User talk:Izkala

Precious

"put more emphasis on her achievement"
Thank you for quality articles such as Zourafa, for solving template questions yourself or ask at the village pump, for helping the herculean task to merge templates, for joining the cabal of the outcasts although being warned, for supporting my dangerous dreams about amnesty, for your (insufferable hopeless) quest for justice, for a subtle change to a DYK hook "to put more emphasis on her achievement", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you know that your hook suggestion is on the Main page now? Pictured ;) - We could also call it a demonstration of {{Classical works row}}, - thank you! - We should probably write a better docu. Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

See {{Parameters}} to help you with documentation. Alakzi (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a house full of dear guests, no time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

ps: I could imagine to link from the first mention of symphonies to the first symphony in the table, etc, how? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

See {{Anchor}}. Place the anchor in the leftmost cell of the first row, and link to it with [[#anchor_name|symphonies]]. Alakzi (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

will do, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

works nicely, but I wonder why the display is always a little above, - just curious. - I would like to have the same links in the infobox but am afraid someone will say "no navigation from an infobox",- thoughts, watchers?

You need to place the anchor inside the template, or it'll get shoved in the last cell of the preceding row. I don't think infobox links would bother anybody here; people only object to infobox links when they carry no intrinsic value. Alakzi (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried the links, but am too tired to get the anchors in the templates. Help welcome, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Simply move the anchor to the end of the "title" field. Or you could wait until Friday, and I'll do it for you. Alakzi (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, works nicely for most, see? - I wonder why for anchor "vocal" it shows the bottom of the row? (Or does it always, just the others are shoreter?) - Should I do the same anchor thing for {{Classical discography row}}, instead of |"|id? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be the same for all of them. Try moving the anchors to the front. No, |id= is better; I just thought I'd save you the template editing. Alakzi (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Will do that later, off for a hike, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Copying from template to template done, + hike from Lorch was lovely, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Must've been quite a view. Many moons ago, I went on a school trip to the Rhine valley in Hesse and Nordrhein-Westfalen, though we didn't stop at Lorch. Alakzi (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Gorgeous Rhine Gorge ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see you signature again! Remember dedication of the confused soul, a GA now? It's up for DYK, review needed to make an appearance on Sunday possible ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that model of a review! - What do you think of limiting infobox service there and here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't really know enough about Bach's cantatas or the genre or music in general to be able to offer a worthwhile opinion. Alakzi (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't need knowledge of music to have an opinion on a removal of information in the infobox of a featured article which has been on the Main page on February. If you look at this list you see that scorings are quite different, and worthy to be shown, as was decided when the infobox was created. Even if a scoring is nothing exceptional, a link from "Instrumental" to the Baroque instruments is a reason to have it. - Contemplating to have "id" for the rows in that list and redirect to them rather to stub articles in some cases, such as BWV xyz = List of Bach cantatas#xyz. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Uum, would it not make sense to redirect the stubs then? Alakzi (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

History, condensed: we have several very different articles on the around 200 Bach cantatas. Some were started as early as Wikipedia. Some were started by me. Some were started by Dr. Blofeld who some day had the desire to complete the navbox, including stubs. Some were started by Nikkimaria. Some are red links. Some were expanded to FA and GA. - Looking at a stub such as Erwählte Pleißenstadt, BWV 216a: a link to the respective row in the list might provide more context with the others than the single article. I would still keep the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, but we might have some trouble reliably locating the anchors to replace them when the articles are eventually fleshed out. Though unconventional, maybe we could have a shortcut point to the list article. Alakzi (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

What is that please, a shortcut point? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Using the catalogue number, e.g. BWV 216a should point to the list, rather than the stub. Alakzi (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems what I tried to say, - we should do it at least for the red links, to ease creation, - what do you think? And what qualifies for "rather the list"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The parameters were discussed at length, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It's best brought up on the template talk page then; I'd not realised we've got an infobox for Bach. Alakzi (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

We had Bach first, actually, my first collaboration with Andy, and my first interest in an infobox design. (There was musical composition, but nothing substantial.) As at that time I was the only one dealing with Bach, I was free up to a certain point. Mind the date, well before an arb case, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Now the wish came up to have a footnote explaining what BWV means. Could that be done somehow automatically for articles which have BWV in the title? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It could be done. Is that what's been decided? Alakzi (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I read the discussion as if it was the best option, - please check, I often don't get things. I prefer it by far to the ugly bold link. It had been in BWV 22, demanded at FAC time as I now remember. I copied it to the other FAs (172, 165) and two GAs (35 and 29), then arrived at this question, - too lazy to copy to hundreds. If people really need an explanation of BWV although it's linked in the infobox I think this may be a method. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll do it tomorrow, I suppose, unless somebody can come up with a better idea. And unless I've been blocked again by that time. Alakzi (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea, suggested it on BWV 35 talk and received no protest. People who don't like it could easily revert, + I wrote most of the articles in question, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see the result on my watchlist! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Five errors isn't too bad, I guess. Let me know if anything else crops up. Alakzi (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you! - I would like to be able to have a tool to ease the transition from the list of recordings to templated, which I just did for BWV 17. Like have a master with all the conductors, - only few things change regularly: title, soloists, years, - other items occasionally. Thoughts welcome, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Next question: in my comment, there's a long piped link, - why doesn't it go to the proper place? At least it on my display, it first goes there, but after the page is fully loaded, somewhere below.? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It's because of the ArbCom collapsible sidebar; it collapses after you've jumped to the section, effectively pushing the page down. Alakzi (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Apology

