User talk:Saxifrage/Archive 3

This is an archive from 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC). Leave new messages at my talk page.

---

The history of this archive begins at this diff and ends at this diff.

Shawnigan Lake School

Hi, it was probably just a mistake but it on Jan 4 you edited "Shawnigan Lake School" and marked it as "minor" with a description of "wikilink town name". However the entire article was removed (looked like a revert to November) so that only a one-liner stub remained. I fixed it by reverting to a version 2 days earlier, so if you still have a minor "wikilink town name" edit to do you should probably redo it. If you had some other intention, just let me know. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLS (talk • contribs)

How to edit talk pages - Asterix

Yay! I thought that looked like the only way. Thank you very much! iPhil 12:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

vampire edits

Hi Saxifrage, THX for catching the "rv nn" that DreamGuy did to my edit on the Vampire article. Falcon caught it too; I appreciate both your (4) eyes. :) Z Wylld 19:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

File Transfer Protocol

The user, "Saxifrage" has misinterpreted my edit on the FTP external links section for FTP.

The Insanitor FTP Tutorial Wizard is not a commercial website. It is an interactive tutorial on how to setup an FTP site. There is no financial gain for me when someone accesses the tutorial. This tutorial is superior to any other tutorial on the internet today. The tutorial is free for anyone to use. Show me a better tutorial for beginners! The other links I saw there are inferior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanitor (talk • contribs)

Replied on your Talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage, since you have completely destroyed my reputation with your editing, and your remarks, I believe that it is futile to try and get the link added through your "legal means".

What a shame. A lot of people could have been helped by my tutorial.

I will not be adding the link to my site again. Thanks a lot.... :\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanitor (talk • contribs)

Replied on your Talk page. — Saxifrage ✎

Ok Saxifrage, I made my case. We shall see who is right on this. I made my case here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:File_Transfer_Protocol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanitor (talk • contribs)

Étincelle

Do not distort comments of others.

Saxifrage, your edit gives the wrong impression that Bensaccount was replying to you. Do not insert your post inside someone else post. Also, do not reuse a signature of another person. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 14:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I consider the above bad, if not terrible advice, and I strongly support your actions on the talk page in question. Bensaccount and Etincelle are disrupting the policy talk page, and I expect it is not long before they become subject to adminstrative sanction. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he was replying to me with the first line, Étincelle. What he wrote there could not by any stretch of the imagination have been meant for any other editor. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with standard practices here, which include replying within other editor's comments when they have multi-part comments addressed to multiple editors or topics, so long as doing so does not change the meaning of the other's words. Regardless, I have reformatted my reply to still directly address Bensaccount's comment to me without adding a line break to his post. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Editors complain most of the time when others insert comments inside their post. The complaints are very straigtforward: "do not insert your comments inside my post because it breaks the orginal flow of idea." In the case of Bensaccount post (a single paragraph), you inserted your comment after the first senstence. After your edit, it appears (if we are not looking at the time on the signature, which is usually the case) as if Bensaccount simply ignored your reply with "Anyways,.." in the second sentence. However, the details do not matter here. I never seen before someone argue that it is acceptable to break someone else paragraph in two parts to insert a comment. It is certainly against Wikipedia guidelines which say that we must insert new posts at the end. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 20:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It offends you, and that is enough. There are sufficient alternatives for me to use that fulfills the same purpose, so I will refrain from doing this thing that so obviously bothers you. I can hardly hold your lack of experience with Talk pages against you on such a petty matter. I disagree with your analysis of the discourse structure, but it is now immaterial since I changed my comment. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

You mixed two things: (1) we can put back the essential and continue to use the talk page if we keep it short and (2) we should only provide the final proposal. Again, you could not open yourself to the fact that this is a discussion that perfectly fits in the talk page. The point (1) makes sense (and I don't mind that we refactorize the talk page from times to times when it gets too long), but not the point (2). -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 03:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained why (2) makes sense, and you've not really rebutted my reasoning.

