User talk:Quiddity/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Ref pages templatized

All the ref pages on the ref bar have been templatized.The new templates are:

{{Reference page header}}
{{Reference page section}}

They're ready for your artistic touch.

--The Transhumanist 20:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Search box

I've removed my comments and have summarised in just a few short words. You can find them at the discussion page. Anyways, I must have misinterpreted your words. Admittedly, I was editing under the influence (too tired).

Do you think the issue of coloring the search box should be pursued during the sidebar redesign? I'm almost ready to wave the white flag on the issue, and save it for... whenever another major design change comes about. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks again, Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. It just seems a shame that such an important issue left over from the Main Page redesign would be ignored. I may in the future submit it to Village Pump, but I am still undecided. But you are, of course, right -- it would be even more of a shame to have the Sidebar Project splinter over such an issue.
Hopefully I responded at the right place (I wasn't entirely sure where I should reply to the thread). Anyways, thanks for all your help... and I'll look forward to your support if/when I submit it to Village Pump. Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

color table

You asked if it is used anywhere - and I said no but I got to thinking that it may be to put it in the appropriate place in the wikipedia namespace - along with a chart I have been working on that has all of the HMTL named colors - Scroll down at Trödel/Sandbox2. Have a good day --Trödel 21:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


You ask difficult questions good sir. Since I added the tag, it must probably have had a peer review at some point, but if it isn't in the archives, I have no idea. It should be added that I did a bunch of old peer review template adds, probably hundreds. So it might just have been a mistake. Hard to tell. Inter\Echo 18:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Just FYI, I've added our names to Version 20, as we seem to agree on most things in it. (You're obviously welcome to tweak it whenever, too). I'm trying to whittle the variants down a bit. That's all :) --Quiddity 19:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm changing the toolbox section internal ordering. I'm not sure where you stand on that; it's the bottom thread at the talk page, if you disagree. --Quiddity 19:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm okay with either toolbox configuration.Given the choice, I'd probably go with the order that you just implemented in version 20.—David Levy 20:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

List of reference tables

This page's edit buttons are acting all freaky, and we need to find a fix soon, because we can't really turn them off due to the length of the page. --The Transhumanist 03:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Too much trivia

What is the limit of the trivia section?? The Purple article is only a normal-sized article, and its trivia section contains only 10 pieces of info. Georgia guy 20:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There should not be any trivia sections. See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. The aim is to integrate all information into normal prose english in each article. (Re: Purple -- whilst only 10 items, it makes up 50% of the article. That's especially bad). --Quiddity 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Picking up where we left off

Hey, we've made pretty good strides working together, so there's no need for threats.I've been working closely with you on the ref pages, have not engaged in competition with anyone on those, I stuck to Wikipedia design standards which you support (Wikipedia colors and border thicknesses, maintained consistency between the pages, no endless sandbox edits), and I templatized them on your suggestion.I don't want an argument here, that's not why I've come.I want to pick up where we left off before the conflagration started on the sidebar redesign (You know me, I push an issue pretty hard, but the nature of consensus is that if someone is pushing hard against it, then almost by definition there is no consensus on that issue, unless a lot more people show up - which is rarely the case on such discussion pages.It is much easier to kill a new idea on Wikipedia than it is to promote one.My point here is that I know "basic topics" and "fields of study" won't be on the sidebar redesign final proposal, so it would be futile for me to push that issue any longer.)

The issue at hand, and where we left off, is the section template on the ref pages.We still need to find a solution to the edit button glitch.The easiest immediate solution is to NOEDITSECTION the pages (which I've already done), which works fine on all but the longest page (list of reference tables, which is too long to rely solely on "edit this page").So I've contacted CBDunkerson, the wiki-programming wiz, to get his expert opinion on the templates.

Another solution is to replace the section template with actual embedded code.This doesn't make changing colors any harder, but we'll lose the benefit of the template in easy tweaking of other formatting elements.So we could leave it in there until we are sure there won't be any need to adjust the formatting (depth, margins, padding, etc.), and then embed the code.In the meantime, we can embed the code in list of reference tables, so that its edit buttons work.

The last solution that I know of is to create 2 templates to replace the existing one.One to place before each heading, and one to place after each heading.That way the headings' edit buttons won't be affected, and we'll still have the benefit of implementing adjustments across the set of pages.

