Jump to content

User talk:TFOWR

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.3.174.44 (talk) at 11:25, 23 June 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible In a perfect world I'd keep threads in one place; in practice if you post here I'll probably reply on your talk page unless you ask me to reply here. If I post on your talk page I'll almost certainly add it to my watchlist, so reply where-ever you'd prefer.

If you're wondering why I'm advertising my complete inability to speak Polish, it's because I've edited an article on pl.wikipedia and there's a small possibility someone from there might want to discuss it with me, and that they follow the redirect at pl:User talk:This flag once was red to this talk page...

Likewise for Portuguese - I posted a machine-translated message in Portuguese.

There is, of course, a whole range of languages that I can speak with near-zero proficiency - I wouldn't want you to think that I'm especially unskilled in Polish and Portuguese. To be honest, I'm not even particularly good at speaking English: I lurch between English and Scots with all the alacrity of a Glaswegian in toon fe the nicht.

On the wannabe admin guy

I've been a bit nicer, given a neutral- for trying!Willski72 (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Best RfA ever! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Its nice to see that hardly anyone takes it seriously!Willski72 (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:This flag once was red/27RFAreason

User:This flag once was red/27RFAreason, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:This flag once was red/27RFAreason and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:This flag once was red/27RFAreason during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Alas, my first deleted article! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

RE: Maps of Asia/South America

Hey there. The short answer: yes -- it would be great to have SVG global maps for all the continents that are similar to those used at Europe. (Similar maps, which could serve as templates, can be found for Asia and South America at Japan and Brazil, respectively.) I have some graphics proficiency, but no time! As for the map at Antarctica, I totally agree: I was embroiled in a fight to retain the prior map, but withdrew after it became clear that other commentators wanted their way and preferred the horrid blue map. I hope this helps. Thanks! Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks! We may also want to have ones made, a la Americas, for Eurasia. As well, thank you for 're-starting' the discussion regarding the 'polar' maps: I cannot see why a similar justification is being used to preclude the inclusion of an Antarctic map more like Europe's. Obstructionist? Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Replied. Oops! There were a few others I'd missed, too. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hey there. First of all, thanks for weighing in. I hope that's over with it ... .:)
I'm glad to hear that Antarctica may be on board; rendering the continent in blue seems odd, but I'm not resistant to that. As for the Arctic, I think lands above the Arctic Circle should be rendered in green (or dark blue?), while areas north of the 10°C isotherm and the Arctic Ocean (with specific limits, per the IHO) can be rendered in varying lighter shades of blue.
As for the 'super' landmasses, we can experiment: perhaps a variant of the map on the UN flag can be used (an azimuthal projection focused on the North Pole, though southerly forms are heavily distorted)? I could try to create some of the maps, but time is not in abundance. Thoughts? Thanks! Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Sounds good. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Sounds good. As for rendering the various territories/landmasses, one projection may not fit all but should in most. Small countries (e.g., Vatican City) may also be a challenge, which could be pinpointed atop and off to the side of the main globe with a circle (e.g., see Netherlands) and/or highlighted with an inset. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Replied. Not really considering countries at this stage. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
OK: baby steps for now. :) Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, in light of tortuous discussions here, I intend on placing this image (based on the map for Brazil) as the new locator map there tomorrow. I'm still trying to produce SVGs of same that are economical in size. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Replied. Happy with that, but keep the other editors onside! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 23:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The SVG awaits. Aside from the scope of green, the only substantial difference with the Brazil map is that the graticle is 'under' the land. Thoughts? Nonetheless, I will proceed as above. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Replied. Nice work! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I've since created one for Asia (using China's map as a base) and also one (anew) for Antarctica. Thoughts? 14:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks. Actually, the near polar aspect was intentional (i.e., not centred on the South Pole, but at 80 S), intended to convey the continent's southerly nature (with north being ('up'); I planned to do the reverse for the Arctic. I could move it even closer to the pole (85 S). Otherwise, to me, the map seems little different from its predecessor, with little/no sense of ... direction. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TY. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I was tempted to remove his latest reversion myself, but although I view him as a vandal others may disagree and object to my fourth revert. O Fenian (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(No problem. Bizarre behaviour, I'll try and keep an eye out for it in future. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I think one of these may be more useful than a trout in Mr Taz's case.. O Fenian (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "consensus"

