c 02:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA

After going through the date delinking case, you seemed to be one of the most invested parties. I don't have a position, and I am unwilling to become involved. However, whether relevant to the case or not, one of the points you brought up was incivilty by Tony1. The issue was back in July 08 and unrelated to date delinking, and I have since revised my position. There are several other associated pages, but the main one is at Talk:Eye movement (sensory)[1]. I don't know whether this is usable or helpful to you or not, but thanks for reading nonetheless. Reply on my talk. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Washington 2008 governors election map

The problem with the image you're pushing -- as with any other "purple map" -- is that you can't tell by looking at it which counties went which way unless they were really tilted. There's a lot of deep purple counties. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the gubernatorial election is not decided on a county-by-county basis it doesn't make sense to use a blue/red map to me. It's more revealing (and accurate) to show county results in a gradient manner reflecting the actual vote percentage of each county. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Washington 2008 governors election map

The bule/red image is more accurate and is read easy.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool-guy357 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man

I think your interactions have been fairly tangential to the overall tenor of his contributions to Wikipedia.

Perhaps I can help by pointing you to this old version of his user page. --Dweller (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Compression Software Implementations

Regarding your recent edits to the Compression Software Implementations template—you're saying that the items you added there are software products (because the template is about software products). So please give me links where I can download the following software products (and I don't mean various implementations of these formats made by various companies and other people, I mean exactly these software products):

• Adaptive DPCM
• Dolby Digital
• DTS-HD High Resolution Audio
• Dolby Digital Plus
• DTS
• Dolby TrueHD
• DTS-HD Master Audio

What are their licences (proprietary, freeware, open-source...), how much they cost (if they're not free of charge etc.)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.M. (talk • contribs) 2009-02-08T06:33:00 (UTC)

As the name of the template is "Compression Software Implementation" and not "Compression Software Products" your argument falls apart. Further, those "products" were part of the template for months and make perfect sense to me to be included (they are, afterall, implementations of specific codecs). Finally, there's currently a merge request at the other template you mention (Compression Software Formats I believe), and that makes sense to me; there's a lot of overlap between those two templates, and they are redundant. In the future, please sign your messages, and use the template talk page instead of my user talk page. This discussion makes more sense over there where other editors concerned with the subject could see it. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Software implementations" means software products. Computer programs, software libraries. They are not "implementations of codecs", because a software codec is a software implementation of some specification (format). ADPCM is not an implementation of anything, it is a specification. Codec authors then release software products that encode/decode data to/from the format. A specification is not an implementation. The template is only about software products and nothing else than that. That is the intention, the reason why it was created by its original author and it is also explicitly explained at the bottom of the table, for people who do not understand it. It only lists software products. The other template is where the ADPCM, Dolby etc. stuff belongs. Because the other template lists specifications. BTW, the separation is done exactly because so many people, like you, fail to understand the difference (between software products and formats, between implementations and specifications). Anyway when, and only when, the two templates are merged, you can add it all there, but until then, please do not add stuff that does not belong there. I am reverting your edit, because you just admitted you were wrong. If you still don't like it, yes, discuss it on the article talk page instead of engaging in an edit war. Thank you. (P.S. Sorry for not signing my previous post, I don't know why I forgot that.)—J. M. (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well, since you seem more familiar with the subject matter, I'll take your word on it that this template is only for actual "products", and not for implementations. I'll begin to trim the template down to products only since there appear to be numerous formats listed there that don't belong. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Would you mind filing a request for clarification re: the injunction due to the confusion at LM's talk page? I'm really not good with these kind of things. Thanks, –xeno (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess based on the fact that it wouldn't "raise an eyebrow" the editor is in the clear. –xeno (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed at ArbCom

(Perma-link)

Proposal to end this all

Greg L (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Counter proposal on chronological linking

Please share your ideas at User:Kendrick7/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs. -- Kendrick7^talk