Let me know what you think.--The Transhumanist 07:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

According to CB, the 2-template method looks like the way to go.--The Transhumanist 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine. He knows the code better than most of us. --Quiddity 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I was pissed off to see you and david levy arguing, yet again. So, sure, sorry, let's just ignore all that. Ostriches unite :) --Quiddity 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Me too.:-)But I don't want to stick my head in the sand.--The Transhumanist 06:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I tried very hard to avoid getting into an argument.I succeeded until the Transhumanist decided to take issue with a single word from one of my replies ("unilaterally"), claiming that I had defamed him via all sorts of accusations that I never made.I attempted to explain that he had misunderstood my post, but this only convinced him that my alleged deception had escalated to a higher level.
One of my faults is that once I begin arguing something, I can't walk away.That's why I avoid so many of the site's controversial goings-on.As it is, I sometimes sacrifice sleep to type replies to the discussions in which I end up getting myself involved.—David Levy 08:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
But the connotation was clearly there, whether by intention or not.But I sympathize with your arguing problem, because when I get "locked-in" I'm pretty much doomed for the duration just the same. --The Transhumanist 21:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The new templates are done

I've created the replacement templates for {{Reference page section}}, tested them, and have installed them on List of reference tables.They work fine, and the section edit buttons work properly now.

I'll be gone for the foreseeable future (at least a few weeks), and don't have time to install the templates onto the rest of the ref pages.The instructions are included on the closing template, but cutting and pasting the heading block from List of reference tables is just as easy.Just replace the color codes and heading text (don't forget the icon!).

--The Transhumanist 21:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Quiddity 23:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Races and species in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

You just couldn't help yorself, could you? SNive.gif Rfrisbietalk 20:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hence, our well-selected user page pallette choices!

SInnocent.gif Rfrisbietalk 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Quiddity, would this (User:Rfrisbie/Palettes) be of any use to you? I made an HSV table based (more or less) on Wikipedia talk:Colours with some extra shades for two-level headers. Rfrisbietalk 05:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Zow! Nice stuff. You know your wikitables ;) Quiddity 19:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you think some of it would be useful at any of the projects you're working on? Rfrisbietalk 04:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolute color space

moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color#Absolute color space (I'm not a color expert. I was just adding the WikiProject template to everything in the relevant categories. :) I'll add a note about the AfD. --Quiddity 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Then I'll take the liberty to remove the support notice. --Gutza T T+ 19:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Also--I hope this doesn't come as very harsh, but I don't know how else to put it--please don't throw the weight of a WikiProject behind an article as long as you don't really understand what's in there. In this instance, it gave credibility to an article which shouldn't have existed in the first place, and well-intended users wasted their time editing it instead of doing something more useful for Wikipedia. --Gutza T T+ 19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of the purpose of the tagging, was to properly list all the articles that are in the Color categories, so that interested parties can check them over, to determine their worth and validity and accuracy, etc.
If I hadnt, we wouldnt all now know about that article's problems, as they'd be confined to only its talk page. But now you have a large forum of potentially interested/expert people to communicate with!
There are often multiple ramifications for any given action... ;) --Quiddity 21:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge your rationale, but still don't agree that a "support" boilerplate was appropriate for that article in the first place. We're delving into philosophy here, but in essence your line of thought is somewhat similar to saying "the Holocaust was good because the net result is political corectness, tolerance, and Israel." Which is obviously flawed--while the "final solution" certainly did have considerable positive after-effects, its overwhelming direct negative effects make it repugnant and utterly undesirable in retrospect.

