Jump to content

User talk:DoubleBlue

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CSDWarnBot (talk | contribs) at 00:20, 5 March 2009 (Regarding Tom Brown (Canaidan football)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I generally check in every day or two.

Please leave a message, or, for more urgent issues, e-mail me.


Archive 1: 25 March – 10 August 2005
Archive 2: 10 August 2005 – 31 December 2006
Archive 3: 2007
Archive 4: January – June 2008
Archive 5: July – December 2008


Happy New Year!

A cat to ease all of your troubles
A cat to ease all of your troubles
 Happy New Year!
Hey there, DoubleBlue! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;)

Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh.

Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CFL or NFL Infoboxes

Do you or other member of the CFL project care whether the CFL infoboxes or the NFL infoboxes are used, because the CFL teams work in the NFL infobox.--Giants58 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question. I do indeed care. I notice that there have been improvements made to the NFLactive template to better account for CFL players but I still believe that it is inadequate and not as well designed. Of course, those things could be worked out and improved but above all my major concern about the NFL templates is the number/use of them. It is preposterous, in my opinion, to have an infobox for a player that is "active", then upon retirement, one must remove that infobox and start a completely new "retired" infobox (and of course, revert should the player return). If the player becomes a coach or other responsibility in the organisation, again a different infobox is required. Template:Infobox Gridiron football person is best because of its great flexibility for use amongst different gridiron leagues, active and inactive players, and coaches and other football responsibilities. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, glad I asked before I changed a lot of templates :), as the only reason I asked was because when Cliff Washburn was signed by the Houston Texans, it was a huge thing to change it to the NFLactive template, which although I like I agree it doesn't appropiately support all football leagues and can be stupid when changing it to retired.--Iamawesome800 02:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the "huge thing to change". What do you like about NFLactive? DoubleBlue (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like the team section as it's much easier to type as compared to having to type in all the breaks for each year and team.--Iamawesome800 03:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to add that I like how the infobox comes right out and says who the team is and doesn't make you read through part of the article to find out what team they play for.--Iamawesome800 03:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I can see how the playing years entering is easier. Though the result looks a little less neat, it actually might be a good change to make for accessibility reasons as well. Thanks. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah sure give him one but not me, I know how it is.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 20:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Why are you removing the city-state and lifetime templates from articles? Both are more efficient ways of providing info that the way you're doing it. I really can't figure out why you'd remove them and your edit summaries didn't make much sense to me.►Chris NelsonHolla! 14:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this thread on my talk page.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 14:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The City-state template should only be used if the city article is located at CITY, STATE. If the city has it's own article with no state in the title, then link both separately. However, with U.S. states on Wikipedia, most of the city articles are located at CITY, STATE. Meaning the City-state template correctly links both the city and the state to their respective articles. If we want Atlanta to link to Atlanta, Georgia but Georgia to link to Georgia, we can either write:
  • [[Atlanta, Georgia|Atlanta]], [[Georgia]]
-or-
  • {{city-state|Atlanta|Georgia}}
Both accomplish the exact same thing, but the latter is much easier to type and read when editing. You'll notice I ONLY do it if the template doesn't cause re-directs. For example, I did not do it at Kerry Carter.
Now, the Lifetime template. Once again, this template is simply more efficient because it adds the two categories of Living people and birth year (or birth year and death year) without taking up two lines in the editing box.
As far as I can see, when used in the right situations, both templates are only more efficient and haven no drawbacks.►Chris NelsonHolla! 14:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, there is no difference between the direct link and the template so I don't see why you care if it's simplified to the direct link. I can conceive that you may find it easier to enter the info via a template but that's not the intended use of templates. Templates are for style boxes that permit common updates and boilerplate messages that may either be updated or are used via subst. I don't believe the wiki syntax should be hidden behind templates when it is not needed. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note as well that I only substituted the templates in combination with other improvements to the article and left instances where there were no other changes to be made to the article. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see the downside, only benefits.►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It obfuscates the wiki syntax which is harmful especially to new editors as it confuses how to mark-up pages. It also requires the templates to be rendered as well as the article each time the page is called, which is a waste of resources and is a tempting target for vandals to take advantage of a single edit that can affect many articles. The only benefit is a questionable ease of entering for the editor who adds it. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't understand any of that.►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wiki insertion

