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.

Moved from straw poll

And so now it's ok to move just this part to a talk page? Right.

Also, whether others were interested in the proposal or not, it was extraneous to the page.

Looks more like those who are against the options of the poll (as you've noted previously, and CP has "voted") are the ones reverting. Not that that indicates bias or anything...

But "shrugs", the worst I see is that it will lengthen the page. - jc37 03:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... those who are against the options of the poll are the ones who reverted? I think that would be rather obvious. They don't like the options given, so they want to see a new option. That was my reason for creating the section to begin with. I can't say I see anything wrong with that. But as long as we're in agreement that at worst it lengthens the page, there's no reason to continue this. Toodles. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've now started an actual poll on your proposal, would you mind overmuch the preceeding discussion section being moved to the talk page per typical convention? - jc37 01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would mind. You need to stop worrying so much about where comments are. You've been refactoring other people's comments to an excessive degree, and in case no one else has complained about it, I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off of mine. This is generally frowned upon anyway. It isn't your job to determine where other people's comments belong. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's all of our "job"; Welcome to Wikipedia : )

And, as others on this page have noted, you might benefit from reading several helpful pages concerning talk edits, such as WP:TALK. But personly, I'm not going to greatly concern myself about whether you take the opportunity to learn or not. Hope you have a good day : ) - jc37 01:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to re-familiarize yourself with the part about refactoring others' comments. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X-Files peer review

Thank you for the message. I will be happy to help in any way that I can. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I neglected to include a link to the peer review itself, it's at Wikipedia:Peer review/The X-Files/archive2, if you'd like to comment. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed...

Please read this policy, particularly the last bullet-point. I am required to make clear who I am talking to. Unless my comment is directly under that comment, and indented appropriately, then it's not clear; if it's under yours, I could be replying to you. It's not worth edit-warring over, honestly; anyone will read yours too.

Look at some of the others on the page - they go (numbered point)(reply)(reply)(reply)(numbered point)(reply) like that. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The indent is what tells people who you're replying to. We were both replying to the same person. Therefore we both indent the same amount. That says nothing about which comment comes first, yours or mine -- that simply goes by chronology -- who replied first. Again the indents tell people who you're replying to, and yes it is clear to almost anyone who is moderately experienced here. Thank you. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was short with you. It's early in the morning here and I'm not a morning person, so my patience is rather thin. This normally isn't even something I would engage in a revert war over. Sorry for the way I handled this. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, Wikipedia:Talk page#Formatting has the relevant guidance on how to format talk page threads.--Father Goose (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of The X-Files/history

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. —— Ryan • t | c 11:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the CSD tag, see the talk page. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've pre-emptively copied your note at the above article to the sub-articles for each season, in an effort to explain the process you're running and to prevent further CSD tags. If there are fair use images, you might consider commenting them out as well, to prevent any drama on that front - but, other than that, your plan looks good to me. Hope this helps, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the messages. I've never tried splitting up an article this large so this seemed like the way to go. Thanks again. I'll take a look at those images too. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sofixit then

That article has to be merged; if its' something you care about then help do the work of merging it. (otherwise it kinda looks like opposing a redirect and doing nothing else is just stonewalling the merge.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article has to be merged. If it's something you care about then help do the work of merging it. Otherwise it kinda looks like opposing the existence of the content in article space. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to start pre-merge work on it by cleaning up/deleting OR, and that was immediately reverted. So then I moved the content to the talkpage of the Nudity article so ediotrs there could decide where they wanted to put stuff, since I don't edit that article. I've never redirected it, thanks. I posted on AN/I about this--according to Sceptre anyway, it is not necessary to merge everything before a redirect (and everything is preserved not only in the page history, but on the talkpage of the nudity article now). It's been awhile, and no one who edited this article is working on this/they're just stonewalling any attempts at the merge (I don't expect that any further attempts from me to merge it will be met with anything other than immediate revert, because I nominated it for AfD; so those who were opposed to the merge or are opposed to the redirect should probably do it, that way they can do what they want with it... -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked it, same thing. Until the content is merged, don't blank it. Hope that's clearer. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I dind't "blank" it--I moved it to the talkpage of the Nudity article so editors there could discuss it, and as "third way" to resolve the pointless edit war you were involved about redirecting/reverting the redirect, as you are aware. -PetraSchelm (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mm hmm. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I had merged it and somebody reverted me, which was noe xcuse for undoing the merge. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't me. I was for the merge, so had it been done, I'd have no reason to revert it. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I do not call into question your desire to improve Wikipedia, but I must comment on the terminology used in reference to me at the recent ANI discussion. As I already mentioned, the semantics of "playing administrator" implies that I was masquerading to cause detriment. I note that it wasn't you who coined the term at the discussion, but, however inadvertent, such a label completely disregards the scores of edits I have to my name; every single one of which I made (and continue to make) in the faith that it would advance Wikipedia. One doesn't have to think too hard to reason that such comments (again, however inadvertent) will seriously disaffect editors and may even prompt them to leave. I'm glad I chose not to let this happen, but what was also disappointing was having to seemingly apologise for good intentions, something that vandals and others who actually seek to subvert Wikipedia with bad intentions never have to do.