@Cassianto: Some time ago, I asked for you to be blocked over a disagreement we had at Laurence Olivier. I'm sorry; I'd violated my own principles. Alakzi (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

	No Hard Feelings
	No Problem Alakzi, I'm not a grudge bearer. I hope to see you back soon. CassiantoTalk 19:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Template questions

I went over my talk, to gratefully remove you from those who have given up, and saw two questions:

• How would I change the size of an image in an infobox without using (the unwanted) "fixed size" (example)?
• How can {{infobox}} take an image (example)? I see that the template doc requests to code it as in an article. Should we request parameters instead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• ps: especially as it seems not to work, tried my talk, - put the image to the top for now
• next: some lists of movements (example) not yet transformed to {{Classical movement row}} distinguish the winds in brass and wood. Easy solution: forget about that, simply combine the two and explain the difference in the text. I really don't know if the added complexity of having to supply sometimes two columns, with variable headers, is worth trying.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

{{Infobox person}} hasn't got a parameter which maps to upright, so you'd have to use the file inclusion syntax, e.g. |image=[[File:Maria Radner.jpg|frameless|upright=0.7]]. You could request that a parameter be added to the infobox. (It might've made sense to build Module:InfoboxImage into the generic {{Infobox}}, but it's probably too late for that now.)

{{Classical movement row}} has already got a maximum of ten columns, so combining the two sounds like the sensible thing to do. Alakzi (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks, makes sense, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

How would I get the monkey pietá to the infobox on my talk then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Using |image=[[File:MonkeyForestPietá.jpg|76px]]. Alakzi (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, - I misread the documentation, and none of the examples has an image to copy from, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

These two edits need to be reverted, if somebody would be so kind. Alakzi (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for spotting that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please check

I transformed now St John Passion discography to templated. Please - if you have time - check for my typical mistakes ;) - As I worked/copied from St Matthew there might be entries not belonging in St John, for example (found a few which I fixed but am sometimes blind for the obvious), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it, though I've not checked for misplaced entries. You need to be prefixing the ordered lists with an asterisk to avoiding breaking up the outer list. Replace the following:

* '''Choir type'''
# Large choirs (red background): Bach (choir dedicated to Bach's music, founded in the mid of the 20th century), Boys (choir of all male voices), Radio (choir of a broadcaster), Symphony (choir related to a symphony orchestra)
# Medium-size choirs: such as Chamber choir, Chorale (choir dedicated mostly to church music)
# One voice per part (green background): OVPP or OVPP+R (with ripienists reinforcing the soloists in some chorale movements)

* '''Orch. type''' (orchestra type)
# Large orchestras (red background): Bach (orchestra dedicated to Bach's music, founded in the mid of the 20th century), Radio (symphony orchestra of a broadcaster), Symphony
# Chamber orchestra
# Orchestra on period instruments (green background)

... with:

* '''Choir type'''
*# Large choirs (red background): Bach (choir dedicated to Bach's music, founded in the mid of the 20th century), Boys (choir of all male voices), Radio (choir of a broadcaster), Symphony (choir related to a symphony orchestra)
*# Medium-size choirs: such as Chamber choir, Chorale (choir dedicated mostly to church music)
*# One voice per part (green background): OVPP or OVPP+R (with ripienists reinforcing the soloists in some chorale movements)
* '''Orch. type''' (orchestra type)
*# Large orchestras (red background): Bach (orchestra dedicated to Bach's music, founded in the mid of the 20th century), Radio (symphony orchestra of a broadcaster), Symphony
*# Chamber orchestra
*# Orchestra on period instruments (green background)

Alakzi (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, taken, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox transmitter

I've renamed {{Infobox UK transmitter}} to {{Infobox transmitter}}. Any suggestions for its improvement? Better image handling would be a start... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

We could start with: using Module:InfoboxImage for the |image=; chucking out |footnotes=; renaming |height= to |mast_height= and |height2= to |tower_height=; combining the two switchover parameters (unused); unlinking the switchover label; and incorporating {{Geobox coor}} and {{Location map}}, which would fall back on Wikidata. Alakzi (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Fancy knocking something up in your sandbox, which I can copy over? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As it happens, this is the only page I'm allowed to edit. Code is below. Alakzi (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