As for (1), you missed the most important point, which is that I would not support returning the essential back unless it were to result in specific resolutions promptly. This is in contrast to the previous state of affairs, where no resolution was even being approached. Refactoring from time to time is not a solution that has any bearing on the problems identified, which are endlessness, dominance of the Talk page by two editors, and lack of results relevant to the policy page. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The above is only your subjective evaluation of the situation. The fact is that we are not violating any rule. We are not spamming. You should realize that your POV makes you violate policy. You cannot control the talk page. Even a majority should not control a talk page. You don't realize how important this is. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 03:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you plan on coming to a conclusion in your debates any time soon? Offering any concrete suggestions as to how to change the page? Talk pages are not chat rooms. You forget that policy is not the be-all-end-all of Wikipedia. Rather, the community is, and right now you're actively ignoring the demands from the community that you amend your behaviour. How many people does it take until you will believe that the consensus is against your choice? — Saxifrage ✎ 05:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In this case, a very very large number of editors will be required. I believe that there is an overall bias amongst a gang of admins and frequent editors of Wikipedia. I know that I have a viewpoint that challenges that. I am not against policy. I am not spamming. It is not healthy that a minority viewpoint is excluded from the talk page. In fact, it maybe only due to a strategy of this Wikipedia gang, which consists in excluding and attacking any editor that has a challenging view, that the number of their opponents is apparently small. This is not healthy. Therefore, until after I see that you and others adopt a more logical and open minded attitude, I don't think that such a superficial majority will be taken into account. Does this answer your question? A real consensus based on thoughtful discussions will be needed. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 12:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So you believe your judgement is worth more than that of any other editor, such that it would require a very large number of other editors to balance your opinion? Have you read Wikipedia:Consensus?

(As for your concerns about a "gang", this is a common perception among those who have unpopular views. In fact, it is so common that it is a well-known joke: Wikipedia:Cabal. It's also a violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith to dismiss views you don't like as just editors' forming a gang against you. Try listening?) — Saxifrage ✎ 20:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I am not alone. We are at the least three to think that the way me and others used the talk page was fine. Most likely, there are many more. Yes, we have the right to have our opinion. It is not us that dismiss the views of others. It is not us that ask others to move their view out of the talk page. We just refer to what the policy says, and it says that we have the right to use the talk page the way we used it. I think this discussion is over since it is obvious that you are completely biased. With my experience with this kind of discussions, I am not expecting that you will agree with me. If you want to open your heart and mind and see the facts, we can continue, but I don't expect it will happen. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 20:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You keep referring to this policy that says that your way of using the page is allowed. Quote it to me.

You have the right to your opinion. However, you do not have a right to use any part of Wikipedia for whatever you like—we are all guests here, and have no intrinsic rights to anything here.

If you want to claim "many more" invisible opinions, I can do the same: there are at least four editors who oppose your actions, and I can then claim that there are many more. However, this kind of reasoning is absurd.

In any case, I welcome the end of this conversation. You have already decided you are in the right and are unwilling to hear voices that say otherwise, no matter how many, no matter how many of them are respected administrators. That only a very large number would begin to convince you otherwise is unhealthy in a Wikipedia editor. And, since you will continually be told to stop at the page in question, if you wish to end this at the only place left to you then it is about time. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy

Copied from Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) talk page:

"It remains that any selective removal should be done with a consensus because otherwise it is against policy."

Which policy are you referring to exactly? — Saxifrage ✎ 06:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant that the policy allow us to use the talk page the way we did. Your selective removal has the purpose to prevent us from using the talk page in accord with policy. Again, if the purpose was just an archiving with no opposition to the ungoing discussion, there will be no problem. Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) -13:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. If you could quote the piece of policy that is relevant, I might be convinced otherwise. Failing that, I will remain convinced that ignoring other editor's concerns about how your use of a community resource negatively impacts others' ability to use that same resource is contrary to Wikipedia's principles of collaboration and consensus-based decision-making. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it is you that must prove that we violate policy. We are just using the talk page as it should be used (see Talk_page#Usage). We are not against policy. I insist that you and others have no right to prevent us from using the talk page, as long as we use it in accordance with policy. We are not even violating any guideline. There are at the least three editors that think that we used the talk page just fine. There are maybe four or five editors that want to exclude our view from the talk page. You are just trying to convince yourself that a majority can exclude the views of others from the talk page. You are so blind that you cannot see the facts. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer me this: What is a Talk page for? Then answer this: What are you using it for? Therein lies why your actions are being opposed. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent approach! There is no difference between the first and second answers. Therefore, the opposition to our actions has no basis. I think you should give up this intellectual approach, and consider another angle. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing how to accurately represent the subject of a page on that page. You are using it to discuss the subject itself. This is why it is "chatter", and why the answer to the above two question is not the same. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. We appreciate the subject of the page and we are not discussing it. We are using the talk page exactly as it should be used. Just below us, some editors were discussing whether or not editors should disclose any possible conflict of interest. We are not discussing the subject any more than these editors did. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote there, some of that is fine. You notice that no-one objected to your discussions until it became evident that they were going to keep on going for a long time. Thus "long-running discussions". You are discussing policy, not the policy page. That's not the place for it. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You say that in the policy talk page editors should have a limited tolerance for opinions that challenge the statu quo of the policy. I reply to this view in the section below. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 16:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is a straw man argument. I have never argued that there should be "limited tolerance for opinions that challenge the status quo". I have argued that there is little tolerance for material on the talk page that is not about improving the talk page. This includes chatter like "wow, this policy is great!" and "wow, this policy is broken!".

