User talk:RichardF/Archive/Archive 2

Can we back off the ABF a bit?

Take a look at this comment between Tony and GTBacchus. I hope you can back down the ABF a bit. GRBerry 02:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, here is the link: Tony's reply. GRBerry 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've noticed some movement at WP:TGS as well. When the evidence evolves, so does my interpretation of it. I believe my recent contributions merit others to AGF about me as well. Rfrisbie^talk 17:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A request

I'm going to request this to every user so please, hear me out. I do recent changes patrol for vandalism and it is very hard to do when users are using the AWB or fast-paced editing to substitute templates for WP:TGS. TGS is good, but when you mass edit it is hard to see vandalism to the userspace. Since there is a function in recent changes to ignore minor edits, could you mark your edits when mass-editing as a minor edit so it is easier for others to find vandalism in Recnt changes. Please consider this method. Thanks! The King of Kings 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I don't mind flagging "bypassed redirect" as a minor change if that's considered okay. I tend not to use it much except for typos & such. Rfrisbie^talk 02:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think in my preferances, there is a function to where you can mark all your edits as minor edits. I suggest activating this function whenever you start this kind of editing. Thank you so much for taking what I said into consideration. Cheers! The King of Kings 02:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Will do. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 02:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Guinea pig userbox

Why did you shift my userboxes around on my page? What is it supposed to accomplish? I liked them the way they were. Fishhead64 05:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh never mind - it's exactly the same. Fishhead64 05:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if it looked different, even if it was just the code. I'm just trying demonstrate another way to help "Stop the war!". :-) Rfrisbie^talk 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:UBX/Userboxes/General Nav

Thanks! It looks much better that way. —Mi r a 06:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. You know...

This user loves to putz around with templates, even if they're not userboxes! >;-o)

Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 11:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, nice. —Mi r a 19:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:UBX/Userboxes/General Nav Option 5 test

Here's a test of User:MiraLuka/UBX#5. Rfrisbie^talk 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:MiraLuka/UBX/5

"Template:GUS UBX to" test

Here's a test of {{User GUS UBX to}} at {{User mutt lover}}. When I put "{{User mutt lover}}" on this page, I get the box below. Rfrisbie^talk 04:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC) {{User mutt lover}} p.s. "Template:TGS UBX to" was renamed to "Template:User GUS UBX to" today. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

Why are you redirecting userbox link to your page? [1], [2] Anwar 19:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anwar,

Jimbo repeatedly has expressed his view that userboxes should be removed from encyclopedic space. The Userbox migration has emerged as a compromise process to stop the userbox wars. Because no "centralized" "role-user" has consensus, individuals have been moving userboxes under their own pages. You can see a listing of the archives at User:GRBerry/Userbox migration and a navigation template at User:UBX/Userboxes/General Nav. We welcome your comments and participation at any of these pages. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 19:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But what's wrong with the existing setup? Anwar 19:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends on who you ask. Personally, I'm a "userbox preservationist." However, many "userbox deletionists" have deleted and/or nominated many userboxes for removal from Wikipedia. Several policy proposals (see Help develop a coherent set of policies on userboxes) have failed to reach consensus. This userbox migration is the first compromise that both side can "live with." It doesn't hurt that it was suggested by Jimbo (May 27, 2006, Jimbo Wales comment). Rfrisbie^talk 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

careful now.....

you broke my user page with this edit: [3]. you basically replaced the regular template with "{{Template:User:Rfrisbie/Userbox/ESTJ}}", which should be "{{User:UBX/ESTJ}}". i fixed it, but be careful, especially with AWB.JoeSmack ^Talk 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I apologize for the break. I missed that syntax in my search-and-replace list. I have four different versions now, so I'll add "Template:User <name>" -> "User:Rfrisbie/Userbox/<name>". Thanks for the heads-up. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 18:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

no problem. glad you've updated your regex. i use AWB myself so i know how these things go. :) cheers. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, getting the order right is fun too! ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 23:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux/UBX

Feel free to list this in any german solution user section. Please leave me a talk page note as to where it went though. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 20:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, links will be at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Religion. Rfrisbie^talk 20:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The Psychology Wiki

Hey there, I noticed that you are interesting in Psychology and thought this might interest you...