Now, before you get the idea that I'm calling you a Nazi, I want to clarify that I'm convinced you acted in good faith when you added that boilerplate--after all, the Color WikiProject's page clearly states "To be emblazoned across the talk pages of every color-related article and non-article color page." With this reply I simply wanted to answer to what I see as flawed logic in your previous post; I honestly don't intend to be confrontational or to insult you. --Gutza T T+ 21:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha! No insult taken, though frankly I lost a lot of respect for you the moment you resorted to that hyperbolic/emotionally-loaded analogy. How were you expecting to get taken seriously?
The only reason I didn't lose all respect for you, was that I "acknowledge your rationale" too. But your method of explanation in that reply is ridiculous and ghastly (according to my own world view).
The phrase you are looking for is, "The ends do not justify the means".
As for "and well-intended users wasted their time editing it instead of doing something more useful for Wikipedia". No, they didnt -- check the dates. Nobody has edited since I added the template. Get your facts straight before accusing someone of something! :P
(I hope you don't think I'm being confrontational!) ((I'm sure there's a proper linguistic term for apologizing immediately after an insult, as if that somehow retracts it, but I cannot seem to discover it right now... (not that I was insulted, I just enjoy technical jargon)))
(And I'm not going anywhere near your supposition that Israel is a "good" thing. Have you seen the news lately?! ;)
So there! :-P ;-)--Quiddity 02:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's leave it at that then. I think you misunderstood what I meant to say, but we both already invested too much time in a pointless discussion. --Gutza T T+ 06:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nono! Did my message above not come across as tongue-in-cheek/smiling? It was intended that way.
I was being incredibly hyperbolic, in response to your using a Holocaust analogy(!), over so simple a matter as a project tag on a talkpage.
Anyway, don't worry, and happy editing :) --Quiddity 07:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, since you come so hard on me with the Holocaust thing, I challenge you to provide another universally known analogy for the following situation: someone does something unaware of its consequences, the consequences are (or could be) strongly negative, there are some positive after-effects to his/her original action, and she/he argues that the positive after-effects are worth the initial action, disregarding the actual (or potential) negative effects and arguing there are ramifications nobody can predict. Please note I'm a Romanian, therefore what you and I consider common knowledge might be two almost completely disjunct sets of events.

Please note that you shouldn't feel in any way offended now--you might even be entitled to gloat, if you're so inclined--given that I retracted my request for deletion on this article. Therefore I feel more at large now talking about the logic of your reactions, given that you can't accuse me (explicitly or implicitly) of rubbing your nose into it (which I really never intended, by the way.) --Gutza T T+ 07:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. No offence taken at all :) Sorry, my rambling was misinterpreted too, I get tired of formality sometimes, and resort to expressive-but-ambiguous turns of phrase.
As for an alternative analogy, I can't think of one offhand. I had thought "the ends do not justify the means" covered it as an abstraction, but now that I think about it harder, they don't really cover the same problem at all. How about, "A kid throwing stones off a bridge onto a highway (mischeivously), happens to alert a sleepy truck driver, helping him to avoid a collision".
It was just too close to godwin's law for my comfort ;) Not a big deal, just a pet peeve.
Anyway, as you said, we must move on to other things! Happy editing, and see you around the place :) --Quiddity 08:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Humm... yes, I did consider Godwin's law when I wrote that, but I was also unable to come up with a better analogy. Anyway, I'm glad I was mistaken and you didn't actually think I was the bastard that I tought you thought I was. :-) Cheers! --Gutza T T+ 09:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for talking my querry seriously

In response to Five Pillars of Wikipedia, the link was quite insightful. Interestingly, Last I checked there are no images of Mohammut on his page, none of which would have any historical significance anyway, and would be cause much disrespect (worthy of death in some states) to the Islamic doctrine of iconoclyst. So at least Wikipedia is somewhat respectful. I bow to the majority leaving it as is. Thanks.

mea gulpa

Sorry I put my idea in the wrong place - gulp - I am a wikinovice who has not yet taken vows - I put my idea where it probably belongs. Lgh 04:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the tinyurl is not broken, I've just reopened it. It points here:


Hi Quiddity,
Radiant!'s home page inspired me to try out a copy-cat version. Check it out. SNive.gif Rfrisbietalk 01:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

John McEntire

Hi Quiddity.This content in question was removed because it was unsourced and contributed by an IP address known for vandalism.If you can provide a source for this, please feel free to restore it.Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hmmm, I see what you mean. Ok, thanks :) --Quiddity 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

sidebar action

regardless of if you start or finish projects, just to let you know, i'm going to be out of town for the weekend which probably means a lot of the sidebar voting action. although i think it'll mostly be votes, you may want to watch my talkpage to see if anyone replies to my Talkpage notes i just dropped to people. cheers. JoeSmack Talk 06:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S.and we're all just project starters in some sense: wikipedia is a project that won't ever end.

P.S.S. man, that was deep. ;) JoeSmack Talk 07:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Muahah! Epiphany is the journey and the destination. --Quiddity 07:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Now that was deep. I'm going to save that one somewhere... :) JoeSmack Talk 07:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Template advice

Hi, I've seen your comments at WP:TEMPLATE and you seemed to know what you are talking about. I thought you might be able to help me with a question I have.

I am working on another wiki which is being used for a private project. It is using MediaWiki, so the template markup is the same as for WP. Essentially, we are trying to use our wiki to write a book. Some pages on the wiki are sources we are going to use for the book, others are actual book chapters.

