User talk:Plastikspork

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 21:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

{{Admin dashboard}}

General Notes

Nielsen Ratings

Posted copyright warning for Nielsen Media.

Is IMDB a reliable source?

1. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Is IMDb a reliable_source?
2. Wikipedia:Citing IMDb

Since or Present

The form "since 1996" should be used in article text while the form "1996–present" is preferred in infoboxes.

— Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Other date ranges

Prefix search

• https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/

Talkback

Don't want to create a new thread? Drop your talkback template here:

Hello, Plastikspork. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:AutoEd.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Plastikspork. You have new messages at Bueller 007's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Plastikspork. You have new messages at TheWeakWilled's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Page turning

Your're good with programming. Any idea how I would go about customizing my layout so I can browse the encyclopedia as you would in a written book encyclopedia? So say I was reading an article on Khagan, in the task bar at the top there is a arrow forward and arrow backwards icon so I can browse alphabetically and read the next article Khagani Mammadov or click left arrow backwards and read Khagaria district etc. I know ther eis the prefix index but it does my head in having to type in prefixes and when I do it starts at the page I'm on and I can't browse the article before it if you know what I mean... It would be nice to have the option to browse alphabetically. Any idea how I could program in my monobook to have two arrows in the top hand right corner of the screen for scroll forward and scroll backwards feeding off the alphabetical index? I wouldn't browse this way all the time but for browsing I think it should be a valid option. Can you help? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I have no idea how one would do that without having the entire list. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine it would be programming to take you straight to where the article is in the index and somehow move you onto the next or previous article by by-passing the index list.... So you click arrow forward, it reads the index and the current article you are on and rolls you onto the next one... Its just as an encyclopedia you'd think there would be the option to browse alphabetically without having to go into the index....

I think it can be done. It would be something like:

addOnloadHook(function() { addPortletLink('p-cactions','http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:PrefixIndex&from={subst:PAGENAME}&namespace=0','Index','ca-index'); });

However I can't get the subst:PAGENAME to work of the name of the article I am browsing on it only subst:PAGENAME's the Dr. Blofeld in my .js. Ideally I want whatever page I'm on for it to read that and when I click index it finds it and lists the next articles alphabetically. It would a if ... subst: type of documentation. Can you sort this? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I know AWB can process a sequence of pages. If you had the list specified beforehand, it should be possible to cook something up in Javascript. However, it would take some time. My personal method is to use "navigation tabs" in firefox. I pull open the page with the list, then middle click on each link to open each on in a tab. As I am finished working on each page, I close the tab. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Hungarian settlement

Hello, Plastikspork. You have new messages at Rich Farmbrough's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the fix! Debresser (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Nomination_for_deletion_of_Template:BranchesofVisualArt. Feel free to raise any such future issues at the talk page, prior to action, in case they can be resolved easily, as with this. And thanks for bringing it to the attention of the project. Ty 19:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

911ct subpages

These subpages may be deleted. I'll comment on the AfDs.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Abuse relisting

I am extremely shocked that you have relisted Abuse. It has been a major nightmare for me having to waste my time on this - now the ordeal goes on for another week. I dont think you have looked at this properly, all those who wanted deletion have now withdrawn or moved to a neutral stance (User:Apoc2400 for example. There isnt any compromise to be reached as the view is now unanimously a Keep. There has been far too much discussion already. Do you want me to have a heart attack or something ? --Penbat (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I'm sorry to hear that Wikipedia is causing you undue stress. I agree that there is currently no consensus to entirely delete the template, however there still appears to be some question about the template's size and scope. I am hopeful that some future discussion could result in a satisfactory conclusion with regard to this issue. I disagree that the discussion is "unanimous" in anyway. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

it isnt unanimous from the point of view of everybody saying keep but there is a mixture of neutral, withdrawn and keep. But there just isnt anybody in the discussion who wishes to persue the case for deletion. Woohokitty who first wanted the TFD posted to say he "wished he never bothered with the TFD in the first place", and (User:Apoc2400 went neutral. Have you any idea how much time it took me to write such a vast quantity of text. Do i have to start all over again ? I do have a real world life you know. Even Black whatshisname who has now withdrawn didnt want a simple deletion. He just wanted the template replaced with smaller ones but he now accepts that it is impossible as there is no recognised taxonomy. Where is the mountain of text i wrote is it lost forever ? I will not let this matter rest. You seem to have got it all wrong. Who do you think was still willing to counter the keep ? --Penbat (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. From your analysis, it sounds like there is no harm in relisting as the result will be as you desire in about a week. If the relisting concerns, you can always ask for a second opinion from another admin. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. Firstly the last week has caused a huge me a huge amount of strain and stress. Also the problem is as i explained in a lot of detail previously about 3 times is that most of the general public (and that probably includes most Wikipedia editors) seriously misunderstand the unity of diverse aspects of abuse which is specifically why I started doing the abuse article to explain that to people. It was the existance of the template that motivated me in the first place. I felt that i had to go to a huge amount of detail to explain to those in the TFD discussion why abuse has common aspects. It wouldnt surprise me if the same thing happened again and i had to write yet another extremely long essay to explain the concept of abuse which may well again convert them to a neutral stance or withdraw. Has the previous text been lost for ever  ? Do i have to write it all out again from scratch or what ? It looks i will be chained to a keyboard again next week like i was last week.--Penbat (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The prior discussion was preserved when the discussion was relisted, so no need to write it all out again. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i misread a sentence of yours. Discussion of splitting the template has already been discussed ad nauseum about 3 times and rejected so i still cant see any point in extending the TFD for another 7 days. It is a complete waste of time. --Penbat (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Brabus CV8

