User talk:David Fuchs/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:David Fuchs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Adoption
Please adopt me, I want Someone to be my god, Just like you, sir, Da-da-da-da Please answer me, be kind I need some peace of mind, Just adopt me now, I beg, Please adopt me! (sung to tune of British National Anthem, God Save the Queen) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christine118500 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Two Chocobo articles
I would like to let you know that there are people watching those articles, so I think you would know enough to post that it has problems so that people can fix them if standards are being raised. And boldly removing the Chocobo article from a Featured Topic is probably not ok either. Please put both Chocobo articles under review so we can find references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Removing the article from the topic is not the correct action in any event. If the article is truly not up to the GA standard, it would remain in the topic and be marked as not up to standard. Pagrashtak 22:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I thought that was for topics as a whole. Even without the article in question, it's still a FT. David Fuchs (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Even if they are not up to standards, it is totally unacceptable to remove them when people watch these articles, as I helped get them through GA. And secondly, they did go through GA nomination, and were improved in the process, so you must be applying a stricter criteria than when they were passed, and that is fine, but to make them go through the whole process again, when they need minor corrections? It's a waste of my time, and I don't like it, so in future please notify the GA nominators, as I am sure I nominated at least one if not both of them. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- (reply to David) The reason one can't simply remove an article from a featured topic due to standards is the same reason one can't neglect an article when nominating. If an article is not up to GA and cannot be improved, the span of the topic should be reduced to a smaller set of quality articles, or the topic will be defeatured. Both of these will happen with discussion, however. In this case, I suspect that the article will be improved in the near future, so none of that will need to happen. Pagrashtak 22:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- With regard to Chocobo Racing, I found the game manual so that should be back to GAN soon, but with Chocobo World, could you leave a more detailed review on the talk page? I want to know your specific thoughts on what needs to be done/what needs to be added. Thanks. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- (reply to David) The reason one can't simply remove an article from a featured topic due to standards is the same reason one can't neglect an article when nominating. If an article is not up to GA and cannot be improved, the span of the topic should be reduced to a smaller set of quality articles, or the topic will be defeatured. Both of these will happen with discussion, however. In this case, I suspect that the article will be improved in the near future, so none of that will need to happen. Pagrashtak 22:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Links Awakening
http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_78.html I noticed you were working on this article, so I thought this would help bolster the reception section. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, yeah, so after about 32 hours of sleep between Friday midnight and Sunday afternoon (EST), I finally got around to revising the article on Cortana. You might want to read it over again and double-check my work, since I have a tendency to write concise but somewhat stilted prose (though I have been making an effort to become better at that :)). — TKD::Talk 08:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's a 188-page essay anthology about Halo. Count that as a yes. :) Specifically, there's a lot of material that can be used. At least two essays address (from different viewpoints) the role of religion and ethics in Halo (and analyze it past the thin layer of Biblical naming references). After reading the essays, I'm not really satisfied with the quote farm in the reception section of Halo: Combat Evolved and will probably be rewriting it gradually (example: The book mentions the famous "fourth 10/10" Edge review a the most important review for a launch title, ever (in that it gave the Xbox credibility). There's other things, such as the use of Halo for military training and in professional gaming. So, yup, there's a lot of stuff. — TKD::Talk 13:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is why I always choose two-day shipping for online shopping; that way I know when things will arrive, as opposed to having to deal with a broad delivery window. Get Halo Effect if you ever have spare cash; it's definitely worth it. My rationale was basically, "I want it and it's a spit in the bucket compared to the amount of money that I've spent on other Halo stuff in the last three months." :) And, yes, I do plan to work on improving the other Halo articles, but at some point I do really want to finish up expanding machinima for GA, too. If only there were more than 24 hours in a day.... — TKD::Talk 14:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Taking a article from AFD to FA in less than a year with limited resources, pretty impressive, congrats on taking it to the highest standard. So what's next, Arbiter? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see, we will probably have to make a few close calls to get the characters topic, I'm under the impression that Johnson and Spark will be hard to get improved further. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello David, thanks for taking a look at the article. I've added a second paragraph to the lead and SeizureDog wikilinked Verne's name as requested. Would you take another look when you have the time please?
I've never made significant contributions to anything which was in danger of GA standard, I'm a little shell-shocked to learn that it was actually OK, but also unsure of whether I've covered the right things in the right amount of detail. If there's anything that's not satisfactory or just borderline then I'd be more than happy to do any work needed. If there is any development info out there, it's well-buried, though it's extremely unlikely that the developers were quizzed about how they made this handheld game. I had to dig just to get the information about Vicarious Visions giving a talk.