I would like to setup a template that I stick at the top of every page that contains a book chapter, say by typing {{bookchapter}}<nowiki>. The page would then be formatted as follows: the text entered in the rest of the page would be compressed so it was around 80 characters wide, with a margin on the left of about ten or so characters. Then, in the big gap on the right of the page, there would be a "toolbox" which contains various links to different parts of the wiki. I have been able to do this using <nowiki> <div> tags, but doing it that way clutters up the page. I would rather just be able to add the template tag at the top, and have the page automatically formatted. Do you have any idea how I could do this?

Many, many thanks! --Jim (Talk) 17:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I just know where things are, not how to build them! sorry :(
I'd suggest asking at Wikipedia:Computer help desk or meta:Help:FAQ#I have a question not answered here. Where do I go next?. Hope that helps. --Quiddity 18:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks mate. I will keep trying! Jim (Talk) 11:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Your revert is hours out of date. You wiped out more recent changes which included an earlier revert of the removal you seemed concerned about. I don't understand how you managed to do that ;). NoSeptember 19:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, whoops! It had (top) next to it in his contribs list, and the page takes so long to load I must not have seen the "newer edit →" link. Thanks for fixing :) --Quiddity 20:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Sorry - the link for his user page was red and I thought I could do some housekeeping by removing it. Auroranorth 09:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Compliment a Wikipedian! and A nice cup of tea and a sit down.

Hello Quiddity

I have noted your redirect of Wikipedia:Compliment a Wikipedian! and have also noted that there are almost no compliments this month (three, compared to WP:THANKS's five in it's week of operation). I would like to help promote WP:TEA as it is failing. The name must also be promoted as Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down is no sentence a normal human being would know unless they had previously heard of it. Auroranorth 09:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the only reason WP:THANKS got 5 msgs, is because it was listed on the Community Bulletin Board; but notices are only there for 7 days, after which it would have dropped 'off the radar'.
I'd suggest you discuss and organize things with Wikipedia:Esperanza and/or Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign. Either to promote WP:TEA, or to properly formalize your WP:THANKS proposal into something unique.
The place for a permanent link (for either WP:TEA or WP:THANKS) would be under Wikipedia:Community Portal#Resources in the "Community support groups and programs" section.
Thanks :) --Quiddity 18:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tutorial (Editing)

Thanks for reverting Chuck's addition as ostensibly making little sense; I myself didn't revert because I thought perhaps the formulation was simply too recondite for my comprehension, but I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who was a little confused (I think I gather Chuck's meaning, but I don't think the reference is appropriate for the tutorial in any case).Of course, it's eminently possible that we're both crazily dense... :) Joe 19:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia principles – two-level header palette

What do you think (Template talk:Wikipedia principles)? Rfrisbietalk 18:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to apologise for List_of_theatrical_works_by_W._S._Gilbert - I generated it from a table, and am pokign at it off and on to get it into shape, but it's low-priority compared to the main text of the W. S. Gilbert article, which is still in need of a lot of work. Ach, weel! Adam Cuerden talk 19:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


well quiddity, the sidebar redesign project has slowed. what's next? JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 06:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Next it gets handed off to the programmers, with our blessings and thanks? --Quiddity 07:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Who are the programmers? JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 15:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The folks reading Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/programming, specifically Dragons flight and Rob Church, i think. (Rob volunteered to "suspend my development break" to do the main coding). He said something about putting the request on Bugzilla, but I don't know how or where.--Quiddity 20:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction templates

I restored the prior introduction pages - I didn't see anywhere this was discussed prior to the change - I think it looks good to have the header tied into the tutorial better, but lets get concensus first on Template talk:Please leave this line alone. thx--Trödel 00:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

List of portals

moved to Portal talk:Browse#List of portals

Your accusation

It was totally uncool and inappropriate to accuse me of violating WP:OWN. I have neither proceeded in the face of opposition nor impeded others from working on those pages.Therefore, WP:OWN does not apply.

