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 Jenmoa (talk | contribs) at 17:39, 10 August 2005 (→‎[[Canada]], the other white meat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Political party colours using the meta system

Hey there, noticed you started setting up the means to have the UK election metabox-thingy system for the BC election. This actually might be more trouble than it's worth— we've put together our own collection of templates-building-templates for Canadian elections which renders obsolete a parallel usage of the British template collection. There're both nice enough toys... I've played a big hand in buidling both, actually—but one is enough. -The Tom 19:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. I'm not super-pleased with every iota of the Canadian template system myself, but overall it's a little less overpoweringly automated than the one dreamed up for British constituencies. In fact, the Brit template set strikes me as a bit too inflexible to mass-import for Canadian results and so I haven't raised the issue with the usual gang of Canadian political wikipedians. Despite the nominally similar electoral systems there are a couple of features that are unique to British election reporting relative to our own—"Swing" is rarely calculated in Canada (its increasingly obsolete in Britain, too, as they move to a three-party system, but whatever...) and the whole concept of gains and holds is less pronounced as well. I suppose we don't get so tied up in the whole "marginal seat" concept and that's why that's not really on the radar here. There's also a lot more population movement and thus electoral boundary movement in Canada, which means after every redistribution a fair chunk of electoral districts are killed outright in terms of being considered a continuing political entity and, for Wikipedia purposes, sharing a Wikipedia article. Cosmetically, the Canadian template set uses larger amounts of colour and keeps the major party colours light enough that occasionally black text can be superimposed on them. As far as individual electoral district articles go, User:Earl Andrew is the man to talk to, as he and perhaps a few others have no gotten articles together for all the current 308 federal ridings and some of the older ones. They're uneven in terms of how much elections results information is on each, although Labrador (electoral district) has an interesting idea for gridding several elections' worth of results. I've personally been hoping to do detailed results articles on a subregion-by-subregion basis (as outlined on Canadian federal election, 2004 map gallery), where there might be room for more discussion of local political trends than on a page for just one riding. Provincial ridings are fairly complete in a few places, off the top of my head I think the New Brunswick collection is filled-out. -The Tom 23:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Me once more. Love the work you've done on the BC electoral districts, and nice job on the table. Minor nit... could you use {{Canada-poli-stub}} instead of {{Canada-gov-stub}} for the remaining ones? They're sorta arbitrarily used at the moment, and I've been fighting an uphill battle to get stuff related to politics, parties and elections under "poli" and stuff related to government operations and agencies under "gov". Thanks again. -The Tom 16:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I had copied the category from Shuswap and didn't know there was a more applicable one. I shall use it on them now.
And, thanks for the compliment :) DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Game

You may delete it if you want; it certainly is not important. As to a referemce -- I just remember playing it while in the car, perhaps in 1940 +- 2 or 3 years.

Welcome

A belated Welcome to Wikipedia! I see you've been here two months without anyone actually welcoming you, and have found your way remarkably well.

I'm writing here partly just to welcome you, but also specifically because of your comment in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Shakespeare Discussion Groups.

I said: Delete. A mere list of links. Merge as we use the term here means including cut-and-paste text moves, which then gives GFDL problems unless a redirect is kept to preserve the edit history, and this redir would be useless. If you find the links useful, add them to an appropriate article; They are information and don't give GFDL problems.

You replied: I have no idea what you just said. ???

I think that's something worth working on. What I said is pretty basic to the decision under discussion there, and to many other decisions on VfD as well. Key Wikipedia concepts I've used are merge, link, cut-and-paste, text, GFDL, redirect, edit history, article, and information. Do any of these seem particularly unrelated, irrelevant or obscure to you?

Or perhaps I've just put it badly. Or, perhaps I have it wrong. We are all learners here.