Thanks again. Someone another (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! :D Someone another (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Halo2multi.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Halo2multi.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom voting - Giano
[1] This is to advise you that the opinion on which you identify you have (in part) based your vote has been withdrawn. You may wish to review your comments. Please note that this is not an attempt to get you to change your vote, simply an advisement that some of the information on which you based your decision has changed. Risker (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Support for Giano
David, you asked: "I see why you voted 'oppose' to me, even if I don't agree with your reasoning; however, isn't supporting Giano contrary to those same principles you expouse about community support?"
The answer is, yes, supporting Giano goes right against the rest of what I am doing. But Giano will not be appointed. My vote is to make a point about how Giano stood up.
While I am here, I don't know if I ever thanked you properly for your answers. They were good, and your experiences here seem quite positive. I would certainly consider supporting you in the future. Jd2718 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Halo 2 OSTs
Hey there, I made a suggestionto merge the two Halo 2 OST articles. Think you could spare a few minutes? They were both kinda short articles anyway; I think they would be better served by merging them as one article. Ong elvin (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Portal:Halo/Halo quotes
A tag has been placed on Portal:Halo/Halo quotes, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Portal:Halo/Halo quotes|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Greenguy1090 (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please use the means specified to contest the article's deletion instead of removing the template. Wikipedia Administrators will listen to your side and make a final decision using their best judgement.--Greenguy1090 (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Spymac leapfrog.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Spymac leapfrog.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm going to take it slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good holiday season, --Elonka 17:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano 3RR block
If Giano was well aware of what he was doing, I would have blocked him for longer than an hour. A one-hour block is meaningless, and as his block log has shown, such a short block doesn't deter him. I would have given him a block comparable to most edit warriors reported on WP:AN3 (perhaps 48 hours, or for the rest of the year). --Coredesat 22:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of The Great Story
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Great Story, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Story (2nd nomination). Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've addressed you concerns and responded to your comment. Is there anything else you wish to add? Oh yeah... Merry Christmas for tomorrow, too. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've addressed all of Clyde's comments now. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom statement
Hi there. I noticed your ArbCom statement in the IRC case. You said: "I noticed Jimbo's revert of one of Giano's edits in my watchlist". Which edit of Jimbo's are you referring to? This one? I don't think Jimbo was reverting Giano, but he was proposing a new wording. Would you agree? What came before and afterwards was silly, but from what I can see, Jimbo wasn't reverting to anything, but was trying to move things forward. Carcharoth (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've been looking into this a bit more. Your statement says that you blocked Giano for 3RR, and you left him a talk page message to that effect. The block summary says the less specific "edit warring". Could you point out the edits where Giano breached 3RR on 23 December? Phil Sandifer, in his evidence, seems to think that this edit violated 3RR. Would you agree with him? Where are the other edits? Just to be clear, even if the 3RR isn't clear (and maybe it is), I don't dispute that Giano was edit warring. The thing is, if this drops from a clear 3RR to general edit warring, then others were edit warring as well and Giano shouldn't have been singled out. I hope you'll be able to clear this up. Carcharoth (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- One more question. I know it is considered not acceptable to block someone after you've reverted them or being edit warring with them, but is it acceptable to revert someone after you've blocked them previously for edit warring? I'd say yes, because once the block has expired, everythng is reset to normal, but I thought I'd ask to be sure. Carcharoth (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to raise this anywhere else quite yet, because I've just noticed that the revert you carried out, and the block, appear to be simultaneous! Both are noted as being at 22:39, 23 December 2007. Can you remember which you did first? Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Oh well, he woulda' tried anyhow" - I wouldn't say that too loudly, if I were you. You may be right, but that's a very bad reason for blocking. The trouble is, if you warn Giano and not Doc Glasgow and Bishonen, it looks like you are singling Giano out. I don't have time to do this today, but I will be questioning this 3RR and the block on the Arbcom case pages. I just though I should let you know so you have a chance to present your defence. For the record, I'm also looking at Coredesat's block extension and the role LessHeard vanU and Doc Glasgow played (but haven't got round to asking them yet). From where I'm sitting, Phil Sandifer's later block seems to be the most justified action of the lot (apart from the length), which is ironic really. Carcharoth (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've used the bainer's timeline to make some points here? Would you like to comment? From this closer look, I can see that the 3RR block was completely justified, and if anything should have been done earlier. Sorry if I suggested otherwise above. The timing