We are working hard on the Psychology Wiki and are trying to raise awareness about it by ~~indiscriminately spamming~~ telling as many interested people about it as we can. We have an enormous amount of articles already, mainly copied from Wikipedia at the moment:( but the eventual aim is that it will be edited by professional and student contributors, as well as including personal experiences of users of psychology services. As such it will eventaully be a very different beast to the kind of content that Wikipedia has. Have a look at my nicely new designed Main Page, or leave a message on the talk page or on my Psychology Wiki talk page. Hope to hear from you :) Mostly Zen 02:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of userboxes

I believe this page is designed to be auto updated, and when/if it is updated, then your edits will probably be lost due to it looking at Template:User *. Just thought I would let you know... Ian13/talk 16:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And just out of general interest (it has probably been discussed somewhere...), how do you decide who's userpage deserves a userbox? And does anyone get offended that a userbox they use has suddenly been 'owned' by a user, and that they can speedy delete it at any time...? Ian13/talk 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ian13, thanks for the tip. I knew that page was auto-updated, but I wasn't sure how often so I just did it. I understand the changes will disappear real soon now. The only deciding I know about for "deserving" a userbox, is someone decides to do it. Personally, I prefer a "proxy" username, but they keep getting deleted and blocked by admins. So far, two users have objected to me on this page for moving "Pet" userboxes, Fishhead64 for one in particular, and Bastique for all of them. No one yet has objected to me moving any "Personality" userboxes. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 20:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User boxes

Thanks for the user boxes thing, seems like a sensible thing to do. --Jamdav86 17:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Note, one userbox archiver has decided they don't want to participate further but offered a window to snarf the userboxes that they were archiving. See User talk:GRBerry/German userbox solution#My archive. As you are much more active in implementing the German userbox solution than I, I thought I would alert you. GRBerry 19:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jamdav86 & GRBerry, I thought we needed a few "comprehensive" userpage directories to help organize what's here. I suppose the jury is still out on how "sensible" it all is. :-) I'll take a look at the archive garage sale, thanks. Rfrisbie^talk 20:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

I quote: "Many userboxes are of a clear value to the encyclopedia-building project. Examples include those related to claiming professional or academic expertise, WikiProject affiliations, and claiming access to specialized resources and a willingness to conduct research using them upon request. Templates for these userboxes could stay in template space. Controversial userbox templates that have been the subject of edit and deletion wars are best moved to user space. Non-controversial userbox templates can stay in template space until someone finds a reason/excuse to move them."

So what was wrong with all the pet userboxes? You're citing a policy you're essentially breaking. Every single one of those userbox templates should be restored to their original version. Bastique▼^parler _voir 19:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bastique, I was wondering how long it would take before someone called me on my own words. One thing to keep in mind is that WP:GUS is not policy. At this point, it's just an attempt to try different ways to implement Jimbo's views on userboxes in templatespace.

Referring to creating a specific namespace for userboxes, he wrote,

"This is not an acceptable policy, and it has not achieved the requisite level of consensus. The single most important thing that must be done is the removal of a centralized official space for Userboxes. A userbox namespace is exactly the wrong answer.--Jimbo Wales 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)" [4] (bold added)

Right now, templatespace is the de facto "centralized official space for Userboxes." Clearly, that condition is not acceptable to Jimbo. Many of the discussions at GUS are about which userboxes should be "exempt" from the move out of templatespace. So far, the only group that seems to have substantial support for staying there is Babelboxes. I moved most of the Pet userboxes as a test of the process, including the degree of objections to such a move. To date, you are the second person to object.

For now, I'm willing to take the heat as the process works itself out. If it's ultimately decided where userboxes should go and it's not here, I'll move them. In the meantime, if you decide to move something, I won't object. I also would like to suggest you air your views about this at Wikipedia talk:German userbox solution. If a consensus emerges about whether Pet userboxes should move back to templatespace, stay here, or go someplace else, I'll abide by that. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 20:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

But yet, Jimbo isn't God. We only need to what he says if he basically makes it policy. The issue I have with userfying it is the fact these boxes are suddenly owned by someone, and they can speedy delete them at any time. Basically, anyone could just go on a move and delete rampage... Ian13/talk 12:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, nobody actually owns their userpage. I'm adding something I posted at Wikipedia talk:German userbox solution#Control of userspace userboxes?

Here is the applicable text from the guideline, Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. Rfrisbie^talk 01:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community:

Contributions must be licensed under the GFDL, just as articles are.
Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.
Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere.
In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users.

In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your userpage, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons.

If "speedy deletion" actually occurs, I expect a corresponding response will be taken by the boxes' supporters. I also expect we all agree the sooner a relevant policy is in effect, the sooner we'll be able to move on. Whatever it turns out to be, I'll live with it. Rfrisbie^talk 12:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Floating globe

You have a very interesting floating globe on your userpage, but I cannot figure out what the name of the picture is. I'd like to include it in an article on geodesics if possible. Can you tell me what that picture is? It's the only one that is animated. Many thanks! --HappyCamper 18:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi HappyCamper, because I made it "clickable," you have to "edit" the page to see what it is. I found another animated globe you also might like, but it has a black background. The géode background is transparent! Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 18:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Géode V 3 1 duale.gif	--------	Image:Rotating earth (small).gif

