User talk:Izno

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

SORRY!!!!![edit]

AHhhh!!!!! Stupid fat fingers... I meant to thank you for your edit to Wikipedia:Bot requests and instead rolled back your edits. Fixed my error but just wanted to apologize. WP:TROUT to wake me up.... Sorry! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: No worries. --Izno (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek[edit]

Would you mind explaining why the project link doesn't belong on the template exactly and where is says so. It's not an external link so I don't see how it's any different than the book or portal.★Trekker (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@*Treker: It is entirely a maintenance link. For user-facing content, we avoid linking maintenance content. Books and portals are provided for the user. I can't point to anything specific presently, but I'm happy to continue discussing on e.g. WT:CLN if you don't think the general rule should be observed. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really passionate about it enough to pursue a guideline change if it's something that has been decided by others already but I think it's a little bit strange to exclude it because I've always thought about it as being an invitation for people to edit or to find out more in general. I think that's a good thing since wikipedia is made up almost entirely by regular people who just one day decided to start helping out. Thanks anyway for the response.★Trekker (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@*Treker: The invitation to discuss elsewhere was not per se to advocate change at that location but instead to get other eyes and opinions from others and perhaps information about past discussion. --Izno (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Maybe some other time if it comes up again. Thanks anyway.★Trekker (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Polygyny[edit]

Moved to Talk:Polygyny#Map of polygyny w.r.t. Russia. --Izno (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

AIAA[edit]

Moved to Talk:American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics#Removal of "controversies" section. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Systems Engineering - External links[edit]

Moved to Talk:Systems engineering#Some external links. --Izno (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Izno![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Wikipedia:Categorization#Template categorization[edit]

Hi, Izno! I enjoy in following rules, but I have a question about WP:VG#T. The edit you reverted is encouraged in my homewiki. I can understand why Template:Schubert string quartets should be not be categorized under Category:Franz Schubert or Category:String quartetsTemplate:Sega absolutely should not be categorized under Category:Video game publishers or Category:Companies established in 1960. But it is beyond my comprehension that Template:Sega shouldn't be categorized under Category:Sega directly, I think it's good for both editors and readers, is there any particular reasons? --A Sword in the Wind (talk | changes) 16:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@風中的刀劍: The link should have been WP:CAT#T--it is discouraged here. The casual reader is expected to be confused when he ends up on a page which is not user facing--and a template page is not particularly user facing. --Izno (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates.[edit]

Hello, Just heads up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document here to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates[edit]

Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

Please, avoid!--178.223.67.126 (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and a follow up question[edit]

Thanks for the note at RexxS's talk page; a quick follow up question, if you have a moment. It looks like those provide access to Linux shells. Is the way it would work that I build a MySQL database there (I assume that's available, or that I could install it locally); then it's my responsibility to maintain the data; then I or others could write a bot that accesses that data, also using the tools/lab platform? I have an IT background but have never worked on the technical side of Wikipedia so would appreciate a pointer as to the best way forward. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: That sounds about right. I would guess the most help in that direction you can get would be on IRC at freenode #wikimedia-labs or #mediawiki. --Izno (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks -- I'll ask there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

hello[edit]

hi, i just reverted your redirection at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savior_(video_game), i consider the article relevant, giveme a few days to fix it. greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightwish (talkcontribs) 18:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nightwish: Wikipedia considers notability, not "relevancy", when it decides to have an article on a topic. I could not identify reliable, independent, sources which cover this topic in detail, and so redirected the article. Do you have reliable sources available? Otherwise, it should be redirected again. --Izno (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

tfd?[edit]

Hi there, what does tfd mean and how do I go about doing it? I genuinely feel that the Bemani template is redundant because all contents have been better used on the respective Konami templates. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Iftekharahmed96: WP:TFD. --Izno (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for helping me out, I genuinely appreciate it! Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

RCT2 revert[edit]

My bad, I meant to click thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

HTML element#Lists vs WP:BADHEAD[edit]

Please see WP:BADHEAD and make whatever changes need to be made to HTML element#Lists as it's now out-of date. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: You are incorrect and may seek clarification at the appropriate talk page. WP:BADHEAD does not apply in this case because we are correctly using definition lists. Frankly, you are incorrectly interpreting the guideline. --Izno (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Glossary of video game terms#RfC: Replacing pseudo-headers may offer some further light, where your interpretation is trivially rejected. --Izno (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

As one who NEVER talks on user talk pages - my apology for commenting...[edit]