Belatedly, here are some links that you might find useful, to which I normally refer newcomers I welcome (and you are hardly a newcomer, but you might still find some of them useful}:

And, please feel free to drop me a question on my talk page if there's anything you think I can help with. Andrewa 12:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BC Election

I have a question for you. What is your source for the Demographics data? I have been using Election Prediction Project (http://www.electionprediction.org/2005_bc/) but the numbers, on at least one article, are slightly different. I think we should use the same source but I don't know which is more accurate. Where did you get your data and from what year is it? Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed this, too. I stopped putting in that data because I thought yours might be more accurate. I was getting it all from Elections BC website. It says it is accurate as of May 2001. An alternative source is BC Stats but I don't know how their CA/CMAs relate to the electoral districts. 20:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Please review the layout of Bulkley Valley-Stikine. This is the prototype of how all other districts will be organised. Specifically, please comment on the following issues:

  • headings (demographics, geography, history, election results all make sense)
  • Total votes (Total valid votes or Total votes cast? there is a 33 vote difference which would affect the 100.00% in the next column)
  • Voter turnout (currently it is "Registered Voters Who Voted" because it is the easiest stat to get; alt is "% Eligible Voters Who Voted"
  • Demographics (anyway to alter table to show more detailed stats, like pop in 1991, 1996, 2001, 2005; avg. income (census or election year?), unemployment (year?), or whatever may be relevant.
  • Election table format (I like them. They are easily digestible and not really overwhelming at all).
  • the images (just something I'm fiddling with, do they make sense?)

maclean25 22:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

    • Hello, I think it's great you guys are set out to work on electoral distiricts for BC. I think the best prototype I have developed is at Ottawa South- but even it is a work in progress, and does not include everything you mention. It needs among other things, voter turn out, a summary of each election, and pictures! -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I created a new election box template and I'm starting to use that one. It includes campaign expenses. For first-past-the-post elections this is one of the most crucial pieces of info for understanding the race & results. Now I am almost happy with the election box information. Prototype at Bulkley Valley-Stikine. $ info for 1991 and 1996 only, difficulty finding 2001 data. maclean25 05:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

template in template space please

Somebody tagged British Columbia Liberal Party/meta/color for speedy. Looks like template metadata to me, move the whole lot to the template namespace or people will keep proposing deletion. Fawcett5 03:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chyawanprash

Hi. I've cleaned up the article. Would you please reconsider your vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chyawanprash? Thanks. utcursch | talk 11:35, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Albums list

Please do not add EPs to an album list. EPs are not albums - they are counted on official charts as singles. Megan1967 02:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting

Before the voting on European English ended a replacement was written, which is being subjected to a new round of voting. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/European English. 66.167.137.130 09:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini line

I've removed the VfD template from this article. I'm not 100% sure what happened there, but I spotted the article while trying to tidy up Wikipedia:Transwiki log (a thankless task if ever there was one), so I probably wasn't paying enough attention. Thanks for pointing it out. Physchim62 01:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Minnesota High School Hockey, Boys'

Thanks for the vote and note. What specific suggestions for clean-up and organization might you offer me? --Schulte 21:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion to streamline the information and make it more presentable for inclusion and acceptance. I'm not discouraged. I'm impressed with the process -- as I have never been a part of it before. It sure is interesting. I did take one thing that I read to heart -- I'm not taking it personally.

The deal with the classes and sections is murky. Teams get tossed around different sections and classes every two years or so...that jumbles the potential to organize it in the exact manner you suggest. I'll elaborate on the classes and sections a bit further in the History area when I tell a bit more about the organizational structure as it has evolved since 1945.

Teams and Championships

School Team Colors Championships
Academy of Holy Angels Stars Royal, Vegas Gold 2005 (AA)
Albert Lea Tigers Cherry and Blue 2006 (A)

--Schulte 02:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your mom

Sorry, entirely my fault. That's what I get for rushing because of performance problems. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Richard Parry

Thanks very much for the additional info about Richard Parry (musician)... I figured the entry was lacking and could use a tiny bit more info, so I added what I knew off the top of my head, but realized I didn't know that much about Richard since he left school. The bulk of what I know I think might be best not entered into this system, so I'm glad someone else knows something useful to add!MrAndrews 02:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation

You recently made a minor change to this article (Charity and Aboriginal Casinos -> Charity Casinos); according to the company's website, the original listing is correct - see OLGC Corporate website - About OLGC. I don't object to the change, but could you cite your source? For now, I'll revert the change and cite the link provided (which I should have done originally). Mindmatrix 13:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Template:Cleanup-date

Thank you for taking the time to so carefully update my tools page. Cheers, DoubleBlue 15:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. After changing the template's name (to conform to all of the other cleanup tags), it would have been rather irresponsible for me not to have cleaned up the resultant redirects. :-) —Lifeisunfair 15:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hereby award you The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar for your efforts above and beyond the call. DoubleBlue 15:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much! You've helped to brighten my weekend. :-) —Lifeisunfair 15:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dominion ... we're fresh obsessed

Hello! Thank you for your kind words regarding the Dominion debate, et al.; they are appreciated and NO offence at all was received. As I said, the amount of intransigence--by monarchists and 'republicans' (apt??) alike, including some current contributors who have been rigidised into false-decision-making--can be frustrating. However, we all have our jobs to do, right? Keep it coming! :) E Pluribus Anthony 3 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)

Mindlessly reverting

I discuss things quite vigorously anytime I see the need to revert. When someone makes a change, and someone reverts, that's where things should stop for discussion. On the Merge templates, I only ever reverted to the longest-standing version, since there were objections raised. This is the safest approach because, if something has been one way for a long time, you can infer it is a good version for the time being. Go talk to the others. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)


Please remember to use ===[[{{{pg}}}]]=== {{{text}}} when nominating as it outlines in the instructions. Without the subst parameter, it is can be difficult to access the voting page since the edit link goes to the ===[[:{{{pg}}}]]===

AfDs for this article:

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{pg}}}}}

<noinclude>

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

</noinclude>

[[:{{{pg}}}]] ([[Special:EditPage/{{{pg}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{pg}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{pg}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{pg}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{pg}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/{{{pg}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{pg}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) – (<includeonly>View AfD</includeonly><noinclude>View log</noinclude> | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

{{{text}}} template. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, forgot to put that in my auto-vfd script when I modified it. -- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

Reordering votes on Template talk:Merge

You wrote in edit summary: "I don't see how the reordering was a problem." I agree with Netoholic here. Reformatting the votes was unnecessary and whoever closes the vote can count the votes just as easily as the time it took to reformat it.

The vote was initially cast without "Xs here and Ys there" and should not be changed now. There was a little interaction from vote to vote agreeing or disagreeing with previous votes that loses it sense when reformatted. I think that loss is unhelpful both to the vote-closer and to others who want to follow the course of the vote.

Furthermore, monkeying with vote/discussion pages should be discouraged anyway. DoubleBlue (Talk) 9 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. As you may already realize, I didn't perform the reformatting (and certainly didn't think that it was necessary). —Lifeisunfair 9 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)

Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, Ontario

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I messed up by moving it to the wrong location - sorry about that. Mindmatrix 12:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge" templates' CSS code

Just to let you know, the CSS class in question (which I had Radiant add to MediaWiki:Monobook.css) precisely duplicates the voted upon styling, but allows users who dislike the colored box to override the default appearance.

