User talk:Jdforrester/Personal Archive 1

Archives of earlier items from this page are available:

• 28th Feb 2003 – 13th Feb 2004,
• 15th Feb 2004 – 05th Aug 2004,
• 06th Aug 2004 – 15th Sep 2004,
• 15th Sep 2004 – 23th Nov 2004,
• 25th Nov 2004 – 10th Mar 2005,
• 10th Mar 2005 – 11th May 2005,
• 11th May 2005 – 11th Aug 2005,
• 11th Aug 2005 – 07th Nov 2005, and
• 07th Nov 2005 – 23rd Mar 2006.

---

Note that I am likely to reformat, delete, or otherwise alter what appears here...

Non-Arbitration matters

Add new item

Peers in a special period of time

elements cross-posted

Hallo Jdforrester,
perhaps you still know me. I am this stupid guy that named the heirs of peers the wrong way (in your 6th archive). Now I have an idea of a new article (or a new group of article) and I am not sure if this is okay and follows the wikipedia rules. So I would like to get your opinion about this idea: Would it not be funny and interesting to see who was a peer in a special period in time, let me say from 1410 to 1445 or so? I have asked this already on my own User_talk. So it would be nice if you would answer there, too.
Yours,
--VM (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. The problem, of course, becomes the definition of the "special periods". Each century (or even decade) is an easy-enough definition, though arbitrary and not necessarily helpful; random periods such as 1410-1445 (or 15th January 1934 to 22nd October 2003, or whatever) would probably be less useful in generis, and, certainly, would likely be matters of dispute as to which timeframes to use for such periods. But, sure, go for it! I look forward to seeing "Peers in the 20th Century", "Peers in the 1900s", et al..

James F. (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Page for deletion

Revolution within the form is up for deletion. I ask for a vote for transwiki. Thanks. WHEELER 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Some help with <timeline>

Hi there. I was told on IRC that you're very good with the <timeline> markup. I'd like to ask you for some small help with mine. I've set one up here (Talk:Speedrun#Timeline) but there seems to be a major problem with the links. As you can see, links are rendered very strangely and cannot easily be read. It seems that they're somehow shifted back. It would be great if maybe you could have a look at it, since there seem to be few people proficient in this markup. :) Thanks in advanced! --Michiel Sikma 06:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a problem with EasyTimeline; see the TimeLine on my user page, which used to be fine until EasyTimeLine was broken somehow. And no, I don't know when/if it will be fixed, sorry. :-(

James F. (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh gee, the code was broken somehow? Has it been submitted to bugzilla? I guess I'll have to start bugging those devs over at #mediawiki now. ;) --Michiel Sikma 06:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I see that bug 4046 is about this. --Michiel Sikma 06:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. :-)

James F. (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

RFAR - "non encyclopedic"

Hi, in response to Fred Bauder's proposal "non-encyclopedic material may be removed" you voted "oppose".

Could you confirm that this was your intention, rather than voting "abstain", since at present it would appear to suggest that you believe

• "non-encyclopedic material may not be removed",

which seems somewhat odd. --Victim of signature fascism 17:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)