Just because your months of posting falls into the second category, you seem to make the mistake that it is the content of your posting that I object to. In reality, it is the lack of content that has a bearing on the page that I object to.

There are a few ways in which your months of posting might have had some relevance to the page and therefore been tolerated:

• If more editors had be participating, thus having some chance of it being a useful consensus-building conversation about policy.
• If it had had some termination when it became clear that no conclusions were forthcoming and other editors were not going to join in.
• If it was accomplished with a far smaller amount of text generated, even if the first two didn't happen.

Any of those would have made it less disruptive of the page. It being less disruptive, it would have been more tolerated. However, it was highly disruptive and never-ending, and you're current argument for your right to disrupt the page is not gaining you any sympathy. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you insist with your point, let me just say that you find my edits disruptive (too long, no concludion, etc.) because you don't like them. They were contentful. You also refer to the fact that we were only three in support of the last discussion, but I already responded to that. The bottom line here is that you think that because there is a majority on your side that you are right. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 01:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't read minds, and you're violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith. The form of your discussions is objectionable, not the content. Go, discuss to your hearts' content. Elsewhere. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving discussion in the Village Pump.

Saxifrage, either you are not honest with yourself or you are not honest with us. Just look at the title that was given to the subpage where some dumped our discussions. The message is not "please go show this to many more people" like you are telling us now. I explained in my last post (in the NPOV talk page) what the problem is. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So, what are you telling me? That you refuse to go show it to more people because you think someone has told you not to? Stop making excuses. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, when you said you would reply on my talk page, you failed to address this central point:

"This is why editors are encouraged to become familiar with Wikipedia before diving into policy discussions. Your lack of experience leaves you unfamiliar with the appropriate uses of particular pages. For instance, at Talk:Nintendo, general talk about the company is removed. Only talk about how to make the article reflect the company is appropriate. Here, the parallel is that you are talking about the Undue Weight policy, not about how to make the page accurately reflect the policy. A certain amount of that is tolerated on policy pages where it is not tolerated at article pages, however, a certain amount does not include several months. (This is why the discussion about biographies is not out-of-line yet.) Do you see the difference? — Saxifrage ✎ 22:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)"

Let me also consider the following -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 15:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

But it is your intention to discuss policy rather than the policy page here against the will of the rest of the editors. A use of this page for which it is not intended nor suited. Am I mistaken? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The argument that you present above to suppress opinions from the policy talk page is weak because what applies to the article main space does not necessarily apply to policy. A policy is not a WP article about itself. You use this strange interpretation of policies and/or guidelines to argue that in the policy talk page editors should have little tolerance to comments/questions that challenge the statu quo of the policy (the subject). Five editors have mentioned that they share this view, but three editors have mentioned that they disagree. These are facts known at this time. As I said previously, even a vast majority should not suppress the opinion of a minority in a policy talk page. It is fundamentally wrong.