If it isn’t displaying properly for you, this means that your browser still has the old version of MediaWiki:Monobook.css cached. In Mozilla, Firefox, Netscape, Safari or Konqueror, hold down "Shift" while reloading the template. In Internet Explorer, press Ctrl-F5. In Opera, press F5. —Lifeisunfair 17:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks. I see what you mean but your personal styles would need to be added to MediaWiki:Common.css. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That's the point. per the vote, people wanted the stupid purple box. My job now is to make sure that is setup as the default AND that anyone that doesn't want it isn't forced into having the purple box. If you define the style in the template: page, that is nearly impossible. -- Netoholic @ 18:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Lifeisunfair screwed this up. "merge" is supposed to be a CSS "id" (designated with #merge), not a CSS "class" (which he gave as .Merge). Looks he just mistakenly copied the "Talk-Notice" class, but that is not technically right in this case. Please fix it by copying the CSS code from User:Netoholic/monobook.css and fixing MediaWiki:onobook.css. -- Netoholic @ 15:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not screw anything up. Your proposed code results in a significantly different appearance (with considerably larger boxes). The original code was directly based upon the aforementioned "Talk-Notice" class, so I asked Radiant to add an equivalent "Merge" class to MediaWiki:Monobook.css, which he did. I did this, by the way, purely for the benefit of users who wish to manually override the template's default appearance.
And I don't know where you got the idea that the image wasn't included in the vote. —Lifeisunfair 16:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did screw it up by having a basic misunderstanding about CSS usage. "Class" refers to an generic range of similarly formatted text. They are "general rules". In my latest version of Template:Merge, class="notice noprint" means simple that this is a text notice and that it shoudn't be printed - they each have their own "rules" defined that apply very broadly. "ID" on the other hand refers to a specific usage. So id="merge" refers to the merge-based templates. This is used for a more narrow scope of changes. In CSS, class characteristics are applied before ID, so you go from general settings to specific ones. -- Netoholic @ 16:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there are differences, but your id-based code failed to duplicate the template's appearance. If you can modify it to correct this problem, that will be fine. Otherwise, mine is the only CSS implementation that will function properly. The other option is to simply hard-code the template (as was voted upon), but I honestly want to accommodate those who dislike the colored box to the greatest extent possible (within the boundaries of the consensus). —Lifeisunfair 16:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mine works perfectly, or at least will once an admin copies it to MediaWiki:Monobook.css. -- Netoholic @ 16:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your code does not display properly (at least, not in Firefox). I went out of my way to accommodate you (which is not a requirement of the consensus), but that simply isn't good enough for you. You'd rather "screw up" the template's appearance for others. —Lifeisunfair 17:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you try describing what you see is the problem rather than continuing to be rude? -- Netoholic @ 17:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned earlier, your code causes the box to be considerably larger. It's taller, and spans the entire page width (instead of 85%). Here's a direct comparison (viewed in Firefox at the default text size). I removed the image from mine (on top), for the sake of parity. —Lifeisunfair 17:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I was experimenting earlier. You must have copied by monbook.css when I had the width removed. Use the current version (17:20, 11 July 2005). -- Netoholic @ 17:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The height remains more than 1/3 greater, as seen here. —Lifeisunfair 18:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The one that seems to look best in Firefox and IE, as Monobook stands now, is Talk-Notice. see User:DoubleBlue/Sandbox. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the coloring and margin-bottom, the "Talk-Notice" and "Merge" classes are 100% identical. —Lifeisunfair 18:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic's personal version of Notoce noprint seems fine but it would need to be added to MediaWiki:Common.css. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The height is over 1/3 too great. —Lifeisunfair 18:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That height fits with most other boxes. Are you really so picky? -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your coding causes the box to be nearly 34.5% taller. This significant difference throws off the templates' aesthetic balance (and wastes space in the process). If you can find a way to eliminate this disparity, go right ahead. —Lifeisunfair 18:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sjrdude

I see that you have had dealings with this user's vandalism before. I submit for your consideration this edit today. Cheers, DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week... Thue | talk 19:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comunlang VFD-2

You are receiving this notice due to a consideration that has come up during a VFD for the article Comunleng. As there was no clear consensus in Comunleng's previous VfD, it has been nominated again. Please see Votes for deletion/Comunleng 2 for comments. The Literate Engineer 23:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thanks for your attempt to find a compromise at Template:Canada. As much as I don't like the flags, I was thinking along the same lines, but figured that the other guy would not accept a compromise proposed by me. It is something I can live with. Ground Zero 21:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotta have faith.