That said... 1st thanks so much for your many many edits, I've seen many over a long time and many articles. But you made me smirk and chuckle with "(and the talk pages!)" edit summary. So thanks for the edit and thanks for the smile. All the best to you. :) Shajure (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

tvN Templates[edit]

I saw your comment on the templates. I'm just doing it like the the korean version which is more efficient and it is easier if you are looking for a page that way. Both SwisterTwister and KGirlTrucker81, who approved my templates did not say anything or change it. Also, the pink color has been used for a long time now, it is not me who added it, so why change it? Even total drama template is pick Also on this page you removed a lot of the show. Why? Please don't do that. The moderators that approve the templates will look into it if t is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hessa94 (talkcontribs) 12:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hessa94: You should review the links I left in the edit summaries for you (WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX). However, I will elucidate here:
  1. The links which are red were removed because navboxes are for navigation.
  2. The links which are :ko: were removed because navboxes are for navigation on English Wikipedia.
  3. The colors were removed because there is no reason for them.
  4. The links to the templates were removed because we send people where they expect to go; as well, we link persons to mainspace links, not template-space links.
  5. Whether they were approved as drafts is irrelevant.
--Izno (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Izno:Why then not remove those red link over here and here. You only targeted pages I worked hard on adding. I don't mind removing the color and the below box, but why remove red link? People could make pages for them if they saw them. Also, why not change the color of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hessa94 (talkcontribs)
@Hessa94: You were not targeted—one of those pages was on my watchlist and then I checked to see if you were making similar edits. I would do the same on those other templates (review WP:Other stuff exists). As for red links, those are not for navigation boxes (again, please review WP:NAVBOX). Write the article first and then include it, or start a list for all of these--those will usually take red links. --Izno (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: Okay I get you. Thanks. It's just that I find the korean version much better than the English one. –Hessa94 (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hessa94: Well, they have the advantage of having the articles! We don't because there are not a lot of English speakers who like Korean drama (or similar). As for the times of the day, those are inappropriate per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --Izno (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Since you are an editor, I assume you know if we have a box (last thing before the templates) like this on Wikipedia. If there is none, can I create one and how? -- Hessa94 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hessa94: That looks like a succession box, just looking at the styling and columns. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Completely. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Curiosity re: spa[edit]

Hello! Just for conversation / out of curiosity's sake - I was hoping you could detail for me why you think my justification for spa is weak. I must admit I thought I made a decent case, but I'm totally open to critique (or even suggestions?). Moreover, if I'm misunderstanding a policy, I figure that's important to know. Thanks regardless! (Also: just a heads up: I am going through talk pages and substing spa, but that's not some passive aggressive attempt to get rid of it: the template itself says it should be substed; I only mention this because I know how that usually looks).--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

IP216, I have no opinion myself on the rationale. I simply think attempting to delete a really-old template which is still used and which is used (validly) to ensure a closing user is aware (most often in an AFD, though I know of other discussion fora) that those person's comments should be discounted just isn't going to get you anywhere.

As for your substing, there is a bot that should be doing that for you, because the template indeed uses the "substable template" template.

--Izno (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Most of the substitutions I'm doing are from comments from 2007, but you are totally right that I could probably have found a bot to do this ... wow what can I say, I'm out of practice. As to the template, perhaps I'm taking WP:Consensus to extremes and being overly idealistic, but I do fundamentally believe that closing administrators on, say, an RFC can discern valid arguments with empty votes. This template, to me, carries implicit accusations; it inherently is an effort to minimize someone's voice, and I don't think that type of marginalization should be happening without some sort of due process. Regardless, I shouldn't have assumed that users don't use the tag anymore just because I couldn't find any recent non-substed tags - and I just did find one use from 2016, so I made sure to note that on the TFD. I appreciate the feedback--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Found out how to get the template in the bot's domain! Update 4/8: Sadly the template is not substed on thousands of pages, and it would need to be added to User talk:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force (the category doesn't work for Templates transcoded on 500+ pages). I tried pursuing that but it seems like a rabbit hole, so I'll let someone else do it later.) Thanks again for the tip. And looks like your prediction was spot-on, which I really do think is unfortunate, although the curious "notice that this is an IP" comment sort-of speaks to my point ... (well that's what I get for not using an account anymore!)--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

ERF[edit]

Moved to WT:WikiProject Mathematics#Additional eyes please on Exponential response formula. --Izno (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Readability tests[edit]