Thanks for the pointers, and the images too! :-) --HappyCamper 19:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Any time. Let me know when you update the article, I'd like to see it! :-) Rfrisbie^talk 19:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

lol!...actually no, I didn't know that page existed. Heh, I'll have quite a bit of fun today I think. I added your two solids to geodesic dome, and I also decided to ask about them at the reference desk. --HappyCamper 22:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Yeah, my browser is spinning now! :-) Rfrisbie^talk 22:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Smiley

Thanks and Great improvement on the Smiley template, why not we move it to the name Smiley itself, I think many will like the small smiley. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 04:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought we'll have both the sizes so the users have a choice.. and don't I deserve an award for the innovation «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 04:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it's your inspiration,

I'll leave that up to you. The smaller version is a bit hard to see details, so I like the larger version too. How about switching them? Rfrisbie^talk 04:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I managed to fix the "expression error." Take a look. {{smiley}} {{smiley2}} Rfrisbie^talk 08:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

great work thanks a lot, there are some other templates thats got the same expression error could you look into it. (I hope I am not asking for too much)

← All templates Done!

Rfrisbie^talk 03:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Also fixed Template:Two digit, Template:Three digit, Template:Four digit, Template:Abudawud, Template:Abudawud-usc, Template:Quran-usc, Template:Quran-usc-range Rfrisbie^talk 11:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

«₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. I'm going to try switching the two smiley templates too because I think most people will expect to see the smaller version first. The larger version makes sense to me to have the larger number too. If you don't like the new arrangement, you always can switch them back.

Rfrisbie^talk 11:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I believe I "fixed" Template:Three digit. It was giving the same type of "expression error" as the smileys. However, it appears to me USC might have changed their file naming conventions. For example, see AL-FATIHA (THE OPENING) or Revelation. If that's the case, how do you want to proceed? Rfrisbie^talk 15:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks brother, I dont think USC has changed it, the templates are working fine but its just showing that error in the page. If USC has changed the convention feel free to adopt the template accordingly. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome.

I'm not really sure what's going on with pages like Apostasy in Islam. It has a lot of broken external links for me. Rfrisbie^talk 21:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that "expression error" isn't fixed after all. I can't figure it out so I asked for help.

I'll keep you posted. Rfrisbie^talk 23:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone just tipped me off to the problem. Those "ParserFunctions" need a "default" value so that the "{" in "{{{1}}}" doesn't cause the error on the template page. Mystery solved!

Rfrisbie^talk 02:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

		The Template Barnstar
		Thanks for your efforts on correcting the errors in templates and modifying the Smiley template «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! My first Barnstar! Now all I need is a barn. Thanks! Rfrisbie^talk 23:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Architecture Wikiproject

I was wondering if you might be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture. Also we've been revamping the Architecture Portal and nominations to Portal:Architecture/Selected picture candidates and Portal:Architecture/Selected article candidates will always be welcome.--Mcginnly 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. Why did you think to invite me?

← {smiley test) Rfrisbie^talk 11:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikifun starts on Sunday

Hi,

I thought you'd like to know: Wikifun Round 13 starts coming Sunday at 21:00 UTC. -- Eugène van der Pijll 18:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This message has been sent to you because your user page is included in Category:Wake me for Wikifun.

Impressive

I find your user page impressive. I'm also an INFP, and our professions are closely related too. Things that make you go hmmmmm :D. whicky1978 21:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi whicky1978, thanks. I copied my basic layout from the Community Portal, and then started putzing from there. I started off as a "mental retardation counselor" in a public school – not quite the same, but I can relate. I've liked Carl Jung, archetypes, the MBTI, etc., for years. One good hmmmmm deserves another!

. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 23:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

GUS straw poll

That might not be a bad idea. I'm sort of a Polls are evil kind of guy, but that just means I'm picky about how they're run. (An even better read is VotingIsEvil.) Given that caveat, if you give me a link to a draft of some ideas, I'll jump right in. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a draft: User:Rfrisbie/Sandbox. Rfrisbie^talk 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

I removed the links because a) they were added by users whose primary additions here have been external links and b) the links were undiscussed on the article's talk page. External links are not necessary to make a good article here, and in fact should only be added sparingly to an article. Considering the Program evaluation article has several links already, please consider determining which links are most appropriate for the article and removing the rest. Thank you --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right in that most edits are not discussed first. However because Wikipedia's popularity is increasingly making it a target for external links spam, the intention of link additions have to be reviewed, not just the content of them.

If you read WP:SPAM, under the second "how not to be a spammer", one of the indications of spamming is "adding the same link to many articles." If you then review Bondag's edits, you'll see his only edits were to add the same link to 3 articles, one of which he wrote. In addition to violating spam guidelines, he also likely violated WP:EL, which clearly states:

"Because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of Wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc. Because neutrality is such an important — and difficult — objective at Wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed links in the Talk section of the article, and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included."