I'm not describing policy. You have to get rid of this obsession with policy. I'm describing the community response to a misuse of a community resource. It has nothing to do with policy and has everything to do with the community losing patience with new editors who refuse to listen to multiple voices of experience. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If no consensus can be obtained to change the policy despite an environment that does not suppress opinions, this is excellent. It proves that there is a meaningful support from the community for the policy. Otherwise, it only proves that a group of editors, perhaps a majority but maybe not, is afraid that eventually there will be a consensus against their view. Even if it was a large majority, such a majority should not feel the need to suppress the opinions of a minority, as if they were afraid that these opinions could gain in popularity. Proposing an interpretation of policies and guidelines to support a suppression of opinions from a policy talk page, would not make it right. The policy talk page is the natural place to express an opinion that is specifically about the policy. You can require that at some point we also express this opinion to a larger group in the Village pump. Sure, but it is natural to first discuss it in the policy talk page where it has the appropriate visibility. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 12:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

So go talk about it at the Village Pump or somewhere else with high visibility. I don't care if you talk about policy and have a huge audience, so long as you're not abusing a page that is not for such a long-running discussion, and which other people are trying to use for its intended purpose. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We will use the Village Pump when we want. We think we will have a better visibility if we have this discussion where it fits. This is what I mean by appropriate visibility. You simply repeat again and again that our discussion of a policy does not fit in the talk page of this policy, and this makes no sense to me. You did not provide any valid argument to support that point. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 20:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Give it up Enticelle, aka Lumiere aka other users. Enough is enough, really. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just replying. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No, do give it up. You're obviously not interested in hearing anything that contradicts you, seeing how you keep making up bad-faith reasons for my words. Since I'm confident consensus is on my side, I realise I don't have to convince you of anything and I'm am now done here. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:NPOV

Please note that continuing the discussion with that particular editor over there, may not be the best approach. Check his contribs list. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A very good point, and I really should not let the temptation get to me. As for the contribs list, I don't think it's evidence of bad faith editing. It is however evidence of lack of experience editing regular articles, and a lack of exposure to all the lessons that one learns by having to collaborate on contentful things. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The views of other editors with different kind of contribs list have been excluded by the statu quo gang. Editors with any kind of contribs list are called trolls, etc. as soon as they challenge the statu quo. My contribs list is not the issue here. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the ""status quo gang"? There is no such a thing. Look at your contribs log: It says everything: an editor that throug multiple usernames is contributing solely to discussions about policy to the point of disruption. See WP:POINT and relent, please. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The statu quo gang are those who do not want to discuss possible ways to improve the policies in the talk pages of these policies. You ignored my counter argument to your attack that points to my contribs list. This really says every thing. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

More discussion at NPOV

Just for the record, I do not have the intention to codified any rule or criteria. How to use the policy should be simple. The idea of having a list of criteria that must individually be respected to justify inclusion is very simple. I cannot see anything simpler. It does imply that the violation of any of these criteria must be a reasonable justification for exclusion, but this is also natural. So, you see, I favor simplicity. However, I am willing to listen more about your understanding of the policy. I am particularly interested to know what you suggest that we do when a number of editors strongly reject a view (or strongly want to include a view) in an article using their own biased application of the policy to this specific article. Consider that even after an Rfc was made, etc. these editors still don't give up. They would give up if the policy was clearer, but unfortunately nobody is interested to clarify the policy. The situation is much more problematic if these editors include some admins, which can obviously happen. The result might simply be that these editors will succeed to create a biased article. If we are lucky, it will have a dispute tag, but maybe not. -Lumière 03:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Until you recognise consensus as the prime foundation of Wikipedia underlying all other core policies, you won't understand my objection to your continued worrying at the NPOV policy. Until then I fear we can't have a meaningful discussion on this.

Sure, consensus is a fundamental ingredient, but to say that it the only fundamental ingredient would be wrong. We must have a consensus around the policy. A consensus around a misinterpreted policy would be no good. Also, it is more difficult to achieve any consensus if the policy is not clear.

I didn't say it was the only, I said it was fundamental. Consensus decision-making underlies everything about Wikipedia including the policy. An exhaustive list of rules on what is and isn't "prominent" or "undue weight" is wholly unnecessary to resolving the practical problems you describe when consensus decision-making is pursued. It is my assertion, in fact, that consensus decision-making is how to determine "prominent" and "undue weight".