As for WP:DISCUSS, that is a guideline, which YOU and 3 others drafted and ratified.The message at the top of the page reads "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."How can that be true if hardly anyone knew about it at the time it was being written, or since?That statement is highly misleading, no, it's blatantly false, and gives your little custom rule more weight than it deserves.But let me remind you that guidelines are not binding, especially when you bypass the procedure and follow the spirit they were aiming for.In that regard, there was no retrograding of the pages I've been working on.They've continually improved.There has been no opposition, and no edit warring.I have a great deal of experience with Wikipedia's design elements and with the modifying (and creating) of top-level pages, having personally initiated the overhaul of most of them.I've acquired a feel for what will be accepted versus what will cause alarm.Tweaking has been at a minimum because I'm now fairly fluent in wiki markup.The styles and colors are in line with the rest of Wikipedia's "high-level" pages.There have been no complaints that I know of concerning the refbar page designs, just compliments.

The most important detail in this little confrontation you've started is that you haven't pointed out anything which you dislike about the reference page design formats, nor have you pointed out any problems with my development of them. Instead, you've been using the guideline as a weapon, bringing it out and waving it around whenever you are confronted on issues which have nothing to do with the page layouts.The sidebar/extortion incedent is a prime example.And it is in writing for everyone to plainly see.

You boldly moved forward with the portal page merge, and when I reverted you, you totally changed the subject and accused me of policy and guideline violations on the unrelated previously mentioned page layouts, even though you know that I have followed the spirit of the relevant guidelines.Quiddity, you are not being honest, and therefore you are not acting in good faith.You've violated 3 policies that I know of so far: attacks, civil, and good faith.

We're supposed to be working toward reaching consensus, but instead you have been employing tactics to try to get what you want.Please stop.

I'm very disappointed, because we were starting to get along rather well.--The Transhumanist 14:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly you mean exhortation, but regardless, I implore you to assume good faith. There was agreement for the Portal:Browse merge: cyberjunkie (the page's main maintainer) and rfrisbie and I preferred the original design. My other reasons for wanting a quick merge are mentioned at Portal talk:Browse (confusion over duplicated content)
As for your accusations, I have made no personal attacks, have been as civil as I can be in all recent interactions, and have assumed as much good faith as is possible. My mentioning DISCUSS and OWN was intended as a reminder, not an accusation.
I shouldn't have mixed the discussion of List of basic topics in with the Portal merge discussion, though they are two sides of the same coin (and you still haven't answered my question concerning consensus over the List of articles, an overview multiple pagename moves. Though I see others have complained at your talkpage about it).
I know we both just want a good encyclopedia, but our divergent ideas on how that is best achieved seem to cause a lot of conflict. I'm sorry that seems to happen, but that is how strong opinions work. We're both lovers of lists and ontologies, and probably too smart (and young) for our own good, which is why I'm trying to be cautious about changing the top taxonomies of Wikipedia (see: this discussion).
I think the other points have been addressed elsewhere. --Quiddity 22:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I just saw a redlinked-talkpage-user editing a page I watchlist, and went to give a welcome template. I checked their edit history to give a quick scan, as I always do before welcoming someone, and it was instantly obvious that it is you.

Now I'm guessing that you're resorting to using multiple accounts again, after the last few days of argumentative discussion with myself and others. But I'm hoping this isnt necessary. I really don't intend to aggravate you on purpose. You really do incredibly good work with content generation, and you're obviously an immensely well-read person, something I admire greatly - words are the most potent things humans have yet devised and my bible is the dictionary - but you also have a tendency to overdevelop - cases in point List of basic thinking-related topics, or thought.

Personally, I'm a minimalist - I am that person who mercilessly edits what others contribute, attempting to refine and clarify and simplify without losing any signal. Which I guess is why we're always interacting in this way? We're interested in many of the same subjects, so we're going to keep bumping into each other, and I truely would like to work things out better, as this is an uncomfortable stalemate we seem to be in.

I'll end by apologizing for inappropriately beinging up the basic topic lists issue, my only defence is that was a 3am gut-reaction to your (to my mind) hasty revert of the Portal:Browse merge, which as I mention above, I did see as having consensus. The wp:own and wp:discuss pointers were intended to refer to this discussion, which had been on my mind for a while.

I hope that we can get along as fellow editors, and that you won't feel it necessary to use multiple accounts in the future. Sincerely, --Quiddity 07:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Control that temper of yours, and we'll get along just fine.That account you spotted was reserved for sandbox editing, but I forgot what account I was logged on with from time to time.Oh well.--The Transhumanist 12:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I can't find nor remember your question about "the overview articles list".Only one person complained on my talk page about my approach (because of the Geometry article, but that move was a no-brainer).The other person, David, was just lending a hand by pointing out the glitches in my use of punctuation in article names, cuz he knew I'd do whatever was needed to fix 'em.Good guy. --The Transhumanist 13:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Vandal tags

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}).Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked.If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention.Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better.--Dylan Lake 14:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


thanks for getting the POV/NPOV refs correct. DGG 18:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Now you're getting it...