Based on his edits, it seems likely that the editor is at least affiliated with W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Fancisr10's edits, though not quite so blatently spam, have been solely to add external links, which goes against point #2 of "how not to be a spammer" in WP:SPAM, "Contribute cited text, not bare links".

As I mentioned above, external links do not need to be present in an article to make it a good one. Plenty of articles that have even made it to featured article status have zero external links. If a link does not have a corresponding discussion, then there is no obligation to keep it. Removing it is not "inappropriate", nor is the link "valid" or "authentic" without said discussion.

I will not, however, argue with your decision to re-include the link - I will defer to your judgement as I am not an expert on the article's topic. However, I'd appreciate it if you didn't refer to my edit as "invalid", as if I had done something incorrectly. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize for offending you. However, without following someone's edit trail, these still are legitimate evaluation links, IMHO. I also have to point out the obvious that externally-linkless or linksparse articles are not inherently high quality either. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 22:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine - my "task" is primarily to remove links that are spammed. If a regular impartial editor like yourself later reviews the article's history and determines the links are useful, then as far as I'm concerned it's no longer spam.

While I feel that there is something noble about writing a complete and informative article without external links, I concede that some articles do simply require them.

Cheers! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, I think spam patrol is fine. In cases like this, however, (a professional topic) some slack might be warranted here and there. A few months ago, I went to the U.S. association's discussion forum and tried to recruit editors for these types of articles. I got zero replies! :-( When I see someone who actually knows enough about the topic to even be aware of a link, I want to encourage them (assume good faith - don't bite the newbies, as it were). If a spam patrol "slaps them on the hand" with a terse and interpretably confrontational revert, I'm not at all surprised it's so hard to get newbies to dig into sparse but specialized articles. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 23:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding magic words and variables

Questions regarding the use of Wikipedia belong on the help desk rather than the reference desk. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 07:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

GUS Strawpoll

You wrote:

Hi, CharonX, I've been working on a draft GUS straw poll too! Do you want to consider combining them? See User:Rfrisbie/Sandbox :-) Rfrisbie^talk 13:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. :) Charon X/talk 14:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Great! Would you mind looking at my questions at the bottom of the page? Then let me know if you think anything can be combined or just added. You can comment at User talk:Rfrisbie/Sandbox. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 14:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

{{User pandeist}} You collect these!! So, here is a gift for you, a friend, a brother!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 04:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I added it here: User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Religion#Theism as {{User:UBX/Pandeism}} (the other is a redirect). I also removed the categorization from my talk page.

Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 13:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Goodness!! Apologies for errently categorizing you!! And your welcome!!

//// Pacific PanDeist * 19:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I was wondering, did you have a "pandeist" userbox in mind that's different than "pandeism"? If so, we could add something in my area. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 19:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes!! I didn't realize you could, should've thought of it when I saw different boxes for "deist" and "deism". Truly I'm a PanDeist, not merely one interested in PanDeism, so I'd prefer such a box. I am having difficulty getting my boxes arranged on my page, they're all in the middle and one has eaten the next below, so I'd love if you could help me!!

//// Pacific PanDeist * 05:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look at another userbox and your page.

Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 06:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

∞ thanks!

//// Pacific PanDeist * 00:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Nav box show-hide

You probably know more than I do about it. I don't have a clue....at all. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 21:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I found more code at MediaWiki:Monobook.js, but I couldn't figure it out from there either

, so I posted a question. If you're interested and I get a usable answer, I'll pass it along. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 21:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

July is stocked with tips. Could you look them over please?

I've filled July with a selection of tips from the tip authoring page, revisions of previously posted tips, some brand new ones, and some combinations. If you would be so kind as to look them over before they hit the mainstream Wikipedia population, I'd really appreciate it. --Go for it! 17:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. My coments at the talk page. Rfrisbie^talk 08:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dog Userboxes

Recently noticed all these fantastic userboxes that you have created for different types of dogs. A dog breed I did not see is Shih Tzu. I own a Shih Tzu, and I love him. Do you think you can work on a "this user owns one or more Shih Tzus" as well? Please respond on my talk page. Thanks! --S-man 06:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. p.s. Please start new topics at the bottom of the list. Rfrisbie^talk 08:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Done! {{User:UBX/Shih Tzu}}

Rfrisbie^talk 08:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My Stories!

Hi! You might want to read my new online series of books, titled "Stuffed Animal Stories"! All of the stories were written by me, and I'm sure you will love them! If you like them, consider joining the fan club! You can see my whole series or join the fan club here! Thanks! --S-man 10:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)