[snip code] That's just what I was looking for; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Andy: Could you please replace line 42 with:

| data4       = {{#if:{{{coordinates|}}}|{{{coordinates}}}|{{#if:{{Both|{{{latd|}}}|{{{longd|}}}}}{{#property:P625}}|{{Geobox coor|{{{latd|}}}|{{{latm|}}}|{{{lats|}}}|{{{latd|}}}|{{{longd|}}}|{{{longm|}}}|{{{longs|}}}|{{{longd|}}}|type:landmark{{#if:{{{coordinates_region|}}}|_region:{{{coordinates_region}}}}}

This should fix retrieving coordinates from Wikidata. Alakzi (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Done; thanks again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I've logged out to preview a page to confirm that it works, but apparently that's too much to ask for: "You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address." I must be Wikipedia's worst enemy. /s Alakzi (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That's standard. Don't sweat it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW, you're still free to edit sister projects, such as Commons or Wikidata. I can imagine your skills being very useful at the latter, especially. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Pleas see User talk:Pigsonthewing#Infobox transmitter and, one you're able, perhaps you could kindly mop up, using AWB? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. You could unset |wikidata= until that time. Alakzi (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Template editing

Sorry it has taken me so long to write here and explain why I removed the template editing user right. Back in March when you requested it, as you acknowledged at the time, you did not meet the granting guidelines. Point 1 is that your account was registered for at least a year, and at the time you were active for just over a couple of months. However they are just guidelines and I used my discretion to grant the request. At the time you seemed to be sensible editor who would benefit greatly from being able to edit templates. Your actions over the past few weeks have caused me to reassess this opinion somewhat: frankly you seemed to go off the rails. Given the damage that a template editor can potentially do, it does not seem wise that editors prone to edit warring and uncontrolled outbursts should have this right. As I had gone out on a limb to add the user right, I felt it was my duty to remove it. It is not my intention that this should be a permanent removal and I certainly hope you rebuild your reputation as a fully trusted editor. Personally I would like to see 1-2 months of drama-free constructive editing before I consider reapplying the right, although of course you are welcome to challenge this decision or reapply at the usual page where it will be looked at by other administrators. I wish you good luck and look forward to seeing you back to active editing in a few days. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ: You removed Alakzi's TE status despite none of the grounds listed at WP:TPEREVOKE for doing so having been met; with no pressing emergency; and with no community discussion of your plan to do so. It was your duty not to do so under such circumstances. It should be restored immediately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As MSGJ is the one who gave the right, and used their discretion to do so earlier than normal I think it well within their discretion to remove it. I would suggest to Alakzi waiting until the block has expired and then if you are confident with the result discuss it in a wider venue. While MSGJ has given a set of expectations for the return the right they have also made it clear that they would be satisfied if the community makes it clear they wish Alakzi to have the right and returned by another administrator.

I have little doubt that Alakzi will be able to demonstrate community confidence in this area. Really the only example of abuse of extended rights was the misuse of the bot account to circumvent a block. This is unfortunate but I don't think will result in permanent loss of trust from the community. Chillum 20:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

When MSGJ turned on that status, he did so as an admin acting on behalf of the community. A discussion was open and although he pre-empted it, it is certain that others in the community would have shown support there (the only reason I did not do so, having recommended Alakzi to apply, was that MSGJ beat me to it). The community has expectations of when and under what circumstances TE status may be revoked (personal whim of the admin turning on the status not being one of them), and they were (and are) not met. Hence MSGJs action was ultra vires. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to your (new) impression me, which I lack both the felicity and resolve to challenge. If you don't feel that you can trust me, that's OK. I do not believe that I need to work towards "rebuilding" my reputation; I am who I am, and that's not going to change overnight - nor over the course of two months. (Which is not to say that I do not recognise my shortcomings.) But I also ask that you ("you" being anybody who might be reading this) consider whether there might be more productive ways to approach people who appear to be dejected than finger-wagging and the expression of profound disappointment. Stigmatisation has never helped anybody; quite the contrary. What happened with Malik Shabazz might serve as a better example. Alakzi (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Jumping in (sorry if its unwelcome) to say that Alakzi is one of the most helpful editors and especially template editors that I came across on wikipedia. Whatever happened recently, his contributions far outweigh it. --Gonnym (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but people are loss averse: according to prospect theory, losses outweigh comparable gains when evaluating utility. Webdrone (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." It is interesting how clever people grasped such basic concepts long before Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham and the Chicago School, and the embodied folk wisdom is usually more intelligible to the average Joe than economics jargon. But I digress. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the statement "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" feels very intuitive to anyone. However, there is only so much descriptive power in the "embodied folk wisdom" and until someone builds a theory which somehow quantifies/qualifies these phenomena and makes testable predictions, such statements are of limited practical value. How many birds would have to be in the bush to forsake five or ten birds in your hand? Webdrone (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

