User talk:Equazcion

Welcome. Here's a kitty.    | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

If I left a message on your talk page, please do not post your reply here. Reply on your talk page instead. I will be notified of your response. Click here to start a new discussion. I will reply on this page. If you like, I can post a notification on your talk page when I reply. Simply request it.

This

is beautiful. Just wanted to say. Mackan79 (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was nice to hear :) It would've been nothing without your original thoughts coming first though. You've been making good additions. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:19, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Move request

• Request at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial: I made no histmerge, as WP:Parallel versions and all messages in Wikipedia talk:Trading card game/Archive 1 were also in Wikipedia talk:Trading card game/archive/1 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood, thanks :) Equazcion ^(talk) 13:39, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

User:Caro 08 cleanup

User:Caro 08/Canada is still sitting around as a result of your laudable but doomed effort to get this editor on track. You are the only author of the page (well, almost), it's kind-of a GFDL vio, and it's cluttering up the what-links-here tables. Do you still want it there or can I nuke it as house-cleaning? Or maybe you want to move it over to her new account, Caro7440 (talk · contribs)? Speaking of which, could you take a look at that account? I skipped the SPI step 'cause it's really quite obvious they're the same, but always nice to have confirmation. Franamax (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You can nuke it, by all means; no reason to keep it around. Based on the name, and the comment at the rollback request page, I'd say they are indeed the same user, so, good block I say :) Equazcion ^(talk) 20:44, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

I came by to thank you for this. I found a similar bon mot left on your talk and rolled it back. I hope you don't mind me butting in. See ya 'round Tiderolls 03:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the rollback. You can butt in to undo vandalism anytime :) Equazcion ^(talk) 12:31, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hi, there is an important email I sent to you this morning. Well important to me. :) Just want to make sure you see it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you have trouble getting my eamils so I just want to know if it was received? I really want you to see what I had to say. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I got it, I just hadn't figured out how to respond yet. I'll try to do so tonight. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:58, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

What's with the archiving? You know that DMSBel isn't going to let this go. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

so, you simply decided to close the discussion unilaterally? not like it was going anywhere, mind you, but there was no need to get pissy about it. --Ludwigs2 21:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone smart decided the discussion @ ejaculation should be archived since it's not getting anywhere, to which DMS responded by carrying on his points at the VP page. In the interest of truly closing the matter I carried the archival over to VP. I agree, there certainly is no reason to get "pissy" about it, Ludwig. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:34, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Hah! sorry, I have a piss-pot life lately, so I claim exemption from the rule (within reason). still, I do hate those presumptuous closures - they are the kind of thing that almost invariably lead to nasty thoughts and comments. doesn't look good at all form any perspective (except maybe that of the closer). --Ludwigs2 21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. How much you wanna bet this will go up to WP:MEDCOM? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It probably should have in the first place - it's not a subject people are inclined to be reasonable about on either side. but it would have been nicer if it went there on the merits rather than because people are getting pissed off at each other. --Ludwigs2 22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEANS, Neil :) Ludwig, things rarely end up in mediation because both sides mutually say "This is a complicated issue and should probably be mediated." It's generally because people are pissed off and deadlocked. As far as the VP proposal goes, I don't think that belongs at mediation -- a policy proposal either has wide support or it doesn't, and this one didn't. The ejaculation page might possibly benefit from some mediation, but I have my doubts there too. Consensus there appears to fall on inclusion of the content, IMO. I acknowledge I haven't looked thoroughly through the discussion there so I could be wrong. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:11, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)

lol - damn, now I have no idea what to do with this plate of beans on my table. Thanks a bunch, EQ!