Moved to Template talk:Readability tests#Some link deletions. --Izno (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

HRC template page protections[edit]

Eh quite a few of them are really high profile (for example some are on trump's page). I've downgraded those that I don't expect to be a problem.©Geni (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Thank you for helping to close the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: LTA Knowledgebase. I think the closing statement did an excellent job of summarizing both the consensus of the discussion and the issues that still need to be addressed. Mz7 (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

I gotta apologise, I wasn't trying to accuse you for the sake of accusing, it's more of the context of how you were editing templates. As you are aware, I'm not a moderator nor do I have any intention of becoming one, I was just somewhat suspicious after you didn't respond to the discussion that you were invited in. No hard feelings. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Give me a little time to work on this[edit]

Right now I am adding sources to the tournament results list. I just spoke with Yashovardhan Dhanania (talk · contribs) here, the player rankings are covered by sources which pass WP:VGRS, such as RedBull, 2016 SSBMRank #3, Rank #2, Rank #1, these pages actually go back to top ten and then they have list all the way up to Top 100, of course, that's overkill. I believe Yashovardhan Dhanania was closing to the version I trimmed to which is sourced. Valoem talk contrib 17:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Red links[edit]

Regarding WP:REDLINK, my edits addressed an inconsistency in the guidelines. Why did you revert them and restore that? Right now, the guidelines appear to both endorse and forbid red links for persons. See the discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: Because your edits look WP:POINTed. If there is an inconsistency (and that discussion indicates that there may not be), that can be taken care of later. You don't need to make edits to the page while we're waiting for the discussion to resolve. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm honestly annoyed it was not highlighted more. I'm challenging it now, but in the meantime, it needs to be more upfront. I don't agree with it, but its being buried and relatively hidden was problematic. Editors like myself have thought all this time that red links for persons are a good thing. If there is not an inconsistency, it is then poorly-worded to be used as a cudgel against red-linking persons at all. Do you not think so? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not about me or my opinion, it's about the fact that you made an edit that looks pointy. Just let the discussion finish before making any other edits. The wiki will not end because of a minor inconsistency on a single guideline. --Izno (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Fine, I see what you mean. I don't like the fact that this matter is vague enough to be used against my effort to make Wikipedia grow. I'll keep the discussion going to clear up the matter. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Hard to discuss when Joefromrandb is suppressing it here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not suppressing anything. There's a discussion underway, and I've participated. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

An AfD entry in need of attention[edit]

Hi.

There is an AfD entry on a software product that I opened a long time ago, but it has received zero responses so far (apparently due to a glitch). I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at it. This discussion is at:

Thanks

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Template involving ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions on American Politics (post-1932)[edit]

Hello. I saw you removed a link to the RM discussion about the banner Template:2016 US Election AE. To you it's a mere RM discussion. However, WP:ARBAP2 has affected content and discussions related to American Politics. Also, the community has considered expanding the usage of the banner to article talk pages involving such politics. May you please reinsert the link, i.e. undo the removal? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I don't intend to, because, quite-frankly, it's a requested move and not anything else. Administrators interested in administrating in the area (most are, I suppose) might reasonably be canvassed at WP:AN, but it's a) not something most users care about and b) not something most users can do anything about, since only administrators can apply DS. --Izno (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
All right. We'll leave that one out of the box. At least I already notified people in several project talk pages, which should suffice. --George Ho (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Report[edit]

Hey there. Just wanted to do a followup on being interested in writing for the Arbitration Report section for the Signpost. GamerPro64 16:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

GamerPro64, yup, still interested, though I need to understand what it is you do, schedules, that sort of thing. @Mz7: --Izno (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Well the Signpost is bi-monthly and it really does depend on whether something does happen with Arbitration (i.e new clerks, new cases, Arbiter resigns, etc.) GamerPro64 17:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Game Informer tables[edit]

Moved to Talk:Game Informer#Game Informer tables. --Izno (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Cashier template[edit]

Thanks - but there's still a sentence divided between 1.1 and 1.2: When adding references or modifying current references: 2. Avoid using list-defined references in order to reduce edit conflicts Awien (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Spans are not void elements"[edit]

Any element can be made empty in this manner; this is a common space-saving means of doing anchors, compressing out the redundant code bits. Does "IE is weird" mean there's a known problem with Internet Explorer not handling these correctly? If so, I'll stop using it. I seem to recall testing this around 2014 or so, and not finding any problems. Peter_coxhead and I were looking into the best way to do anchors in headings. Will see if I can find the test page, if we retained it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Here it is: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/anchor tests.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: In Html 5, not any element can be made empty in this manner: Review Html 5.1 section 8.1.2; section unchanged from Html 5. Right now, HTML Tidy cleans up the HTML. Such use of elements on MediaWiki will break in all browsers at some point in the future due to the March of the Parsers toward Html 5 interpretation (and removal of Tidy). This particular error (non-void element without a closing tag) is flagged at Special:LintErrors, "Self-closed tags".