I contact you because I do not wish for you to inadvertently alienate editors and hope you realise the effect words have, and anyway, I'm glad that the concerns raised recently have allowed me to fine tune my contributions. I will not let this minor hiccough inhibit my endeavour to continue improving the project. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your semantic interpretation -- I think "playing administrator" just means that someone is taking the role of an administrator, as in the phrases playing god or playing lawyer. I think everyone knew that neither I nor the original poster meant that you were attempting to cause a disturbance. But everything worked out in the end so there's no point in arguing about it. Good luck with everything. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

logo request

Hi, nice work on the new logo! At the Dutch wikipedia (where I'm an admin), we also still have the old logo. If possible, to us it's even more important not to let those Germans outdo us ;-) so I have a request: could you make a Dutch version of the logo with the subtitle "De vrije encyclopedie" like here? If this is not as easy as I think it is, could you tell me which font it is so I can give it a try myself? Couldn't find that out myself just now (though admittedly I didn't search that long). Oliphaunt (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) That shouldn't be a problem. I just need the original large logo image for the Dutch site, if you can give me a link to that. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English version is at Image:Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png, if that helps. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! There's one of nearly the same size here, and a PDF version here. The png version doesn't seem to have transparency, I hope that isn't a problem. Thanks! (Just out of curiosity, do I understand correctly that all you do is just carefully resize the large image in such a way that the letters are nicely smoothed and no light pixels are introduced arond the 'globe'?) Oliphaunt (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from your talk page) I didn't read your message carefully enough, sorry about that. The font used in the logo is called Hoefler Text. The reason I asked you for the original large-format image is because Hoefler Text isn't available for PC, only Mac, and since I don't have a Mac, I had to cut the text from the large logo image, then reduce it.

If you have Mac OS 9 or X, I believe Hoefler Text is included with it. If not, you may need to find someone who does, or if you can find me that large logo I can perform same kind of compositing as I did for the English version. Let me know if you need any further assistance with this :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I did for the English version was, rather than worrying about reducing the globe the right way I simply cut the globe and the word "Wikipedia" from the German version. The sub-text, "The Free Encyclopedia", is all I took from the large English logo image. I reduced that and inserted it under the German globe and title. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the lack of transparency in the large logo, that is a problem, unfortunately. Creating the transparency after the fact will yield sub-standard results. If there is no high-res image with a transparent background available, it might be best to find someone with Mac OS and some image editing skills to type out the text from scratch, onto a transparent background. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, our messages crossed. (And then we had an e/c on my page :p) [ack, and now another one here] No, I don't have a Mac either; ~~if you're sure it isn't too much work, I'd be much obliged if you want to do it~~ actually, I might want to give it a go myself [even without the transparent background]; if I don't get it as nice as you did (which may well happen), I'll come back to you if that's OK ;-) [or find someone with Mac OS] Thanks once more! Oliphaunt (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you still got that through all the strikethroughs and parenthetical additions. And I hope I'm giving you an edit conflict now, you clown! ;-) Oliphaunt (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for all the edit conflicts -- yep I understood you alright. If you want to try with the opaque background, go for it, I wish you luck. You're welcome to come back any time, let me know how it worked out :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TreasuryTag