I think we're getting more and more on the same wavelength all the time.You're move of Wikipedia:Refrence pages pages is a good example.The new name you have chosen is a better name.Not having to discuss it in advance frees you up to make another change somewhere.If you push change too far beyond what the community wants, believe me, they'll let you know.:-) --The Transhumanist 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to be contrary (!) but it was discussed, both here and here. I had even filled out all the templates for a full-process page move, after I realized I had misinterpreted your last edit here as a reversal of your initial disagreement; but then I gave in to temptation, and went for the easier instant-move, as I knew it would just leave a redirect at Wikipedia:Reference pages, so you or anyone else could easily revert at once. ermm. yeah :) --Quiddity 21:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Forgot about that post - it was way back in August!That's too much time lag for me.I prefer 5 minutes, or 5 seconds. :-) If you can reasonably assume no one will object, just change it.If you guessed wrong, they can change it back.YOU CONTRARIAN!--The Transhumanist 07:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Category page

I've been working on categories page.Comments welcome.Will take a look at cycles as per your request.Thanks for the opportunity.--The Transhumanist 07:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks great. I like the use of "Main category: " more, now that it's consistent within the page. We should probably decide on a convention to use at Wikipedia talk:Contents, whether that or bolding or small caps or what.
I'm just going to tweak the history section a bit, and I'm also going to replace the geography section images with a continent link instead, so that it can be inserted back in the normal order. Those images are a non-essential use of the {{click}} template, and not that useful for the space they take up. --Quiddity 08:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia principles

Check out Template talk:Wikipedia principles. Rfrisbietalk 17:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Shouldn't you have admin tools? —Centrxtalk • 22:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't really 'need' them currently, though I might apply for the mop after Christmas. I'll see how time pressures are going then. Too much to read for me to contemplate this month ;) --Quiddity 22:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Tables color

List of reference tables looks blanched compared to the other pages in the headerbar set.Is there something you can do to fix that? --The Transhumanist 21:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The border was a bit dark, and greenish, so I fixed that.Also, missed the footer during the color change, so I fixed that too. --The Transhumanist 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are trying to keep it to scheme, but I was going for yellowish, not greenish.Can you shift it a bit toward the red side of the spectrum.Also, the border is ugly.Needs to be a little lighter, and definitely not green.--The Transhumanist 21:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Turquoise makes a good base color.Good job.I couldn't quite find an orange scheme that works.Could you?I think pumpkin would make a good base, if we get the right saturation, and not too pink.For use on one of the other pages with a redundant color scheme.--The Transhumanist 21:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Contents#Page colouring. --Quiddity 22:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism alert

There's a TechSpot ad in List of articles, an overview#Geography and places standing in for the arctic map.

I can't figure out how to restore the map, nor figure out where the ad is coming from.Please help.

Here's the image/link:


I think it is the replacement image that shows up when the specified size is too small for the image to be shrunk down.Trouble is, I don't know what that image is called.

--The Transhumanist 23:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Concerning Category talk:Glossaries#Transfer to Wictionary? and after seeing how frustrated the proposer was with our opposition, I decided to research the issue and found that copying the glossaries to Wiktionary doesn't necessarily mean removing them from Wikipedia.I've added my support, with the condition that the glossaries remain on Wikipedia.--The Transhumanist 09:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyway.

Your automated response was kind of meaningless. I don't register because I don't feel like signing in everytime I make an edit. Again, thanks anyway. 06:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you've earned it...

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gifWorking Man's Barnstar.pngBarnstar of Diligence.pngGDBarnstar1.pngBarnstar of Diligence.pngWorking Man's Barnstar.pngTireless Contributor Barnstar.gif
The "I'm Really Impressed" Barnstar Barage!

For graphic design, workin' hard, and diligent relentless non-stop editing week after week on the contents pages of Wikipedia, including but not limited to Contents, Overviews, Fields, Glossaries, Basic topics, Topics, Tables, Portals, and Categories...
Quiddity/Archive 3 is hereby awarded this fireworks display of barnstars! On behalf of the Wikipedia community, thank you.  
  The Transhumanist   09:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)