As for "IE is weird", that was a comment on the brokenness of wikitext editor 2017 and IE11 and is unrelated to the question of the tag. --Izno (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Go over the spec material in more detail, I see you're right about what it says. However, I would bet a huge pile of money it'll never break in any browser (in my lifetime, anyway), for the same reason that old HTML 4 and earlier crap, like <tt> and <center> and <font> still work today: at W3C's own insistence, browsers are written to not be brittle, and to handle unexpected, even broken, markup as gracefully as possible. (I forget the exact catchphrase, something like "write strict, parse loose".)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Yes, I agree the browsers will be fine for the foreseeable future, but MediaWiki will do the GIGO thing sooner rather than later in regard to those errors, and so there's no guarantee than 10 years down the line (that's a long time for browser evolution!) the crap won't cause display issues in browsers. You're looking for robustness principle. Anyway, on a related note, you may be interested in WP:TFD#Template:Tt. --Izno (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding the removal of Evo 2017's results[edit]

Moved to Talk:Evo 2017#Question regarding the removal of results. --Izno (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

University of Santo Tomas edit[edit]

You have significantly overhauled University of Santo Tomas (UST) articles. Are you a Filipino/Thomasian? Pampi1010 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pampi1010: Who or what I am is irrelevant to my work on Wikipedia. I reviewed the sources available on Google and identified these articles as failing to meet the bar for WP:GNG, which is sufficient. --Izno (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You just do not delete articles without even informing the main author. You have deleted an article that is almost 10 years old - Traditions of the University of Santo Tomas. Significant time and effort were given to that article. It stayed for almost a decade, why can't it stay now? It has more than one working and valid source. You do not delete that article. Pampi1010 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Pampi1010: We do not judge articles based on their age or the amount of work put into them but solely on their potential to exist as articles--this is the notability guideline as well as what Wikipedia is not. I am happy to submit these articles to WP:AFD for judgement by the community if you wish. The sources I saw were low-quality primary sources or local sources, which do not establish notability for the article topics. --Izno (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You do that. But you do not single-handedly delete that article. Pampi1010 (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Im supposed to study, but I can't because someone just edited out my beloved article and disregarded other person's efforts, arrogant at that.Pampi1010 (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I can't revert/put back the article. I am not to familiar with Wikipedia. You are making it difficult for other people, for me. Instead of trying to help others, you attack them with your self-proclaimed expertise and arrogance. Why didn't you even give a warning in the first place. Wikipedia doesn't deserve an editor like you. You are not helping other people. Pampi1010 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Pampi1010: I have not touched the article since you reverted me. Please be aware that all articles belong to the encyclopedia, not any one person, and may be edited at any time for any reason. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You could have at least put up a warning tag instead of obliterating it right away. Pampi1010 (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Pampi1010: It is likely such a tag would have been unactioned by anyone except myself. Regardless, both articles have now been submitted to AFD. You may wish to contribute there. --Izno (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
How can you be so unsympathetic. I am reviewing for an examination and yet you are busy destroying articles. Of course, I can't let this article be deleted. Oh my god. Do you even have friends? You are supposed to help me, right? But then you are still pushing me and the article into oblivion. You are one heartless editor who only cared about the rules and lacks compassion with hia co-editors Pampi1010 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent Edit - August 2017[edit]

