User talk:Nat/Archives 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Nat. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Compromise on Quebec page
You may wish to comment.
Also, both Ramdrake and I believe that since the issue is nearing resolution, we should reevaluate Pgslvl's status. For the sake of a stronger consensus, perhaps his/her ban on the Quebec Talk page can be lifted. --soulscanner (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Having checked Pgsylv's talk page, I don't think he/she has reformed. PS- I notice he/she still 'blanks' his/her talk page. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I think I was premature in the suggestion. It's clear that Pgsylv is just interested in POV pushing. --soulscanner (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism of China wiki
Underneath the large image at the top right of the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China), there is a block of text stating the following:
"This article contains Chinese text. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols and shit instead of Chinese characters which are weird little chop marks that make strange fucking noises like those you would hear in old Kung-Fu movies. But more than a billion people actually use them."
The article is currently locked for editing with this statement in there.
Re:Taiwan
Done Looks like protection is needed. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your welcome. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikimania 2009 bid
Today's last day to refine our bid. I have done some cleanup on the page but I need your help. Don't wait now, this is our last chance! (And Buenos Aires's bid looks better than us, in my opinion) OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Debate on the monarchy in Canada
Nat- User:Rufus MC hasn't participated in the discussion at Talk:Debate on the monarchy in Canada for eleven days now. It was suggested that if he wanted to maintain the dispute, he should begin the resolution process. He has not. So, it seems to me that any threats to the stability of the article are largely gone, and it can be unprotected. No? --G2bambino (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- In agreement, with unprotecting the article. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, I notified everyone who had participated in the actual discussion, in chronological order. Eurocopter was the first guy I informed. Sigh, I hoped it wouldn't come to this, but I doubt that a consensus is possible here. The arguments were pretty much exhausted by January. --Illythr (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
mfix
"mfix" to me means a minor fix. Switching over to a navbox, isn't a minor fix by any stretch of the imagination. You really need to use better edit summaries, it's better for you, better for me, and better for the community. You're an admin, you should be leading by example. GreenJoe 14:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thanks
Cheers.--Asdfg12345 02:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not ever use the live, global skin to do testing. There is a Test Wikipedia and user subpages that can be used to test CSS. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Template:PNL and Template:PSD
OK. ES Vic (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Arsenic99 on ANI
You closed this thread because you thought it was a content dispute. How exactly is this a content dispute? I'm asking for a topical ban or a complete ban of this user, not some action related to content. If you don't understand why I think Arsenic99 is a problematic editor, imagine for a moment that an editor spends his time on Wikipedia denying the Holocaust, and then creates a category called Category:Holocaust Propagandists and adds prominent historians like Saul Friedländer to the category. Would that be a content dispute, or disruptive editing? Please reverse your closure. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the page protection Nat, you read my mind. I think it's Mediation time. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Indefinite protection of China
I came across this while clearing the backlog at CAT:EP, and I was very surprised to see the notice at the top of Talk:China. Looking at the history and protection log, I can see and acknowledge that a huge amount of vandalism havs been perpetrated on this page, and I know I'm not familiar with the situation, but there is simply nothing in WP:PPOL (either the new version or the approved old version) that permits such a drastic measure. Only the length of the protection log prevented me from boldly changing to edit:autoconfirmed/move:sysop when I saw that the page has now been locked for two months. I am inclined to post on WP:AN and/or WP:RFP, but I wanted to get your perspective on the matter first, so I would appreciate knowing your reasoning behind this protection. Happy‑melon 18:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:AN thread
As per the above, a thread has been started at WP:AN on your long-term protection of China. Your perspective on this matter would be very much appreciated. Perhaps requesting the involvement of additional admin resources to help patrol the page may be one course of action. Ronnotel (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
We need some more keep votes on this. GreenJoe 19:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was able to find a number of articles which refer to the Nipissing University Student Union in the North Bay Nugget by searching from the menu of the search page you cited and clicking the button next to "From 01-January-1980". I added the results to the AfD discussion. --Eastmain (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for dealing with this user. I recognise he has been rather disruptive, on the other hand I think I have some reasons I would like to be able to keep a channel of communication open on his talk page. Would you mind if I gave him another chance and unprotected the talk page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Main Page