WebDrone, you're being gently teased. I have a bachelor's and master's degrees in economics, and was pretty fair mathematical economist before I decided to pursue a law degree. Believe me, I know first-hand that you begin to lose most of your audience when you introduce basic concepts like marginal utility to the conversation. That said, your point above is, of course, perfectly valid: most administrators see nothing gained by handing out additional tool sets when they perceive some element of risk in doing so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you and Gonnym any less risk-averse? I would think it's more of a question of the value we each ascribe to normative behaviour, or, perhaps, your exposure to my normative deeds. Alakzi (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Your behaviour which may have upset others and to them that might have constituted a great loss, to me doesn't really matter since either I don't work in those areas or else am not particularly involved. People will value the same fact differently and will ascribe different loss/gain values to it if it affects them in a different manner. For instance in your case, you introduced me to Wikipedia and helped me learn how to edit etc. Your presence here has been only positive to me — I am blind to all the losses someone else might see, who may have gained nothing by your presence but only had edits reverted etc. (a troll for instance). But even in the case where people see both losses and gains for your work (for instance template workers), it would take a lot more positive gain for them than losses (to power, authority or any current status quo) to accept your changes. Webdrone (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: No doubt that potential accusations of WP:TOOLMISUSE can lead to some CYA. Someone that has not had a previous positive interaction with you is more likely to find you risky.—Bagumba (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the specific case of Alakzi here and continuing on a more abstract path for the sake of an interesting discussion, the different valuations to losses or gains by each individual might be what causes different people to react differently to the same situation. Webdrone (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Like most economic theory, that assumes that the persons involved are rational actors. The inherent flaw in that is that some folks are guided by a cost-benefits analysis, while others are listening to the voice of Blinky the Clown. Economists (and other mathematical social scientists) assume human decisions are still rational in the aggregate, as in the The Wisdom of Crowds, and economic demand theory and its many derivatives are, in fact, dependent on that assumption. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Closing XfDs you've participated in

Perhaps if we afforded people the benefit of WP:AGF and allowed them to close discussions they participate in, we'd see a dramatic reduction in not-not-voting and more of a willingness to compromise. What is so terrible about letting someone who's invested time and effort in understanding and debating a particular issue wrap the discussion up when there appears to be a consensus? This is yet another of Wikipedia's specious rules that discourage collaboration. Alakzi (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

teh rulez, teh rulez, - conclusion: don't invest too much energy in one discussion, - nite, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Closers must have no strong feelings one way or the other. :) The rules are path dependent and there's too much accumulated shit in that direction to make trying to shovel it out seem worth the effort. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, we could simply ignore the figurative trail of shit. That always works out. Trust me. Alakzi (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Potential WP:COI: I wouldn't want someone who !voted to delete an article which I contributed to also be the person who closes that discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, the assumption is that they'd be biased. But if consensus seems clear, I'd think it matters nought who carries out the outcome. If it's been a heated discussion, then absolutely, it's best to leave it to a neutral third party. However, to object to the closure of a TfD that's a unanimous delete by a participant is unproductive, if nothing else. Alakzi (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It matters in the second-order way that someone else will eventually think it matters enough to do something about it, and that's almost certainly a bigger waste of time than just not doing it in the first place. I suppose a better use of time would be if I remember to close some TfDs later, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

God forbid we ever have a good-natured disagreement on Wikipedia. :-) Alakzi (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

When you restored your ASCII smiley I noticed you put noses in them. Now that's just weird ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Aaaand, it's blown up. Alakzi (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Some people just love rules and dramah... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I've probably lost a few years of my life from reading AN and ANI. Alakzi (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

From the department of you-couldn't-make-this-up

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273#Disclosure Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's "cool story, bro" material. The shit you do and say on the internet will haunt you forever, but it shouldn't necessarily be that way. It looks like he was quite young then, too. OTOH, if he'd just stop being so trigger-happy today, that'd be great. Alakzi (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have indirectly mentioned you here.—Bagumba (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's a little more complex than getting upset with having my rights removed. Ultimately, it's that I'd become so invested in Wikipedia that I'd developed perhaps extraordinary expectations of other people, on quite a personal level. On another note, should I assume that the block on my bot account will be lifted tomorrow? Alakzi (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Bot account unblocked, as (partial) penance. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Alakzi (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: I left out details in the interest of providing a brief summary (which was still long), and leaving the focus on the admin's actions, not particulars of the dispute.—Bagumba (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no, I wasn't criticising you; I just thought I'd take the opportunity to clarify. Alakzi (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

NP. "extraordinary expectations of other people": Someone once told me to not think of things as weaknesses in others, but rather strengths of yourself.—Bagumba (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Composition bar