Hi, this is to let you know that your recent edit on The Lego Ninjago Movie has left me confused. I will not be reverting it back as such, but your edit summary has left me to ask another to help me understand whether it might be mistaken (if you're edit was wrong), or if I need an explanation of why it is correct (if they say it is correct). Please don't give an explanation yourself; I want an opinion from a third party, rather than from you, mainly to answer my inquiry on this. GUtt01 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@GUtt01: You cannot forbid someone from responding to your comments save if the user-in-question is administratively sanctioned not to interact with your or if you have requested the user stay off your talk page (neither are applicable in this scenario). I am more than happy to discuss at Oshwah's talk page. --Izno (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: I'm not forbiding you, per se, but I just want to get a neutral, unbiased opinion on the matter, is all.GUtt01 (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@GUtt01: You need not ping me on my talk page--I will be notified regardless. I have provided an explanation at Oshwah's talk page of what the change does. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Read it, and I now understand. I didn't realise how more neater it does. Forgive me for the reversion; I'm a bit of a novice "numpty" in some areas of editing on this site. XP GUtt01 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@GUtt01: Everyone is a newb sometime! --Izno (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, BTW - I took a look at categories for Lego Batman Movie, and figured: "If you did that for Ninjago movie article, why not this one as well?" So I did. GUtt01 (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@GUtt01: Mostly because I had not gotten around to it, though I did see that category as another re-keying target. --Izno (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@GUtt01: I have made a few more changes to the category keys in that article. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Godville[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 17 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Godville, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that video game Godville is a zero-player game, requiring no player interaction with the main character? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Godville. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Godville), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk 01:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: SMR Creations (August 20)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RileyBugz was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Izno, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

GameMaker Studio version history deletion[edit]

Moved to Talk:GameMaker Studio#Changelog. --Izno (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of commons category from navbox[edit]

Hi Izno, Could you point me to the policy under which you deleted the bottom link for commons category from Template:Diver organisations? Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_9#RFC:_Should_Sister_Project_links_be_included_in_Navboxes.3F is the relevant RFC. I do not know if it is included in WP:NAVBOX, but it should be given the close of that RFC. --Izno (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
And indeed, the first line of the section at WP:NAVBOX is that navboxes are for Wikipedia. (A later RFC clarifies they are only for English Wikipedia.) --Izno (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
It is not immediately obvious, but I think you are right. Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Hey, you just made a revert on MOS:IB. I proposed a few Infobox mergers and continually face strong opposition's due to lack of any formal policy. WP:INFOCOL is mere essay and WP:INFOBOX leads to MOS. Can this thing be listed in any guideline / policy to slow down the opposition? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 13:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: You need to show consensus for a change or addition first in a guideline or policy. I also don't think that's the right place to put that--and in fact, there may be no place to put it. And that's fine--because of the first bullet. If you face such strong resistance with your attempted merges, those persons might also resist your change to the policy or guideline if they know about it. There is no deadline. Slow down, propose it on the talk page, invite other editors to discuss your ideas. --Izno (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd love to know the views of those opposing policy. People oppose template mergers stating reasons like "there's no need", "both are different", and some even write "per above" and some are too lazy so they just write oppose and sign. If they oppose with reasons I would be happy to listen. But they just oppose for the sake of opposing. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Godville revert[edit]

Moved to Talk:Godville#Revert. --Izno (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Izno. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/Counter-Strike: Global Offensive/archive1.
Message added 01:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've added some more content, what do you think? Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Many apologies[edit]

Many apologies for my mistake at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion. The reference I should have given was PC game and I have put this down on the page now. Vorbee (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Please take care.[edit]

Hi with your edit here [1] you messed up about 50 translusions of {{Paraphyletic group}} transclusions. If you add a {{Template for discussion/dated}} template, be sure to enter a new line before the table syntax, as otherwise the table fails. Basically {| must start on a newline, although HTML tags are allowed beforehand. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 02:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: Oye! I usually remember to check. --Izno (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

A year ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
gnome
... you were recipient
no. 1477 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox fictional location[edit]

Moved to Template talk:Infobox fictional location#Image2 and caption2. --Izno (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Cantabrian regional election, 2015[edit]

Your "clear span" kept changing green-colored text to red-text for no reason, as well as breaking the table's width, and yet you demanded an explanation as to why you were reverted. The Special:Linterrors reasoning seems fair enough, though, so I've now fixed it to your preferred formatting yet without causing the issues that were left unaddressed. Impru20 (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20: Now when was I ever presented such reasoning? Sigh. I would gladly have fixed color issues if I had known I had flipped a color. --Izno (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Below[edit]

Sorry, double vision, thought I'd spotted three belows - two filled + the blank - X201 (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@X201: You did; there's a third filled one. It happens to be in a subgrouped navbox, however. --Izno (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete my template?[edit]

If there is a template dedicated to spacecraft (and starships) named Enterprise, why Template:Spacecraft named Pathfinder should be removed?!

--Aledownload (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Aledownload: That is being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 October 4#Template:Spacecraft named Pathfinder. Please contribute there. --Izno (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox fictional event[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Infobox fictional event has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)