The basic premise behind and the reason for consensus decision-making is that the collective decision-making ability of a large number of editors is better than that of any one editor. What you are doing by insisting on there being explicit rules for what is and isn't "prominent" or "undue weight" that one editor can apply without bias, is asserting that the judgement of one editor should be enough to create a fair and neutral article if only that one editor had a clear-enough NPOV policy to follow. This is contrary to the spirit and purpose of the entire project. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

(As an aside, either you have been unclear in the above statement or you have contradicted yourself: to say you "do not have the intention to codified any rule or criteria" and then to say that "[t]he idea of having a list of criteria that must individually be respected to justify inclusion is very simple" is a contradiction. Either you want to codify the criteria or you don't.) — Saxifrage ✎ 04:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not have to be an explicit list. The criteria do not have to be codified, whatever this means. The criteria can be normally stated in the policy where they naturally fit as we do now. This notion of list of criteria is just a way to explain how the policy can be used in practice to include or exclude a given view. -Lumière 04:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you look up the word codify if you don't understand it. It means "to arrange rules into a systematic code" and is exactly what you are advocating. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Look what the cat dragged in.

Sometimes, wikibrowsing leads you to the most unexpected of places. Well, I suppose it really was only a matter of time before I ran into you here. :3 ‹кндмцяд› ж «тдгк» 06:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I laughed my silly head off when I saw who had just left me a message. :-D This is the second time that someone has recognised me here, actually. Where'd you see me? — Saxifrage ✎ 06:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was back-tracking the generic entry on Spore on the SporeWiki where I sysop. We've hijacked the wiki entry and are currently deciding on how to expand on that to make it less of a blatant copy. I cruised over here to have a look at the original and its edit history, and, well, there's some user names that are just so idiosyncratic you can immediately tell who's behind them. ;) ‹кндмцяд› ж «тдгк» 06:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I pretty consistently use this name for that reason. :)

And you know it's okay to have a blatant copy, I assume? I mean, there are a lot of reasons to want to make it more SporeWiki's page than just a mirror of Wikipedia's, I know, but due to GFDL goodness that's not one of them. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Same as I, though I do go back and worth between kmr and Khamura.

Well, basically we just want to mesh better with the rest of the stuff we have, which so far it doesn't. It's not exactly high on the to-do list, but more of a "if you got time to spare, look into this" kind of thing. ‹кндмцяд› ж «тдгк» 08:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

de.wikipedia

Hey, I came across your post in the coordinates template where you were discussing the possibility of having the coordinates in the top-right header. I just asked this question in the village dump technical area but I figured you might have a better grasp. So, is it possible to emulate the german wikipedia and have coordinates in the header? Thanks. Sean WI 16:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: I was told to start a new template, which I did - Template:CoorHeader but it still doesn't seem to work. I think there is something different in the German Wiki code perhaps? Sean WI 16:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they have a bunch of CSS in their Mediawiki:monobook.css that moves the template up above the title rule. Try adding the code I have in User:Saxifrage/monobook.css to your own personal monobook.css page. I also fixed the template so that there aren't duplicates of the "coordinates" id by just copy-pasting from the de: template. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you think there is any way to allow the entire wikipedia community to have this feature? It would require an update to the CSS code, which would have to be ratified by the higher-ups, right? Sean WI 02:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are two ways of doing it. The first (which is the way de does it) is to put the necessary CSS in the site-wide Monobook.css page and make the Coordinates template always put the coordinates in the top right like that. The second (and this is the way Template:CoorHeader should work, but I was thinking of something else) is to have a separate template that always puts it in the top right (and I've just fixed CoorHeader to do this).

The disadvantage of the second scheme is that this second template needs to be placed in every article that one would like coordinates to appear in at the top right. The advantage is that having separate templates means that both can be done and those who like the current table-layout coordinates template aren't upset.

The disadvantage of the first scheme is that it requires wide support to get working and needs a Developer to put the necessary code in the site-wide CSS stylesheet. The advantage is that all current uses of {{Coordinates}} would magically be converted into the "above the rule" style. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Oy, sorry for the constant barrage of messages. Just wanted you to know that I took this up at the Village Pump (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) at the bottom of the page), and it would be great if you could show your support! Sean WI 03:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Kudos, Saxifrage. I've just tested it out: Kalasha and it works like a charm. You are right about its acceptance, though. It seems to have taken off in other languages but it's almost unheard of here. I'll do whatever I can. :-) Sean WI 16:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm directing this message to you

Hey, I've been working on the new template and adding it to differnt articles. You can view the ones I did with my contributions. Anyway, someone posted this message in my talk page and I thought you'd be the best person to handle the comment:

The CoorHeader template is broken when used with the Classic skin to Wikipedia. I haven't tried other skins, other than to note that it appears to work correctly with monobook. Lots of people use classic, so the template really shouldn't be used at the moment. I am not an expert in wiki markup, but I think absolute positioning is never going to work well.