I did bring it up in the discussion and he asked for clarification. So I clarified on his talk page (otherwise I would be derailing the discussion on ANI, wouldn't I - and you really can't have it both ways). Your defence of him (well, attack on me, but I see what you meant to do) follows the same pattern as his - picking apart the way something was said, but failing to address the substance. Ho hum. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 11:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to defend TreasuryTag or to attack you. I barely know either of you. I looked at the diffs and your comments and offered my take on the situation. You're in a disagreement with TreasuryTag, pure and simple, and there were no inappropriate comments until your use of RfC as a threat, which was uncalled for. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a threat, it's a genuine mention of Step Two of the procedure for behaviour modification on Wikipedia (Step One: ask the person to change; Step Two: ask the community to ask the person to change; Step Three: ...well, we all know what does and doesn't happen then :o) ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step Two, perhaps, but there's a right and wrong way of saying things. "If you don't, you're going to be looking down the wrong end of an RfC." is a threat, sir, and I would understand if you said you were responding in the heat of the moment, but this was nevertheless inappropriate. RfC is way of discussing an issue in the open. It isn't a punishment for use in "don't do this, or else..." statements. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I have a problem with ignorance?

Undid revision 212926972 by Jim62sch (talk) don't throw petrol on the fire. if you have a problem with this please take it to ANI No petrol. We'll deal with this elsewhere. In the meantime, someone might want to talk to Lara about self-emolation. Or not. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia logo improvement

Hey Equazcion — thanks for your work improving the site logo, I'm pretty sure the new one's going to look much better (if/when that bugzilla ticket gets dealt with). I'm wondering whether the site icon could be dealt with in the same way, making the white background transparent. So that instead of looking like it does now it might look a little nicer. Minor, but I think you'd agree it's an improvement. Thanks, comments appreciated —Alex.Muller 12:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving it a shot. Erasing the present white background to transparent doesn't produce good results. I tried reducing the size of the W in the logo image, but the result is significantly different from the present favicon, so it seems a slightly different font was used to make it. I'm trying to find out which one was used. Maybe I'll try making it from scratch with a different font. I'll keep you posted. If you know where I can find some info on how the icon was made originally, perhaps including some original source file, that would help, but I know that'll be difficult to find. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it looks perfect, and done very fast — much better than what we have at the moment. WP:NOBRAINER needs to redirect somewhere :). How about a proposal at VP/AN seeing as it's a site wide change (just because somebody will complain if it's not advertised there first) and then open another bug request? Presumably any developer can deal with this, I've no idea –Alex.Muller 15:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at WP:Village pump (proposals)#Favicon improvement. Thanks for the compliment :) Equazcion •✗/C • 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, it was definitely deserved. That seems to have gone fairly smoothly, I guess. A couple of quick questions: do you work in graphic/web design, or were the logo and favicon just random things to do around here? And secondly, I see from your talk page archives it's been mentioned, but, adminship? You could definitely have benefited from being able to edit Image:Wiki.png a couple of days ago. In any case, if you ever change your mind, please come and find me. I'd offer to nominate now, but having been here barely 5 months I don't think that would go so well. A co-nom, totally –Alex.Muller 22:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used to do a bit of web design, so I know my way around graphics somewhat. This would be the fourth nomination I will have turned down, but regretfully no, I'm not interested in being an admin. I hate the current RFA process and I hate the whole administrator "thing" on Wikipedia. Not that I hate administrators as individuals, but the system is one that I've spoken out against on numerous occasions, and I want no part of it. If you want to see one of my nice little rants about it you can take a look at user talk:Crimsone#Comment. Besides which, I spend too much time on Wikipedia as it is, god knows how much more that would be true if I became an admin. It's always flattering when someone suggests it though, so thanks, I do appreciate the thought :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you turning it down out of principle, that's a strong move to make, and fair enough. But on the day somebody screws up and makes me a bureaucrat accidentally, I'm hitting delete on the whole RfA page and giving you +sysop — sound fair? In all seriousness, if you need anything doing in this place (or find the designation/status changing so much that you can come to terms with having it) you know where I live –Alex.Muller 23:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a deal :) Thanks once again. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Nah, just reality, the suck as it were, rearing it's ugly head. I guess you missed the sarcasm of the original award, no? Hey, chico, esta bene. No problemo. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very lucky to be watching this from a relatively uninvolved standpoint, as it seems to have brought out the worst in practically everyone. If you'd like to make your version of reality known, kindly take it elsewhere. I just reverted the editing of someone's comment by another user. That sort of thing is discouraged here. Otherwise, I don't wish to make myself a part of this little war. Adios. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]