Hi doubleblue,

I would like to have our business entered into Wiki - if i can. I see you've been active with the page I've put up, (search metriq), and appreciate your comments and feedback - hence this email. Being new to Wiki, may i ask if there is scope to add an entry for this business (perhaps under notable organizations) if links from the page point to journals, newspapers etc? I've read what's allowed and what's not, but i find that this doesn't always seem consistent to me. For example 'datacom' doesn't show a wiki page of datacom.nz, and yet there's a hyperlink from Wiki. Your advise on this topic would be most welcome.

Nice name by the way, does it have meaning other than perhaps 2 blue eyes?

Thanks for your time, nile (nile@metriq.biz)

Anguspickton (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect!

And thanks for the biz alternative.

Best, 

Angst.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anguspickton (talk • contribs) 09:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Dear DoubleBlue: User GroundZero is now harassing me on my talk page. He or she called me a vandal and wants me to "justify" myself. I tried to calm his/her moods but I think this is getting personal for he or she. I think he/she is gonna be searching for some excuse to block me. Should I take some action on this matter? Thanks. --Againme (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)--Againme (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: he's also saying that I did thing that I never did, for example this. Please let me know how to protect myself from more experienced users who may want to damage me. Thanks. --Againme (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest

Hey, do you have any interest in helping me create the rest of the CFL player articles cause currently there are 87 articles to create and if you break it down by team:

The rest are done, so any interest in helping me create these?--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 21:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way I changed my username.--Giants27 T 02:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since you expressed interest I'll give you an update (as I have nothing better to do):

The other two are done for now ;-).--Giants27 TC 03:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work; it never ends. I have done a couple but I have little interest in creating an article for new players who may never play a game and I take too much of an interest in active players to just leave it as a stub to come back to later and instead find myself with endless browser tabs of research and CFL Facts and Figures books open to try and sort through. Of course, I will do what I can when I can. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

The matter appears to be solved now. Yes, I'm refraining. Regards! Thank you! --Againme (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani Pacheco (2nd nomination)

Hi DoubleBlue. Well, this whole endeavour was more frustrating than I ever would have anticipated. I wanted to let you know that I admired the calmness in your contributions, your attempts to keep the discussion firmly rooted in policy. I thank you! As for me, I'm going to stick to music articles for a while. :) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Just wanted to say thanks for the recognition! Danlaycock (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of school districts in Ontario

Hi Double Blue,

I don't think we're dealing with a language variation here. All the provinces across Canada have school districts (the geographical portions of their respective province delineated by borders with other districts) which are governed by school boards (groups of people who are in charge of education within their district). Because each district is matched with exactly one board, it would be redundant to have a list of school districts in a particular province as well as a list of school boards. In most cases, the name of the board is formed by simply appending the term "school board" to the name of the district anyway. Whether we have lists of school boards or lists of school districts is not important, but it is important to be consistent. All the lists for provinces in Canada now use the title format "List of school districts in x", just as the titles for lists corresponding to American states are formatted. I hope this answers your question. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you desire more clarification or discussion.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Double Blue,
You are correct in asserting that the individuals who serve on the board are trustees, and I agree that the board is the organization which holds authority. You state that the board holds "authority over schools in an area". The area to which you are referring is called the school district, as is made apparent by the names of the boards, which refer explicitly to the school district over which they hold authority. Taking the first item on the list, "Airy and Sabine District" is a geographical area, a school district, which is governed by the "Airy and Sabine District School Board", an organization comprised by group of trustees. This is not a regional variation in dialect; these are the terms employed across all the provinces.
Neelix (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Double Blue,
This article by Lynn Olson states that Ontario has 72 school districts. The following reliable sources also employ the term "school districts" when referring to geographically-delineated areas in Ontario: Leadership for Parent and Community Involvement: Lessons from Recent Research in Ontario, Ontario Music Educators' Association, Ontario Ministry of Education: Literacy and Numeracy Strategy. If you would like further citations, I am quite willing to provide them.
Neelix (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Double Blue,
I'm glad we've come to somewhat of an agreement. As to the question of multiple school boards in the same district, I believe that this only occurs where there is a division based on separate and public schools or English and French schools. A proper list of school districts would note their respective board distinctions, therefore having separate lists for boards and districts would be redundant. Of course, if you feel that the issue requires broader discussion, RFC is always an option.
Happy editing,
Neelix (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Double Blue,
I believe I understand what you are saying, however your explanation is not consistent with the assertion that there are no district boundaries. According to what you have stated, the public school boards have divided the province into different districts than have other special school authorities; surely a comprehensive list of the school districts in Ontario would explain these varying ways in dividing up the province into districts, and the districts from each schema would be listed separately, as they already are.
Neelix (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Double Blue,
I have not invented anything, and the citations and explanations I have already provided demonstrate that. If these do not convince you, feel free to commence a RFC as previously discussed.
Neelix (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Wow, you're really loading up my watchlist with your changes. ;-)--Giants27 TC 23:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've seen your activities on my watchlists seemingly every day. Turn about is fair play, so they say. :-) I'm playing with this tool that I've been reluctant to use in the past. It may occasionally be a productive and useful program. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AWB can be a pain in the keester sometimes...but when it's useful, I find it absolutely indispensable. It's honestly the one and only thing keeping me from going all-Linux. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dales and Boreham