Honestly, I have been studiously avoiding the ejaculation page because I am tired of squabbling with people fruitlessly (I don't mind squabbling fruitfully, mind you, but there has to be some progress for it to be worthwhile). I think the idea itself will eventually need to go to mediation - I really don't think that NOTCENSORED was intended to be carte blanche for any gross image that someone has a hard-on for (and can justify in some trivial way), and I don't think reasoned voices will ever make any headway on that. I'm just trying to decide whether I'm currently up to the task of pushing it. --Ludwigs2 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if MEDCOM mediates on policy issues (rather than the contents of specific articles). The list of parties involved in a WP:NOTCENSORED policy dispute would be quite interesting to put together. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

interestingly, the policy thing seems to be a bit of a vacuum. medcom deals with user problems on specific pages, which doesn't necessarily expand to policy; Arbcom deals with policy, but won't deal with content issues - where do you go for decisions about content policy? but I don't want to keep cross-talking on EQ's page. unless he expresses an interest in this discussion, let's move it elsewhere. --Ludwigs2 08:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediation isn't for policy proposals. With a policy proposal, there needs to be a clear demonstration of wide support. Here we have no wide support demonstrated, just a few parties arguing endlessly over it, which doesn't mean there's any more of a chance it has wide support. Mediation is irrelevant for something like this because it doesn't matter how our argument turns out; the support isn't there either way. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:34, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)

That's what I meant by an '...Com' vacuum. This is an issue that has (potentially) broad implications for the nature of wikipedia - i.e. is wikipedia as a whole going to give the appearance of being a bit stuffy or a bit skanky? - but everyone is so reactive about the issue that meaningful discussion is largely impossible. I suppose ArbCom would be the better choice, except I suspect that any attempt to present it will get misrepresented as a content dispute and rejected.

well, like I said, I'll consider my options as the goatse thing works itself out. --Ludwigs2 16:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not for Arbcom either. I think they'd reject the case as forum shopping, if you presented them with your policy proposal. If it didn't gain enough support at the venue where it was originally presented, Arbcom isn't going to let you try pushing it through there instead. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:21, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)

It'd have to be a community-wide RfC like the ongoing BLP matter. Loads of fun! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

well, as I said, I'm considering my options. --Ludwigs2 22:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

wallpaper

Hey, you also got that image as a wallpaper! That use is being very popular.  franklin  04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying it on, might still change it again. Great photo though. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:53, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

• You know, the way you used it gave an idea that maybe solves a problem. In your page I can only see a portion of it. Is it because you are using a version of it or is it because there is a way of showing a portion of an image. I'm interested in doing the latter. Having a picture uploaded show only portions of it in different articles without having to upload different files with the different crops. Do you know how to do that?  franklin  17:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I actually copied this code from someone else's page where I saw it done. It looks like the image is enclosed in a "div" with a "width" specified that's smaller than the image, and "overflow:hidden" specified. It might be possible to create a template that does this, but it would be a complicated process of trial and error with position and dimension parameters to try and get a particular portion of an image to show up without the rest. You could try contacting User:iMatthew for input, as his userpage is where I got the code from. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:04, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)
• To clarify, I'm not using a custom version of the image. The cropping effect is done with code. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:39, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

re: AN/I

Thanks. Some of that has been percolating for a while. Other parts of it just came today. I want to wait for the RfC/U until Lar comments on the identification we submitted and (probably) when the AN/I thread has come to a close. An RfC/U will detail the 25 pages that I mentioned where she suddenly showed an interest. The Kate Winslet appearance was over the top. Appreciate your comments and I have through the whole discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Halvorsen brian

You're right. I was trying to be conciliatory and came across as condescending. Sorry about that. Woogee (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion ^(talk) 01:35, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

the filmographies code

Hi. The core bit of bad code is this:

{|class="wikitable" style="font-size: 90%;" border="2" cellpadding="4" background: #f9f9f9;
|- align="center"

The table declaration is malformed; the background: #f9f9f9; is not in the style attribute and will not be used, and the border, cellspacing, and cellpadding are all taken care of by "wikitable". And the align="center" is not needed as what follows are th-elements and they get centered by the class, too. This whole mess was started by WHL messing up the code when, ironically, she changed it to 95% here. These tables should properly be be ordinary "wikitables" and any "standard" enforced via template a implementation. See also the thread she archived and the further whinging at User talk:Lar#Your note. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)