Please verify your reason behind deleting the photo link to an actual Brabus CV8 vehicle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.148.2 (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are talking about File:Brabus_cv861w203.jpg this link? It should be placed in an actual article. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify your reason for redirecting the photo example of a Brabus CV8 to a Mercedes C-Class section? The Brabus CV8 is an official car registered as a produce of Brabus utilizing the Mercedes Benz W203 C-Class donor. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razman.rahim (talk • contribs) 18:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Will revise and summarize a suitable article for it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razman.rahim (talk • contribs) 18:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please tell where i have voted twice in the new discussion ?

i am completely baffled --Penbat (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your very first comment was "Very strong KEEP for plenty of reasons". There is no need to !vote again. You are certainly welcome to reaffirm your stance, but it makes it hard for a closing admin if there are multiple bold !votes. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you have got this completely wrong and resent the implication that i would cheat. I would like a ruling on this from another admin. We have just started a completely new discussion. What happens if a participant from the old discussion now takes a different view ? I could well do without all this hassle.--Penbat (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

are you not responding ? --Penbat (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was in a meeting. I never said anyone was cheating. I simply said that it makes it easier for the closing admin if there is only one bold !vote per editor. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I still think you have got it completely wrong. It is not just a matter of an editor counting up the bold bits of text, views are likely to change as the result of later discussion and you didnt cover the situation where an editor in the 1st discussion changes his mind in the 2nd discussion. What is he to do then? Opinions are always likely to change as the result of discussion - that is the whole point of discussion.

If you actually read the discussion in the first TFD, you will see that User:Black Falcon, User:Woohookitty, User:Apoc2400 all effectively all changed their views to neutral which is why i was completely baffled why we are having the TFD ordeal all over again. If you just looked at User:Black Falcon, User:Woohookitty, User:Apoc2400s embolden text, which it looks like you have done, you will get a completely incorrect picture of their later view.

I would like a completely different admin to take over and also review the basis of why we are having this TFD all over again and wasting everybodies time ?--Penbat (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Also it sounds like if i spent the next 7 days successfully changing the mind of those opposed in the new TFD (like i did with the 1st TFD) it will be ignored anyway. The whole thing is completely futile and pointless.--Penbat (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a discussion and not a vote, which is why I called it a !vote. If you want another admin to review the TFD, you could try WP:DRV, which probably won't work since it wasn't deleted. So, the other option would be WP:AN. I do not intend to be the admin who closes the discussion. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes but in my view the whole basis and validity of the relist is incorrect and is futile to carry on with see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_24#Very_important_statement_on_the_validity_of_this_TFD --Penbat (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, it appears you have expressed your opinion. My advise to you would be to stop commenting any further here, and instead direct your complaints to a different venue. For example, WP:AN, or a related notice board. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Last names on Bachelor 14

Hey, I'm confused as to why it's so important to you that this season of the Bachelor's bachelorettes' last names be sourced. Previous seasons of the Bachelor and Bachelorette have last names listed, not sourced, and you've never done anything about those. FORT I know is not a reliable source either, but they've been sleuthing and they had to get these names from somewhere. I believe that the names are correct. For example, you deleted Tenley's last name (Molzahn) and tenleymolzahn.com was the source...the website was created by a friend of hers (found that in news articles), so how is that not a reliable source? Basically, why are you freaking out about having soruces for names? (Are you gonna go and say, delete all the last names on Bachelorette 5 because they're not sourced? It's getting annoying. Please answer me, thanks. Onesmallnote (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to follow WP:BLP. Just because other pages have unsourced last names, doesn't mean we should continue that practice. I would welcome any help in cleaning up the lack of reliable sources and removal of unsourced content. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

*rolls eyes* Whatever. Onesmallnote (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to take from your response, but I am encouraged by the subsequent improvement in sourcing. Keep up the good work! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

北京

I am going to reinstate the weatherbox because it appears on two pages (both the city article and the geography article) and a lot of code could be saved by doing so. Mathpianist93 (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, templates are good if they are used on more than once. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move input

Heya Plastikspork, When you get a chance, if you could jump in and give an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#renaming a template I'm sure that we'd all appreciate it. Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 13:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have commented there. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

undid revision

Why did you "undid" the recent revision bhy fredlb37? The current link does not reference anything currently in the article. But if you must have a link to that particular page then it's new url is: http://www.pythag.net/node9.html

Thanks, fredlb37 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredlb37 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The URL you added was broken. I have subsequently fixed it. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Away

What again???? Hey check out North–South Expressway Southern Route. Are we suddenly a motorway directions project or something? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, such is the life of a "Doctor of Mathematics". There are lectures to be presented, theorems to prove, and shots of espresso to drink. The infobox on that expressway page is out of control. I don't spend much time reading such pages. There is actually an entire group focused on such things. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

G6

FYI. –xeno^talk 16:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

One of the articles that you have been involved in editing, Psychometry, has been proposed as a destination for a merge back from Token-object reading. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. - Steve3849 11:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion either way. Thanks for the notification! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell me what to do or else i will explode. I like Survivor so much that i edit most of the stuff that sould be fricken right. So i know whats spose to be right and wrong, so dont tell me what to fricken do and dont fricken block me from editing. - Bclrocks10