User talk:IanManka/Archive/6

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

Previous Archive | Topical Index | Next Archive

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 21 April 2006 and 14 May 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Logo

Yes, sorry, missed the edit summary - fair use should only be used to illustrate the subject of the article, and only when absolutely necessary. The caption was to do with the controversy, which was already discussed in the article. Basically it wasn't adding anything to the article. ed g2s • talk 20:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Woggly / Harassment / Request Unblock

I am seeking a RfC from User:Woggly but have been told that it has not been filed. Could you kindly assist me in filing this RfC and defending me / being free of her and her friends' open, destructive harassment which now includes my first block! As a professional international journalist of 25 years I have never been censored in any forum (except for Syria and Iran), till now :< Thank you. IsraelBeach 21:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 FIFA World Cup

Hello, I received a message from you regarding a recent edit, but I don't understand it. I added no "nonsense" or vandalism to the 2006 FIFA page whatsoever! I deleted approximately 3 words, I believe, to add specificity to a sentence about which group is considered the "Group of Death" in this year's cup. My edit was based on the articles that followed that sentence (as well as my own knowledge).

I am a lawyer, by the way, and certainly sensitive to concerns about vandalism on the site. Please explain what your message meant so that I can understand for the future. Thank you!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.189.185 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your response re my 2006 FIFA World Cup edit, Ian. Respectfully, I have to disagree with you that my edit was inaccurate. Rather, I was striving for greater accuracy and specificity. As you acknowledged, the FOX sports article designated Group E (the Italy and U.S. group) as the Group of Death. Further, the Guardian article stated, "If you add up the Fifa rankings for the teams in each group, you are left with an approximation of difficulty for purposes of comparison. As the accompanying panel shows, Italy's group, not Argentina's, looks most like a Group of Death - or, as the germans say, Todesgruppe - with a 'difficulty factor' of 72 being by far the toughest."

So to answer your question, yes I believe the Guardian is credible, I believe FOX is credible (in this case anyway), and I believe my own sources which corroborate that Group E is by far the logical pick for the Group of Death. One group is traditionally designated and in 2006 I firmly believe you will see Group E referred to by that moniker.

What I don't understand is why, out of thousands (more?) of edits on Wikipedia per day, my edit of one sentence was questioned and reversed by an administrator. What happens to the concept of Wikipedia if *reasonable* user edits are accorded so little weight? Thanks for your time.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.189.185 (talk • contribs)

Again, I appreciate your comments re the Group(s) of Death, Ian. I see where you are coming from also. I will soon take your suggestion to register, to avoid misunderstandings in the future. For instance, the recent vandalism warning from a bot which you referred to was indeed prompted by an action on my part. However, I was simply attempting to remove a defamatory fragment posted in the guise of a legitimate article on DAN BROWN, author of The Da Vinci Code and other books. I apparently did not go about it in an approved way, at least according to the "bot" life form. Perhaps humans need to monitor them rather than the other way around eh?

Geoffrey Wyatt, Portland, Oregon.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.189.185 (talk • contribs)

The Price is Right pricing games template

I didn't create the template - I just added the template to all the 100+ individual pricing game pages. I just thought fans of The Price is Right would appreciate it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by New World Man (talk • contribs)

Didn't mean to ridicule...sorry about that. I guess I'd just rather have a bad color we're used to than a new bad color. ;-) Seriously, it probably could use a change, but yellow just struck me as...well, just not right. -TPIRFanSteve 15:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To tell the truth, I think it looks fine the way it is...although maybe it looks harsher against the pricing game pages. I haven't really looked at it much from that perspective. -TPIRFanSteve 03:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocate Team Re: Woggly

Ian, thank you for your kind offer. I am presently coordinating a team of advocates. I welcome you to be one. Simply read the RFC lodged against me by user:woggly and the RFC which I have filed against her. It's really simple stuff when all of her harassment and my various attempts to resolve any issues are in black and white. Best wishes, IsraelBeach 18:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Jules Rimet; Grzegorz Lato; Nonfictional character; Dian Parkinson; Football (ball); Shamsul Maidin; Nikki Schieler Ziering; Mike Jones (football); FX Latin America; Limit price; Third-World Feminism; Kathy Greco; Just Fontaine; Oleg Salenko; Stanley Rous; Sándor Kocsis; Edd Kalehoff; Pricing strategies; Roger Dobkowitz

Cleanup: Old Spanish Trail; Hattie Winston; Travis Tritt
Merge: Zero tolerance; Cap (football); New Zealand national soccer team
Add Sources: ESPN The Magazine; Teamgeist; UHF (film)
Wikify: Laszlo Heller; Thomson Financial; KDEN (TV)
Expand: Miss You Much; Boar's Nest; List of flops in entertainment

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Spider-Man 3

Gidday. I don't take offense often and not in that case. I don't believe in pointless edits, either. Generally, I've found that one of the easiest ways to get along is not changing someone's choice of words when wikifying if that terminology gets the intended (and hopefully useful) result. Whatever you may believe, the edit you made was unnecessary and, had it been someone else, might have resulted in harsher consequences for you.