@User2534: {{Composition bar}} was changed for WP:COLOUR compliance, which could not have been ensured if the text overlaid the bar. (For the purposes of web accessibility, we assume achromatopsia, and thus rely exclusively on contrast.) This is, of course, exemplified by the #3333FF example, the contrast of which is so inadequate, that just about anybody will have some trouble reading. Finally, as we make no guarantee that the bar graphic itself is accessible, a colourblind individual might've found themselves in the unfortunate position of being unable to read both the text and the graphic. If you've got any ideas for improvement that do not sacrifice accessibility, shoot. Alakzi (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Another point to make is that graphics are generally considered to be a secondary or complementary medium of information, which is why we are adamant about ensuring colour contrast for text, but we're more lenient with graphics. Alakzi (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to use the original composition bar template as a standard, but make an option for displaying your new format if needed? (For instance a clickable small question-mark behind the comp bar) User2534 (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

We'd have to use JavaScript or CSS selectors, neither of which are available inside templates. Alakzi (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If it's about contrast why not just make it so that numbers for instance becomes white over dark comp bar? User2534 (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, because we'd not always be able to achieve a 7:1 contrast ratio, which is standard; a red background (#FF0000), for instance, does not provide adequate contrast against black (5.252) or white (3.998476770754) text. Secondly, the text might span both the filled bar and the background, so that white text might be readable with one, but not the other. Alakzi (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Can't remember where, but I'm pretty certain that I've seen a format somewhere on Wikipedia where parts of the text automatically changes colour if the background colour changes for a part only. User2534 (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite certain there's no such format, unfortunately; it is beyond the realm of what can be automated with style. Alakzi (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, was probably thinking of the opinion polling pages where text sometimes is white for darker colours, but I see that it's not "automatic". User2534 (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It can be made automatic with {{Greater color contrast ratio}}, but only when the background is uniform. The issue presents itself when the text overlaps two different backgrounds, and some of it's got to be coloured white, and the rest black. Alakzi (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

What if you use black background on darker party colours like the third example here Template:Composition bar? If it the two colours then doesnt become too close of course... User2534 (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@User2534: As I have said earlier, we can't always achieve triple-A compliance (a 7:1 contrast ratio) by adjusting the text colour only, so this is all hypothetical. And yeah, there wouldn't be enough contrast between the shaded and unshaded areas of the graphic. We could place the text on a white background, but there would be times when we'd be obscuring the edge of the bar. Alakzi (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Back in the saddle?

What time do you get sprung? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

In an hour and a half, apparently. Alakzi (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ping me. I'll buy you a digital pint. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: I'd be chuffed. Alakzi (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Though I still can't edit any other page because of autoblock. Alakzi (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I am currently trying to find the autoblock. Chillum 15:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you being given an autoblock number? Chillum 15:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

6289162. Could you also unprotect my talk page? Alakzi (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you cleared? This says it will expire 2015-08-21 16:59, but if I try to lift it, it says it is not found. Is there an IP address? Maybe you need to use {{Autoblock}}.—Bagumba (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• You should be good to go. I found the autoblock (it would have expired in 30 minutes, for some reason) and removed it. Someone else got your talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried to remove it, but Floquenbeam is just too fast and got there first. Chillum 16:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Alakzi (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

sigh. Alakzi (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I was gonna help with the TfD backlog, but on second thought, nah. Alakzi (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

AWB restored.—Bagumba (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

...and I restored the tag. Bot can run again as before. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

And my apologies. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. All is well. Alakzi (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox gridiron football conversion

Hi Alakzi. Glad to see you back. Are you still interested in adapting your Module:Infobox college coach/convert to meet the needs of converting Template:Infobox gridiron football person to the numbered parameters? Given the very successful run of the module on the college coach infobox, this would definitely be helpful. If you'd prefer not to pursue that, I can poke around and find someone else who's interested. Either way, thanks! ~ Rob^Talk 18:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I could do that. Are the |jersey= and |uniform_number= parameters redundant to |number=? Alakzi (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it, and I've never seen them in use in modern articles. Maybe I'll make a tracking category later on and see about transitioning any existing uses over to |number=. ~ Rob^Talk 18:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Here you go. Alakzi (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That was an impressive turn-around time. A bot is probably the best way to implement this. Would you like to submit a BRFA for Abotzi or shall I submit this BRFA once my current one gets approved? ~ Rob^Talk 19:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Still not as quick as Ryanair. ;-)

I'd rather not, to be honest. I'm trying to cut down on the time I spend on here. Alakzi (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I can submit it once I get my initial approval for the unrelated task. Do you mind if I request your assistance should any issues get brought up? It's essentially the same code that was already approved, so I doubt there will be any significant issues. ~ Rob^Talk 19:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't mind at all. You could try setting up some test cases in the fashion of Module:Infobox college coach/convert/testcases. Alakzi (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

What's going on with the test cases listing 11 tests failed (for college coach)? ~ Rob^Talk 20:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It's because they're not really test cases; I'm comparing the output of the module with the template's. A test case would be where you'd compare the output of the module with the expected output, and the two would have to be identical. Alakzi (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. ~ Rob^Talk 10:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

