User talk:Xanzzibar

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

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Enjoy this! Mayyah Ibrahim (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Quote boxes[edit]

Hi, I just saw your edit on the Three Tenors article, and I have to say I couldn't find anything in the MoS that said that you can't have background colors in a quote box. Could you clarify where you got this information from? I have seen several featured articles that have colored backgrounds for quote boxes, see Ralph Richardson and Laurence Olivier for examples, so I was surprised to see your edit comment about "no" background colors being OK as per the MoS. I don't care too much about the color of this quote box—although with no pictures in the body of the article, I do think some color would be nice—but I would like to know if I'm missing an actual rule/advice from somewhere or another. Rmm413 (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I disagree that the block quotes in the middle of the text referred to in the MoS and the separate Template:Quote box, which are often used in lieu of photos separate and to the side of the main text, are the same thing. This, to my mind, would explain why background colors are used on many quote boxes in thoroughly reviewed featured articles and why there's even an option in the template to change the background color, but I'm glad to know why you made the change. Cheers. Rmm413 (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident's many moves of "St." to "Saint"[edit]

Thanks for undoing the St. Knut page move. That user, Chicbyaccident (talk), moved so many of those pages that I can't count them all. I'm trying to work through and undo the damage. I could use some help. Additionally, he opened some discussions on a few more pages: Talk:Fort St. Angelo, Talk:St. Martin's Day, Talk:St Joseph's Day, Talk:St Mark's Eve, Talk:St. Andrew's Day - and appears to be using sock puppets to "support" his attempts to make the moves. Just an FYI. Rockypedia (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


Without wishing to derail the conversation on Bingham's talk page, maybe you could point to few FA's that have passed FAC with obvious issues? CassiantoTalk 21:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I couldn't. Most of the time, when I encounter it, it's a daily featured article that passes from memory pretty quickly. I wouldn't say I've come across any with major issues, though. It's usually been niggling formatting issues, things like using the cquote template where a block quote should have been used, quote boxes with unnecessarily colored backgrounds, images scaled down with fixed px widths instead of using the upright field, or (like with this) use of pseudo-headings. --Xanzzibar (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
You do know that anyone can chip in on an FAC? Reviewers don't have to be invited; in fact, it's mainly the uninvited ones who come up with some of the best points. It would always be more appreciated for someone to highlight issues there rather than have the kind of views you do about FAC's passing with problems. I would always welcome anyone being critical over my nominations if I knew it to be for the benefit of the article. CassiantoTalk 21:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Administrative and meta-processes generally don't interest me. In ten years and 10,000 edits, I've gotten involved with that stuff maybe, like, thrice. I'm much more of a gnome. Still, maybe I'll poke my head in at some point, at least see what the process looks like. --Xanzzibar (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Krishnamurti's Notebook[edit]

I think you confused {{reflist}} ["column-number" param deprecated] with {{refbegin}}/{{refend}} where the column-number parameter is not deprecated and seems to be preferred. The section in question (Krishnamurti's Notebook#References) includes full citations under {{refbegin}}, which the doc suggests should at most be displayed in 2 columns. Point widths (|em=) are suggested for sections (such as Krishnamurti's Notebook#Notes) that list short citations, in this case under {{reflist}}. Hence my revert. (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

They use the same underlying code (the column-count template, specifically, is the problem here), which is why the refbegin template's documentation points to reflist's documentation (again, see the hat note and "browser support" section). Refbegin's documentation simply hasn't been updated. --Xanzzibar (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, got it. It is poor editing & presentation when coding is out of sync with doc for days & weeks at a time. On topic, I have no more objections, though I still believe that more than 2 columns for full citations negatively affects readability and presentation. (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


I won't revert you because I think you do raise policy concerns that need to be discussed but I do know someone else will revert you somewhere down the road. All professional wrestling articles are written in such a way and the changes to Paige (wrestler) stick out like a sore thumb and will quickly get changed back. I'd recommend bringing your concerns to WT:PW or another relevant noticeboard.LM2000 (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Point taken. I should do that, on this and the italicized signatures/finishers issue, but I'm always loathe to get involved in bureaucratic processes. --Xanzzibar (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)