I, personally, don't care what terminology is used, but you need to understand that not everyone is goind to feel that way. Some will be genuinely offended and that could cause problems. Furthermore, changing the wording to suit you above all else is in conflict with the NPOV policy. Look at it this way, if you changed "Spiderman" to "Spider-man" because the dashed version is supposedly more accurate, that'd be the exact same thing.

Respect other people's edits and choice of terminology, my friend. It will save you a lot of trouble down the road. The Anti-Gnome 04:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message on my talk page, neither edit is wrong, they're both good edits. Preventing redirects is not necessary, but it can be helpful. Reverting edits that prevent redirects is also not necessary. Both versions are still good versions so there's really no need to do any more reverting. Might as well just keep it as it is. I've also added a comment on Talk:Spider-Man 3. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 12:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiHangman Tournament

I would love to join, but I'm afraid I'm way to busy lately to even do minor edits in Wikipedia. I hope I can join later though. Thanks. -- WB 03:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza User Page Contest

You might be interested in Esperanza's very similar user page contest...? —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHMT

I have pasted relevant conversation here, as it is more back-and-forth than most conversations I have.

Sandwip has forfeited his game against me... Do I win the round or the match? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fetofs (talk • contribs) .

Also, now that I've talked about forfeiting, should we create a timebank? We do have a real life :) F e tofs ^Hello! 22:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the win. I suppose you win the match (per the rules), but I don't know if this is fair. I'd start a second game, and if your opponent doesn't respond to that, then you'll win two games, and take the match. Essentially, this first tournament is just a test run -- we look at the bugs in this edition, and use it to make new rules to fix the next version. We are using rules created in May 2005, without any formal testing. So, um, here we are now. We'll see how it goes.

As for a "timebank," how do you propose doing such a thing? How would it work? etc.

(And as for "we all have a real life" ... what real life ;)?) — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 23:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A timebank is additional time that depletes and doesn't regenerate back. For example, with a timebank of 7 days, if I take 5 days to respond to one move, the timebank will go to 3 days. f I move that late again, I'll forfeit on time. A timebank of 2 or 3 would be appropriate? F e tofs ^Hello! 19:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great plan, but do you think it is wise to change the format mid-tournament? — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 22:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can contact other players and see what they think... The rule is beneficial to the players, so it should be no problem as this is not serious and experimental (I would be very angry if I had to go to the dentist again and I had forfeited the match on time). BTW, it's almost time for me to win! Hurray! F e tofs ^Hello! 22:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I like the idea. For the second game of each current match, there will be a three-day timebank. Every move you make within the time limit will add an additional 24 hours to your timebank. Any thoughts on the technical aspects of said timebank?

If both players were inactive (as it was with CanadaGirl and Tv316, I think), the winner would be the one who was most active (in this case, CanadaGirl), despite both being inactive. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some thoughts: why only to the second game of the match? And couldn't the timebank become too large after some moves? I don't mind wating for four days or so, but more will make the Tournament proceed too slowly. F e tofs ^Hello! 22:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what if both players are absent? F e tofs ^Hello! 12:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If both players were inactive (as it was with CanadaGirl and Tv316, I think), the winner would be the one who was most active (in this case, CanadaGirl), despite both being inactive. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the tweak on User talk:EvocativeIntrigue- the tags I needed slipped out of my head when I was writing it!

EvocativeIntrigue 11:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massive collection of comments about subst:ing (or lack thereof)

Notes about this section: Many small topics were renamed and merged into this major topic. Some conversations have responses edited in to aid clarity. Requests to point where users didn't subst were fufilled. There were three major types of responses to my major subst:ing effort: "thank you", "I normally subst, where didn't I?", and "I don't get it." These have been categorized into sub-headings.

Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. Owen× ☎ 15:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I generally use the subst template, but I think I missed out at that point. Thanks and regards, --Andy123(talk) 16:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful suggestion. I will certainly use the tag from now on. :) -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 02:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent reminder. Without it I would not have known Wikipedia:Template substitution.--Jusjih 07:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! --woggly 08:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advise. I'll do as you suggest while using templates. Regards, ImpuMozhi 17:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it

Wait, I don't get it... why should I add subst:test? Sorry to be absent minded... :-(. - SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, subst:-ing serves two purposes:

Reduces server load. If you leave a template lying around on a talk page, every time the talk page is loaded, the template will have to be accessed from the main server, slowing down both the server and you, as the page has to go and "get" the template from the server.
Accidental blanking of the template. When the server looks up a template (say Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. 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. ), it will go to that template page, and write to the talk page what the template says. If the template is vandalised or blanked, any time between when the vandalism occurs and when the vandalism is reverted, the user will see, in an un-subst:ed version, the vandalised template. So, instead of seeing:

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. 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. ,

a user may see:

Hey, cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111 Look at me! I'm on Wikipedia (an example of vandalism)

or

This is why it is important to subst: templates. If you have any further questions, please see my talk page. Happy editing! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that was a great explanation! Thanks, I'll do that in the future. The template you put initially confused me is all. Thanks! :-D -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I assume the reminder on my talk page is because that page had {{/Header}} at the top. The contents of Header I pinched off someone else, and I don't know much about templates. I've changed the line which includes header to {{subst:/Header}}. If this is right, or the issue is unimportant, don't bother to reply. If you want me to put substs into the Header page iteself, let me know. (I read the linked page about template substing, but didn't really understand it). Cheers, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this, could you clarify what you mean? I think I understand, and an example would be good if you don't mind. Thanks for you help, and sorry, I didn't realise the protocol? DannyM 08:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<After I had subst:ed a template in a user sub-page>

I like my test template where it is actually, it's for cut and paste purposes. Although if people's bots keep grabbing it I may try to store it somewhere else.--BigCow 03:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'fraid subst won't work: Vandalproof, the program I use, will not allow subst in place of test. Or maybe it does and I'm unaware of how to go about using it. Any tips with that interface would be helpful. NetK 06:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always subst, when didn't I?

I always do use the subst tag. When didn't I? IrishGuy 08:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that. Could you point me out to what warning I didn't sub? Thanks --– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 00:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you must use subst in user talk pages. Was this a "random" posting? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 00:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I got a message from you on my talk page reminding me to use subst: when using templates. I'm not aware of having forgotten to use subst: recently (though I could be mistaken), as I normally use the popups script and the vandal warning toolbox when responding to vandalism.

If however there is a problem in the script itself, you could have a large but easy to fix problem. Many people use these two anti-vandal tools, so many people could unintentionally be creating raw test messages. In that case of course, all you'd have to do is fix the javascript.

I'm a bit fuzzy on the advantage of using subst: versus the raw test warning. Does the subst: prefix put a non-editable copy of the warning on the talk page versus a warning that's actually linked to the template (and which could be changed if someone altered the original template)?

Thanks for your time. --Tachikoma 23:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant sections of this conversation were copied from User talk:Tachikoma.

If however there is a problem in the script itself, you could have a large but easy to fix problem. Many people use these two anti-vandal tools, so many people could unintentionally be creating raw test messages. -- that's actually not a bad thought. That may be the case after all. Would you mind looking into it? I'd do it myself, but I don't know which software you use and whatnot. See what you come up with. Thanks. In that case of course, all you'd have to do is fix the javascript. I don't know anything about Javascript, so don't look at me. :P — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked, and the tools that I use (Lupin's navigational popups and Kbh3rd's vandal-whack script) do indeed use subst.

In my case, my forgotten subst was when I was using one of the lesser known templates. --Tachikoma 12:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:213.83.108.211

While I appreciate your efforts at maintaining civility here at Wikipedia, I'd like to point out a simple fact: Niceness does not work on stupid people or those with hate in their hearts. Only sharp words and, if it comes to that, massed weapons fire is known to cure stupidity and hate. Being nice only encourages the brutes; we must fight them logically and militarily. To survive, we must beat them to a pulp simply because they would do the same to us for merely existing. They do not treat us as humans with rights, so we must defend against them as we would a vicious animal. E. Sn0 =31337= 03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly metaboxes

This conversation contains information from User talk:JesseW to aid clarity.

Warning Some people get offended by impersonal boxed messages left on their talk pages. Please consider using non-boxed text to deliver messages on talk pages.

Important: This talk page has a posted archiving policy. Please review it before leaving standardized messages.

-- JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I have offended you. Though not an excuse, I have been on autopilot with regards to substing templates, and reminding users to subst. See my contributions for more background information on my subst:ing rampage. I use the template because it saves me time. I am trying to efficiently complete this operation, and {{subst}} helps me accomplish it.
As for your archiving policy, I suggested archiving because your talk page is currently over 32KB. Maybe I misunderstood your policy when I posted. If you have further questions, or feel that my apologies are unacceptable, contact me on my talk page. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 19:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I don't actually mind the standardized text, so much as the box. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think user_talk page messages should never have boxes around them; boxes are for messages that go at the top of article or article talk pages. As for the archiving, you are right; I've now broken it off, and it is below 32. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I, too, agree with your opinion about the boxes. I use the said template because it is an established standard/common template, not because I want to -- I was half-suprised (when I first saw the template) to see a box surround the warning. If I were to change it to a textual (if that's a word...) warning, I fear that I may have some backlash. Oh well. Happy editing! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 20:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed them; I'll deal with whatever backlash comes. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the templates! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 21:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My talk page is becoming long

The line number I saw was 947, which means only 53 lines to go before I think it's time to start talking about what to do with it. Georgia guy 21:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgeMoney and the excessive warnings

I made those warnings when I thought Wikipedia was a joke and I could do whatever I wanted, so I warned that user 100 times for 1 case of vandalism. But, that was when I didn't really care about wikipedia. Now I care about wikipedia. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Archive | Topical Index | Next Archive

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

Current Talk Page