Two questions:

  1. Where did you see Burke Dales signed with Winnipeg, I already looked on TSN and CFL.ca, but I believe you since I saw in a story last night that he was close to a deal with them.
  2. On Jamie Boreham's article it says his high school was Vancouver College, how is that possible?

--Giants27 TC 17:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just found the Dales deal, so nevermind on that question.--Giants27 TC 17:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, and just to let you know, I have your talkpage on my watchlist so you can just comment here if I leave you a message.--Giants27 TC 17:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and make sure to do this, when updating roster templates.--Giants27 TC 23:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That is a real annoyance. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian Football League free agents

The NFL has one of these in Category:National Football League free agents and the category is automatically added to any players page with free agent in the currentteam section. What are your thoughts on this?--Giants27 TC 03:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could have one. There are enough for a category and it's a useful collection. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool, now I have no idea how to add the trigger to Template:Infobox Gridiron football person, so yeah. I'll go create the category.--Giants27 TC 03:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the middle of an expansion to Noel Prefontaine so I'll work on the template trigger after I've completed it. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you did most of the tougher stuff I'll go change and NFLactive infobox's to Gridiron football person.--Giants27 TC 14:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah. I meant to reply when I was done to let you know but I got tired and forgot. :-) DoubleBlue (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What teams did you do last night? I already did the Argonauts, TigerCats and Roughriders.--Giants27 TC 22:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I did all the free agents listed at http://www.cfl.ca/page/2009-free-agent-tracker but only those that already had Infobox Gridiron football person. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken(ny) Johnson

Hi, I'm just wondering why you moved Kenny Johnson (American football) to Kenny Johnson (football player) when there are clearly two different football players who go by extremely similar names. Besides, your move violates consensus with American football players, as established in the NFL WikiProject and verified in WP:QUALIFIER. Tavix (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Williams

I agree that the article should be named Bernard Williams (football player) instead of Bernard Williams (Canadian football) due to the fact that he has also played in America's NFL, AFL and XFL leagues and not only the CFL, which he is no longer apart of, but what is to be done now? Beast from da East (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It ought to be a simple revert to the original title of (football player) but it now requires admin assistance. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon User is Trolling me

Could you help me to get this user [Special:Contributions/69.159.26.195] blocked or registered ? I know that all of the IPs originate from 69.159, though the last five digits may change. It is similar to the problem that I had with User:AverageGuy; they are always WP:Hounding me and make wholesale revert because of a minor fact tag, while doing nothing else constructive. GoldDragon (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect Tom Brown (Canaidan football)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Tom Brown (Canaidan football), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Tom Brown (Canaidan football) is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Tom Brown (Canaidan football), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoubleBlue&oldid=275051900"