I've reverted you. Boldness is fantastic -- pastels, not so much. And Lord knows the change would've caused drama. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from altering the main page's appearance (which has been heavily discussed and debated) without consensus and substantially modifying its underlying code without allowing thorough testing to occur (which has broken the page in certain browsers and screen readers in the past). Thank you. —David Levy 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've tested them on different wiki's and this (1) reduces the size of the page (2) organizes it much better (3) it simplifies the look of the edit page nat.utoronto 17:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Have you tested it in every major browser at every resolution? Have you tested it in screen readers for the visually-impaired? Have you sought consensus for the altered appearance? Please stop. —David Levy 17:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- the answer is yes...for the most part. nat.utoronto 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Really? What tests did you perform? Where did you propose the changes and establish consensus for them? —David Levy 17:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, please stop. We spent months debating the page's exact appearance and testing its code via various operating systems, browsers and resolutions, and then we tweaked it further to ensure compatibility with screen readers used by people with visual impairments. Your behavior at this high-profile page (after three different sysops reverted your changes) is reckless and disruptive. —David Levy 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- and I could say the same about you. but that wouldn't get us anywhere would it. nat.utoronto 17:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? Please elaborate. —David Levy 17:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- and if you check this revision you'll there is no difference at all except for the fact that the main page coding looks cleaner. nat.utoronto 17:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to place that code (or any other code) in a sandbox for the community's review. —David Levy 17:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously take a look and and examine it, and you'll see there is absolutely no difference. nat.utoronto 17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- That might be true, but I'm not an HTML expert, so I can't say (and given your conduct, I'm not comfortable taking your word for it). Assuming that there is "absolutely no difference" (other than the code "look[ing] cleaner"), there obviously is no urgent need to replace longstanding code that we know works. The community (including people more knowledgeable in this area than I) can examine your code and confirm that it's okay. —David Levy 18:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Please at least work on a sandbox and discuss it, and not directly on the most visible page there is ;)... -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. Sorry for butting in to your conversation (I'm not an admin), but what differences? I searched the main page for the differences, and I could find barely any differences, except for the redlinked template in some of the earlier ones. Also, I couldn't detect a search box other than the one that's usually there anyway. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 23:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hackers...
When I saw your gallery of pictures... Well all of them except 1 were advertisement for "antivirus" which was most likely viruses. Just a note of protection.
Re: Re: Medi
User:Nat/uspg is using <sub> when it shoudn't be. That is, <sub> is to make certain text lower than other text -- F2. Using it as a substitute for <small> isn't a very good idea and can cause things to break. ; - ) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Heads of State of Romania
I've replaced SUP and SUB with SMALL to eliminate visual overlapping. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see you fixed the one I missed. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
"China is a country"
Hi, I'm attempting a re-write of the opening of China to resolve the definitional issue that has plagued the article. I noticed that you commented previously on the issue. I've opened a straw poll to gauge whether consensus is to define "China is a country". Could I ask you to comment/vote at Talk:China#Straw poll? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Canada elections/list
A tag has been placed on Template:Canada elections/list requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Formosa
[1], yeah, I'm pretty sure it's Nationalist. Too bad he is too old to check against.--Jerrch 02:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Election
Run and hide! That template is the devil. ; - ) But seriously, I consider myself one of the more experienced / proficient template writers on en.wiki, and you can look at the Template:Infobox Election/sandbox and the Template:Infobox Election/testcases to see my miserable failure at trying to fix the mess that is Template:Infobox Election. The damn thing nearly made me weep. It's teh horrible -- you've been warned. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- It looks much better. I'm still not sure what's causing that awkward blank space in the template when no parameters are used... In you're so included, code like {{#switch:{{{type|}}}|parliamentary|Parliamentary|legislative|Legislative= could probably be simplified using the {{ucfirst:}} magic word. I.e., {{#switch:{{ucfirst:{{{type|}}}}}|Parliamentary|Legislative=. Other than that, looks good. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Killing my IRC ghost
Nat..If I could kill my ghost, I would. However, I can not log into Freenode until it is dead. Trillian is not really easy to work with when it comes to changing the log in name. So, I just have to be patient until it dies. - LA @ 19:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ma
Yeah, that's pretty interesting... Also, Beautiful Formosa has been adding nonconstructive edits, unilaterally moving articles, and challenging pre-established consensus. Can you protect these pages: Tu Cheng-sheng, Taiwan Post, and Taiwan-United States relations? Thanks.--Jerrch 16:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Toronto's bid
did we withdraw or were we eliminated? nat.utoronto 17:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- We were eliminated in the final round. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Essjay warnings
I am still a little confused about your essjay edits. What the heck are you talking about? There are no irc:// links whatsoever on Essjay controversy, the Internet Archive is a link to an HTML page, and the links to IRC channels on the HTML page are just links, they certainly won't do anything unless you scroll all the way down to them and click (in which case a warning two pages ago isn't much help and is overly catering to the clueless). --Gwern (contribs) 17:28 29 March 2008 (GMT)
- I don't follow. I've visited Essjay's user page with a number of browsers, starting long before the scandal, and IRC links have never automatically popped up unless I clicked on them (just like for mailto:, nntp:, ftp:, http: links...).