Re: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chase bridge. Well done. I had a good laugh at that one. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. :D P.S., have you seen Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of warez groups? —RaD Man (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In recognition

In recognition of your scrutiny, precision and community service on all things Canadian, I hereby award you with the The Barnstar of Diligence. &#0149;Zhatt&#0149; 23:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I may have only joined Wikipedia about two months ago, but in that short time your name has been one to come up the most. You have made sure Wikipedia is of the highest quality and made sure no one stepped too far out of line while still keeping your cool. You have also worked with me and helped me on more than one occasion. Thank you. &#0149;Zhatt&#0149; 23:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much Zhatt. It is very kind of you to think of me. I have enjoyed the chances I've had to work with you and hope we shall have many more opportunities. I see that your work on WP:CWNB has already been given a well-deserved recognition. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian regional geo-stubs

Hi - I've just deleted the redirects that were on sfd (Canada-ON-geo-stub and the like). While I was doing that I was bold and - taking on board what you and Mindmatrix said about British Columbia, I reversed the redirect so that BrColumbia-geo-stub redirects to BritishColumbia-geo-stub rather than the other way round (I'm cc:int this to Mindmatrix BTW). Hope that's a reasonable compromise :) Grutness...wha? 06:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

So you remove those parts - sanitize, without any right - those parts which I mentioned Tony Sidamon that he is "ultra-rude", "snobbish" and using "blatant misrepresentation". This is not a personal attack, it is based on fact, and fact as attested by what he has written. His attitude is obviously used as a means of a kind of bullying bloc - probably participated by a lot of school inclusionists like you - in which all opposition are smothered to death. Sarcasm, indirect insults are allowed in VfD, but directly stating that another Wikipedian is abusing another or being rude or snobbish is stated as a personal attack? Please explain. Mandel 20:25, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'm obviously very angry now, and I won't deny it. I would take "utter and demonstratable poppycock" by Mr Tony to be an insult and an extremely rude one. As well as deleting someone else's comments without proper reason. Talk about freedom of speech. Let's be honest, had I not been voting against school articles, this welter of smothering and bullying wouldn't have started, would it. Mandel 20:54, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
So in what way is the rudeness "entirely mine"? Your POV is showing. Mandel 21:03, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I stand by what I say. To produce a substub is lazy and irresponsible. Mandel 03:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Birthday

User:Jenmoa/birthday --Jen Moakler 05:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

=) Wow, thanks for the barnstar! --Jen Moakler 17:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'succede'

I believe it is a word. I hear it used when someone taking over a position from someone, such as the US Presidency. Of course, I could have butchered the spelling. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

School Link

Well, when and if you click on the link it's pretty hard to hide the fact that there are both keep and delete arguments there. Even if you simply hover over it you see what it leads to. The point is actually that there is pretty much no excuse for changing my vote not once [1], but twice [2], and in a more than one place [3]. My faith is pretty strained by this.
brenneman(t)(c) 15:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought of referring to it as [[Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete]] or [[Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments]]? Listing it as [[Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete|Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments]] seem to be going out of your way to misdirect. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleBlue,
I'd like to start by thanking you twice. First for putting your comment on the talk page, which is what we should all do with our little asides. Good form. Second for the straightforward and sensible manner you've taken. Excellent form.
The initial reason I made the link in that manner is prosaic: I hate the way anchored links look. Silly, I know, but I do it all the time. I only use the anchor if I really want to make a point. An example of both forms can be seen here.
While of course I'll never know, if someone had put a nice message on my talk page saying "Hey, it looks like you're trying to be sneaky, even if you're not." I almost certainly would have changed the link. But that didn't happen.
I'm not blameless, of course, in the events that followed.
And, while I'm being honest, I used that same piped link again today. I considered using a different pipe, but I succumbed to pettiness and used the troublesome form. That was small of me, and I'm sorry.
brenneman(t)(c) 06:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canada, the other white meat

Nice work on Canada. I had also considered moving the undefended border to foreign relations but had decided I was ok with it where it was. Your move broke my stalemate because you added much more content and gave the phrase a home that it lacked by itself. - Tεxτurε 21:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other discarded subject headers:

Thanks

Thanks for the birthday wishes! :) --Jen Moakler 17:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoubleBlue&oldid=20708612"