I've removed the template from Auckland for the time being. Also, are you aware that Auckland already had the geographic co-ordinates in the infobox of the article?-gadfium 02:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. He's right, actually. The only way to make it work everywhere is to get the code into the site-wide stylesheets and customise the positioning code for each one. I think stepping lightly with it for now and treating it as a working example that has some bugs is best. At least, until it gets wider support and we can get the code into the stylesheets. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Should I delete everything I editted? Sean WI 03:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you feel it necessary. I think just leaving what's already done (and letting people remove it from pages if they have trouble with it) and waiting until that issue is fixed to use it more broadly is reasonable to do, too. This definitely makes it more important to get a Developer to support the project. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make {{CoorHeader}} use {{Coor dm}} for the present, which doesn't have any problem with positioning, and then switch it back to use {{Coor dms}} once the stylesheets are updated.-gadfium 04:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

CoorHeader is only using {{coor dms}} to format the coordinates, not for placement. Changing to {{coor dm}} wouldn't change the placement. No, I think we just have to wait for enough support for the German Wikipedia-style coordinates that we can get a Developer to put the CSS code in the site-wide Monobook.css. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

By placing the coordinates below the bar, does that solve the problem it was having? Sean WI 03:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that was an attempt to not crowd the FA star. It's still broken in non-Monobook skins. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm....that's not good considering already there are over 1,000 articles that use the template. Seems like it's already become quite popular, even though it isn't working yet. Well, hopefully that can influence the decision on whether or not to add the code to the various CSS styles. :-/ Oh well. Sean WI 05:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it interesting that it's gaining popularity so fast. I know there are a lot more Monobook users than there are others, so hopefully the number of people inconvenienced by it is few enough. I'm kind of taking a "wait and see how things develop" approach—I'd like to see it accepted as standard and "done right", but I'm curious to see what the community does with it as more people become aware of it. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Spore

You mentioned an hour long video that included about 25 minutes of Will Wright just talking. Do you know where I could get a copy of this? PirateMonkey 22:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This link is in the article in the third paragraph, and goes to the Google Video copy of the full talk. The original that that's derived from, and that has better video quality, is available at http://www.sporewiki.com/2005_GDC_Presentation from SporeWiki. Enjoy! — Saxifrage ✎ 22:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bye bye, sapiosexual :(

It doesn't seem like there was anything approaching a consensus on sapiosexual. I know there is some court of appeals on deletions but have never experienced it. Do you think it's worth it to appeal this?

Definitely a bit disillusioned with Wikipedia and what passes for "consensus" here (even by the Wiki's weird definition). Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 08:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

United States of American Counter Proposal

I honestly don't think I violated WP:POINT there on the MOS discussion. That guideline seems to discourage people going out and making edits that would then have to be cleaned up, while I just made a proposal, so no clean up required. Glad you appreciated it otherwise, though. :-) GRuban 19:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I read it as a satirical proposal, which is vaguely POINTish. I don't think it was over the line, though. :-) — Saxifrage ✎ 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

converting CoorHeader right now?

Are you on-line? Would you be interested in helping remove the existing CoorHeader calls, so that it could be added to Infobox City? (watching here for your answer)

--William Allen Simpson 03:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think having it in the infobox, eventually, is ideal. However, I think it would be overstepping our mandate to put it there while the template is still experimental. So far, it has been placed in individual articles by enthusiastic supporters of the template as a proposed standard. I think putting it in the infobox templates would be viewed by the wider editing community to be presumptuous on our part, and would probably tick off enough editors that it might be very bad for its prospects for community acceptance. It might not be, but the potential for backfiring is very large. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I thought you'd gone away (no answer), so I've added it to {{Infobox City}} and was removing the test {CoorHeader}s. I've got a half done now.

--William Allen Simpson 04:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright... I don't endorse the move, but I guess we'll see what fallout (if any!) there is. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Turns out that a large number of them didn't fill in the coordinates properly, so I left the old CoorHeader. Also, Canadian use a different template. But it should expand the exposure, as Infobox City is used around the world (haphazardly).

--William Allen Simpson 05:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)