In starting to put together test cases, it appears that one has failed. The conversion is not handling sports headings properly. Mind taking a look? The test that doesn't appear to be working properly is "test_teamsYears_withSports" (and the closely related "test_teamsYears_withSports_multipleBrs"). ~ Rob^Talk 20:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Well, there are no sports headings in {{Infobox gridiron football person}}. The infobox shows nothing because it requires that both *_team1 and *_years1 are defined; but the data is not actually lost. {{subst:#tag:pre|{{subst:#invoke:Infobox gridiron football person/convert|main|playing_years=Basketball<br>1<br>2<br>3|playing_teams=<br>A<br>B<br>C}}}} produces:

{{Infobox gridiron football person
| name = 
| image = 
| alt = 
| caption = 
| birth_date = 
| birth_place = 
| death_date = 
| death_place = 
| team = 
| number = 
| status = 
| position1 = 
| height_ft = 
| height_in = 
| weight_lb = 
| college = 
| CIS = 
| high_school = 
| CFLDraftedYear = 
| CFLDraftedRound = 
| CFLDraftedPick = 
| CFLDraftedTeam = 
| NFLDraftedYear = 
| NFLDraftedRound = 
| NFLDraftedPick = 
| NFLDraftedTeam = 
| playing_years1 = Basketball
| playing_team1 = 
| playing_years2 = 1
| playing_team2 = A
| playing_years3 = 2
| playing_team3 = B
| playing_years4 = 3
| playing_team4 = C
| career_highlights = 
| CFL = 
| NFL = 
}}

Alakzi (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have the conversion fail gracefully/return an error when confronted with a _years1, _team1, etc. that consists only of white space? Alternatively, the template could be altered so that if _years1/_team1 don't both exist but _years2/_team2 (etc) exist, then the latter are still displayed. ~ Rob^Talk 21:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've set it up to output an error inside an HTML comment, which you can then locate with hastemplate:"Infobox gridiron football person" insource:"Template:Infobox gridiron football person conversion error" in Special:Search. Alakzi (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Just to make sure I understand how it's working now, all teams/years will now display following conversion, but some info will be hidden (the sport heading) until I manually fix that, right? ~ Rob^Talk 23:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the behaviour hasn't changed; they'll all be hidden if either team1 or player1 is empty. Simply, this will make it possible to patch them up promptly without the need for a tracking category or adding upwards to 100 #ifs in the infobox for display purposes, and while maintaining the convenience of an automatic conversion. Alakzi (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting ... any clue why the test cases that were previously displaying as blank are now behaving as I just described, then? That's very odd. ~ Rob^Talk 23:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Because I'd flipped the empty string logic like an idiot and unpaired parameters were being discarded. Now fixed. Alakzi (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I keep forgetting that empty strings are boolean true in Lua. It's not easy being human. Alakzi (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

CONTRAST and basketball infobox

If you were interested: Template_talk:Infobox_basketball_biography#WP:CONTRAST:_text_color_and_borders. I'll take it as no if there's no activity. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Somebody needs to add the border to the header methods of Module:College color. Ideally, we should consolidate the infobox and navbox methods. Alakzi (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Can that somebody be you :-) —Bagumba (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it looked like Frietjes was working on it, so I didn't want to butt in. I'll take a look a little later. Alakzi (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Understood. There's no ownership, but there is (in a good way).—Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Alakzi (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Help needed: Infobox

Can you please help resolve the color issue on Template talk:Infobox Jain deity. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 07:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. Alakzi (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou, but its not working. Please visit Parshvanatha. Also we don't need another field tirthankar_color, as we already have color. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 16:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. Alakzi (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It worked finally. You are a saviour. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 16:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me just one more thing please. The image field, can you please set a default size for it. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 16:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The image defaults to 220 pixels - or whatever you've set your thumbnail size setting to. Per WP:THUMBSIZE, hardcoded pixel widths should be avoided. HTH. Alakzi (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Restore and move

Hey, A. Can you request a restoration of User talk:Alakzi/Infobox college sports team, and have it transferred to my user space? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting admin help per above. Alakzi (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to circle back around to that project for a uniform team infobox, with appropriate options, for all college sports in the near future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I have restored it. Any user should now be able to move it to the desired location. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks. Was there also an associated primary page? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Medal oddity

Hey. Can you take a look a this odd result: the older {{MedalCountry | Great Britain}} renders "Competitor for Great Britain", but {{Medal | Country | Great Britain}} renders "Representing Great Britain". They both should produce the former, not the latter, regardless of which coding format is employed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. {{MedalCountry}} should be transcluding {{Medal}} for consistency, but I've no longer the necessary privileges to make that change. Alakzi (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, keep a TE to-do list. I'm betting you'll get your TE permission back in a month or so; in the mean time, we need to find a friendly TE to run interference on small tasks for you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's plenty who frequent this page. ;-) Alakzi (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you just want {{MedalCountry}} to become {{Medal|Country|{{{1}}}}} or am I missing something? It seems we have:

• {{MedalCountry|GBR}} ->

|- ! colspan="3" style="text-align:center;vertical-align:middle;background-color:#eeeeee;" class="adr" | Representing GBR

• {{Medal|Country|GBR}} -->

|- ! colspan="3" style="text-align:center;vertical-align:middle;background-color:#eeeeee;" class="adr" | Representing GBR

which are not quite identical, but should produce the same result. If so, I can do that for you. I note that both "Country" and "country" exist as switches in {{Medal}}. The documentation could do with cleaning up. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all there is to it; it's the same I've done with {{MedalGold}}, etc., in the past. Anyway, I'd be grateful. Alakzi (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to make any TE edits you like until your TE status is - rightly - restored; and will gladly speak in your favour when you decide to request that (not that you should have to) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Similarly, I'll do my best to ensure that the encyclopedia doesn't suffer unnecessarily from your temporary inability to contribute where you're most useful. --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your contributions in the realm of template editing and enduring an absurd number of requests for your expertise on your talk page. Thanks for all you do! ~ RobTalk 14:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. There's no element of endurance; I quite enjoy it. Alakzi (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thanks a lot :D -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 16:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, Pankaj. :-) Alakzi (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Conference standings tables

Hey. As an experiment, can you reduce the line spacing on Template:1923 Southern Conference football standings? These tables are ridiculously long and take up an inordinate amount of article space, of which the old Southern Conference -- with 20-odd members -- is the most egregious example. There has to be a better solution, and I'm searching for it . . . . If this looks good, I might be interested in a universal solution. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I've reset the line-height in {{Standings Table Entry}} to the infobox default, which is 1.5 em (1.5 times the height of the letters); it was 1.8. Alakzi (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

While you're there, you might want to take a look at the inaccessible symbols used (†, ‡, probably § as well) - and the tiny text (73% of normal) that I can't read without zooming the browser. Just a thought. --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I've bumped the font size, made the title row background brighter, and replaced <br> pseudo-lists with lists. What would you suggest be done with the symbols? Alakzi (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I just saw this, so I'm playing catch-up . . . line-height is now 1.5 em, and text size is 85% of main body text, correct? If so, it looks much better; previously the data lines were unnecessarily and disproportionately spaced, as noted. Rexx, what would you recommend for replacement characters for the explanatory notes -- is there any reason we could not use superscript capital letters (e.g., A, B, etc.)? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The rule-of-thumb is that any character you can type from a standard keyboard (without using the [Alt] key) is almost certain to be readable by a screen reader. Capitals are fine, of course, as are !$%^&*+#@ (no, I'm not swearing), and so on. Some screen readers can read more symbols than others, although some also have punctuation turned off by default. If you're not sure, I'd always recommend pinging Graham87 to see if he can hear the symbol you're considering. The biggest problem is usually the owners of the affected templates whom you'll have to convince that "we've always done it that way" isn't a great counter-argument against accessibility fixes. --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I've replaced the three icons and set up a demo at {{CFB Standings End}}; perhaps Graham could tell us if they're all readable. Alakzi (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Graham87 01:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

And it's been reverted. Alakzi (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

My edit too, but at least now we have a reason. Take it to the template's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You thought I was just being cynical when I predicted what the biggest problem would be, didn't you? If I could just get odds on wagers like that, I'd be a very rich dino. --RexxS (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Can y'all provide a link to this template talk page discussion? I can't find it. I'm the guy who requested the test edit (which I believe was very successful in improving the appearance of the table and reducing the article space it previously required), and I concur with the comments above regarding the accessibility of the explanatory note glyphs. If we're going to have a discussion with some sports editor who doesn't quite get it, it would probably be better for all concerned if you pushed me to the forefront of that conversation. If someone needs to "translate" for the benefit of the "masses," it may be better coming from me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

They reverted because the hash sign was gobbled up by the parser; I've fixed it now. Alakzi (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Immediate problem solved? No reverts? Do we still want to change the explanatory note glyphs? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've had to revert to fix it; no, I've not been counter-reverted. I've replaced the three inaccessible glyphs in the process. Alakzi (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Ping me if conflict arises. I'm happy to leave it the way it is now; my major mission has been accomplished. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Quinn

I'm guessing you've figured this out already, but: the move request needs an admin to close it because the page is protected so that only admins can move it. Anyway, it seems to have been done now. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'd listed it at WP:RM/TR, so it would've been moved sooner or later. Anyway, matters little. Alakzi (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop

Please, stop interfering with the job of WP:SPI Clerk ([1]). SPI Clerks are allowed to removed off-topic material from SPI pages (see: WP:SPI/PROC, "This material should not be reinstated by anyone other than Clerks or CheckUsers"). Your behavior is disruptive to the process. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you to imagine how much respect I've got for SPI, CUs and their clerks. Alakzi (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The clerks are just mopping up. That's rather like yelling at the bus driver, because you don't agree with your local transport policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really; the bus driver is making a living. Clerks have no reason to be. Alakzi (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You also have no reason to be here if you don't want to respect the rules. Please, stop your disruptive edits immediately. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't respect the rules. Now what? Alakzi (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You pose a threat to the community now. You are evil. You must be rendered harmless. In the words of Nietzsche:

"How much or how little that is dangerous to the community, dangerous to equality, resides in an opinion, in a condition or emotion, in a will, in a talent, that is now the moral perspective: here again fear is the mother of morality. When the highest and strongest drives, breaking passionately out, carry the individual far above and beyond the average and lowlands of the herd conscience, the self-confidence of the community goes to pieces, its faith in itself, its spine as it were, is broken: consequently it is precisely these drives which are most branded and calumniated. Lofty spiritual independence, the will to stand alone, great intelligence even, are felt to be dangerous; everything that raises the individual above the herd and makes his neighbor quail is henceforth called evil; the fair, modest, obedient, self-effacing disposition, the average in desires, acquires moral names and honors." Webdrone (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi you are doing a great job making me regret reducing your block. Keep it up and I will reconsider. Chillum 20:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't put up with threats. Alakzi (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I am not asking you to. I am asking you to stop being disruptive and telling you what will happen if you do not. Do not expect me to go out on a limb for you in the future either, you are making me look like a fool for reducing your block. Chillum 20:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, yeah, being disruptive in the archive of a farce of an SPI case. Please tell me more about how I'm being disruptive. Alakzi (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I think WP:STICK it relevant. You need to let this go. You have already had it explained to you that clerks can remove off-topic comments. You inserting an off-topic comment 4 times is disruptive. Frankly if you don't understand how it is disruptive then that is unfortunate but hardly a requirement for us to prevent further disruption. I think right now you are acting in a manner that cannot possibly benefit you. I suggest you take a break if you cannot control your temper otherwise you will take a break regardless of your desire. People get checkusered everyday, you agreed to it when you edited to site, get over it. Chillum 20:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If you're looking for someone or something to assert your authority over, can I suggest a pet turtle? If many other established editors are getting CU'ed every day, that is very, very worrying. Alakzi (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The quality of the evidence in that SPI says everything there is to be said already. More commentary distracts from it ;)

Relatedly, Chillum, I'm going to guess that "get over it" is second only to WP:CALMDOWN in having the opposite of the intended effect. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: you may assert that WP:SPI/PROC are rules. I say they are not. You have the ability to remove whatever you think inappropriate from those pages, but I'm telling you that you need to be rather more sympathetic to a user who has apparently been checkusered four times without any good reason. I don't disagree that Alakzi isn't helping himself with that material, but it's obvious he wants to protest against his treatment. A wise editor might have talked to him first, rather than inflaming the situation by inviting him to re-revert and then calling him "disruptive".

@Chillum: you will benefit from reading the m:CheckUser policy. The WMF takes use of the checkuser tool very seriously. Nobody has agreed to being checkusered without good reason, nor should they expect that to happen. You don't have access to the checkuser logs and are not in a position to pontificate over whether the checks done on Alakzi were reasonable or not. Until that is established one way or another, you need to step away from this. It's far better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt. --RexxS (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice RexxS. I will give it all due consideration. Chillum 21:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with the quality of the evidence; I'm concerned with the guilty until proven innocent approach to CU. For a start. Alakzi (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:California wildfires

Template:California wildfires is a brand new template and the color scheme that I initially gave it was incorrect. There is no reason to go about updating multiple other templates because of a typo on this template. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

My objection is that it's not compliant with WP:COLOUR; that is to say, there's inadequate contrast between the text and the background. We must ensure a minimum contrast ratio of 7:1 for the sake of readers with deficient and impaired vision. Wikipedia:Colour contrast is probably easier to digest. Alakzi (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Per the very link listed on Wikipedia:Colour contrast, there is a ratio of 7.71:1 so what exactly is the problem? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Except there isn't. Alakzi (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah. The issue was that the links were coming up as visited on my end so I was getting #0b0080 for the link color (which does give 7.71:1) while you were getting #0645ad. Fair enough. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I've fully protected the template. I seriously urge you to cut back on the edit warring as next time, you might be getting a lengthy block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, not a lengthy block, what will I do? Fuck off my talk page, idiot. Alakzi (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Just wanted to let you know that regardless of our recent interaction on WP:RFPP, I think that you are a net positive to the Wikipedia project. Keep at the good work/feedback you provide, especially with templates. It definitely helps this place! Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that; and you too keep up the good work on RfD and other places. Alakzi (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Seeing as you've asked for the protection of several templates to be reduced as of late, you may also be interested in this CfD. Alakzi (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)