Well as I told to Bosonic dressing, maybe you should read consensus. The WikiProject Geography or WikiProject Countries can't change all maps without consent with WikiProject Africa, South America, North America for example, and these ones with the Countries' talk pages. Can you tell me what kind of behaviour are you accusing me here, there are not a consensus version on a number of articles, your posted is not a general consensus, those all general changes must be approved before by all WikiProjects. --TownDown How's it going? 22:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied - my concern is about two parties edit warring, not about consensus. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 22:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Well, maybe you and Bosonic dressing think that can change all maps without approval, don't forget that there's not a general consensus, your multiple messages in many articles are not a general consensus or just one consensus to changes all maps in all continents in all countries and almost all English Wikipedia just because your messages without approval by multiples users registered in their WikiProjects.--TownDown How's it going? 23:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Replied. I don't think I should change anything without consensus, and indeed I haven't. You're confusing two issues - your edit warring, and my attempts to gather consensus for a future change. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 23:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Users like Bosonic dressing think so, if you're currently trying to gather consensus for an entirely different map, then you shouldn't say "pre-existing consensus", prove that multiple pre-existing consensus, because remember that Bosonic dressing changed South American maps, African maps, European maps and it needs a multiple consensus approved not "trying to gather consensus" as you said. --TownDown How's it going? 23:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Replied. You still seem to be confusing two separate issues. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 23:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Please, tell me where's it that Pre-existing consensus to change all maps in all continents in all countries. --TownDown How's it going? 23:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. It isn't, but that shouldn't (and didn't) stop you from changing the maps. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 23:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Can you tell me where's it that global consensus to change all the maps?, where's it?, where's it?.--TownDown How's it going? 00:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Replied. Strawman. I didn't change "all the maps", and I don't believe that there was a "global consensus" to do so. You changed many maps, so you'd be better placed to answer the question, anyway. And really, there's no need to have the same conversation in two separate places - pick one and stick to it. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where's it? the consensus that you're saying?, if it allows to change the maps (because the blocked user changed European or African maps), that means "global", because every Country, every Continent have their own Consensus, and if you said The pre-existing consensus was for the existing maps, that means "general", "global". --TownDown How's it going? 00:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Replied. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Macedonia

Please note that the manual of style you quoted (which I originally authored!) has been abandoned and has no authoritative status now. There are discussions ongoing about what to do to replace it, but in the meantime the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" name is deprecated. Generally we use only "Macedonia" where it is unambiguous that it refers to the country, as it does in the EU context. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. New system much better - thanks! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 09:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

In case you haven't seen it yet, we've now started a renewed centralised discussion, at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia (for this item, the sub-page: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/international organisations). Your input will be highly welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Thanks - I'll drop by! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Music of Scotland and Andrew Macpherson?

Over the past day both you and I have tidied up the poorly linked manner in which the name of Andrew Macpherson was added to the article. I'm now thinking it should be a deletion rather than an improvement? The name was added by a single-use non-reg user and Googling isn't really turning up a notable singer of that name. I thought I'd check in case you'd heard of such a singer. AllyD (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. No objection! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 23:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Oops! I must have glazed over at the Macphersons beind added by non-reg users. Thanks for pointing that out. Now reinstated the Gordon. AllyD (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Replied. No problem! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme

We could use another opinion, if you have some time. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

x factor placements

Of ocurse we should change the 'safe' to being their placement in the votes! we can add something to the key saying that a green background means the contestant is safe 92.3.174.44 (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
can I get Consensus from YOU? My idea is helpful and is absolutely relevent. Of ocurse we should note the position in the voting without having the look at those jumbled percentages ourselves! It's stupid how I haven't gained consensus since of course they are safe if they're not in the btm 2!... Look at the american idol charts.. They don't put safe they have a key which says a white box means safe and so if they know a vote placement (season 6 top 9 week) they can put it in. 92.3.174.44 (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TFOWR&oldid=298107347"