- Are you sure the problem is not a faulty client on your part? --Gwern (contribs) 03:46 1 April 2008 (GMT)
{{Infobox Election}}
The party_name function seems to have stopped working on {{Infobox Election}}. If party_name = no was entered it would remove the need for a party to have an associated meta/shortname template. Would it be possible for you to return this function? Thanks. --Philip Stevens (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the fix. --Philip Stevens (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Main Page Body
Template:Main Page Body has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Pegasus «C¦T» 13:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Economic history of Taiwan
Hi, can you please move Economic History of Taiwan to Economic history of Taiwan (with a lowercased "h")? Also, if there's some way to stop Beautiful Formosa from making unilateral moves and changing references of "Taiwan" to "Republic of China," can you please do so? I am tired of him ruining the articles I created. Thank you.--Jerrch 16:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be talking if I were you. You ruined my Martyr's Shrine Article. I am in no way runing your articles. Instead, I am balancing your article from the Pan-Green bias that each one contains. The fact is the country is still Republic of CHina. Until this changes, Republic of CHina should suffice rather than Taiwan. Beautiful Formosa (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you just block Beautiful Formosa? Look at his talkpage, I am not the only one who has noticed his disruptive edit patterns.--Jerrch 16:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please do not war monger. You are insulting me and yourself. That is in no way helpful to Wikipedia. Beautiful Formosa (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
you want to know how Ma got his name, read here. Don't listen to BS. Blueshirts (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Radical proposal
Hi there, you might be interested in this discussion on the noticeboard. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Do you think there is anyway you could get 106 & Park on the main page on wikipedia. If you're not interested, that's fine. But it's just a thought please message back.
Infobox Officeholder
Hi, can you remove the DPP and make it Democratic Progressive Party in that template? Thanks!--Jerrch 20:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you!--Jerrch 23:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nat!
Hello Nat, This is my first time using the talk page. Can you give more hints to me. Thank you.
From,
Jed Fu
DPP-Taiwan
Hi. Can you just remove the image from articles that don't have a rationale for it?--Jerrch 19:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What are you doing to the Kosovo Talk Page?
?Beam 20:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Your message
ok forget it...rather see MY talkpage...the wikiserver is currently messing something up here.
I reverted your changes to MediaWiki:Linkstoimage because I didn't see consensus. Please discuss at MediaWiki talk:Linkstoimage. Superm401 - Talk 06:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also, "+" is not a sufficient edit summary for edits of this significance. Superm401 - Talk 06:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Chinese Taipei / Kiinalainen Taipei vs. China's Taipei (Taipei of China) / Kiinan Taipei
Hello,
In the Finnish Wikipedia I have changed the article name Kiinan Taipei (that is China's Taipei or Taipei of China in English) to adjective form Kiinalainen Taipei, which is Chinese Taipei in English. However, my edits has been reverted every time.
Could You help me, please?
--PKo (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi,
- Thank You for Your help, but it seems that many Finnish 'wikipedist' do not understand and have no coherence.
- It is true, that the genitive attribute (e.g. Kiinan) is a much more common way of expression in the Finnish language than the adjective attribute (e.g. kiinalainen). Finnish is more substantive language than e.g. Swedish, German and English.
- However, in this case substantive form Kiinan Taipei gives the impression that Taipei and the whole Taiwan belongs to the People's Republic of China. Of course, internationally that is true officially, but not really. Because Wikipedia is a neutral media, we have to use the adjective form Kiinalainen Taipei in Finnish Wikipedia.
- --PKo (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
don't...not all Chinese people are communists...
in China all party is forbidden. Only one ruling country is communist party--123FM (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
{{Infobox Election}}
Do you know why title, before_election, before_party, after_election and after_party aren't working on London mayoral election, 2004? --Philip Stevens (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Mediation Case
Hi Nat. Regarding the mediation case on Premier of the Republic of China, it was closed due to inactivity. What action should we take now?--Jerrch 23:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Michener & Ont post-secondary
Hi Nat,
Could you offer your opinion on the The Michener Institute and the Template:Ont_post-secondary?
GreenJoe and I disagree on it. Discussion is on the Talk page of the template (Template_talk:Ont_post-secondary).
Thanks, Nephron T|C 02:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Your edits
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. GreenJoe 03:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're flaunting your admin power. You made those changes without any discussion as well. I checked.
- You also have some ownership issues.
- I disagree. If it's part of a larger institution, it doesn't belong on the template.
- If you revert it back, I will start an RFC over it. I may even take you to ArbCom. GreenJoe 14:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Template:Ont post-secondary
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Template:Ont post-secondary. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. GreenJoe 23:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. GreenJoe 00:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I left a message on the template talk page. A non-templated one. I did visit the site you provided, but no where on that page does it use the words "publically funded." GreenJoe 00:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)