of the block and the revert is still questionable, though. Carcharoth (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Oh well, he woulda' tried anyhow" - I wouldn't say that too loudly, if I were you. You may be right, but that's a very bad reason for blocking. The trouble is, if you warn Giano and not Doc Glasgow and Bishonen, it looks like you are singling Giano out. I don't have time to do this today, but I will be questioning this 3RR and the block on the Arbcom case pages. I just though I should let you know so you have a chance to present your defence. For the record, I'm also looking at Coredesat's block extension and the role LessHeard vanU and Doc Glasgow played (but haven't got round to asking them yet). From where I'm sitting, Phil Sandifer's later block seems to be the most justified action of the lot (apart from the length), which is ironic really. Carcharoth (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to raise this anywhere else quite yet, because I've just noticed that the revert you carried out, and the block, appear to be simultaneous! Both are noted as being at 22:39, 23 December 2007. Can you remember which you did first? Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- One more question. I know it is considered not acceptable to block someone after you've reverted them or being edit warring with them, but is it acceptable to revert someone after you've blocked them previously for edit warring? I'd say yes, because once the block has expired, everythng is reset to normal, but I thought I'd ask to be sure. Carcharoth (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Nav Boxes
In answer to your question, the user needs a clear consensus to be doing this to so many articles. A last effort at this (a cosmic list) failed becuase it was all too subjective. By this logic, EVERY comic character requires a link, and then there are the added problems of who decides what goes in the box - which is highly subjective - and the upkeep, as characters constantly change. As I indicated on the Talk Page for Abomination, the user needs to discuss such a sweeping change at the very least.
Asgardian (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Counter-Strike
Hello, I just wanted to ask about why you consider the information you reverted earlier to be of "game-guide" material. The information compares real world items with those of the game, as well as comparing the game itself to other games like it. I don't believe that the fact that it is unreferenced merits complete exclusion.-Mastrchf91- 23:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Grudge Warriors review part 2
Sorry about the wait, Christmas was slightly manic! Anyway, here's a snap of the review. If you need better quality I can get a scan of it if the photo isn't clear enough. Please let me know when you have the pic so I can delete it, thanks! PirateMink 13:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, glad I could help PirateMink 08:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note also... since the table page has been moved from a cat to a non cat, the edit history has been lost. You may want to re-edit your entry in the table to validate that it was you that added it. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 23:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to keep bugging you! But I think User:David Fuchs/usr/ub/recall is a bit off somehow. I was running Larbot to change all references from Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Admin criteria to Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria and I found a ref in that subpage. you may want to check to see if you really want your criteria page to be in that subcat or not (the cat is going away per the UCFD, replaced with the subpage for the table entries) ++Lar: t/c 00:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Former Featured articles
The project above which you had indicated an interest in joining at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page, is now active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Former Featured articles. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Zelda featured topic
Could you please withdraw Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/The Legend of Zelda as I've requested there before you complete the nomination? It won't pass, and I'd like to avoid cluttering the ArticleHistory templates if possible. Thanks, Pagrashtak 23:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, from the time stamps it looks like you're not in the process of nominating, as I thought, but left the nomination incomplete. I've reverted the parts of the nomination you completed, as the nomination would not have succeeded due to large omissions such as The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. Featured topics cannot cherry pick articles, per Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria 1(d). By my count we're currently five articles away from a featured topic. I've been working towards this for a while and hope to see a Zelda featured topic some day. Pagrashtak 23:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Acc1984.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Acc1984.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Congrats and other stuff
Happy New Year! wow you have been working hard in 2008, great job :) - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Infobox VG
Hi there! I'm making a Silent Hill Wiki, but I'm not familiarized with templates, and I really wanted to put the Infobox VG template there, I have no idea how to do so, I know I have to create a template page and put the code there, the problem is that I would like to put the Infobox VG code in there so I can use it, though I can't find anywhere that code! I was wondering if you could tell me what code that Infobox uses, or if you could help me creating a new code. I would be incredibly thankful!!!
Thankx in advance!! Danzalthar (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Further help! XD
Hi there again! Well I've been trying to make the template using parts of other templates, but there's seems to be a problem: it doesn't align to the right of the article, also when I use this code:
{{#if: {{{Image|}}} | <tr> <td align="center" colspan="2">[[Image:{{{Image}}}|{{{Imagesize|250px}}}]]
{{#if: {{{Caption|}}} | <br><small>{{{Caption}}}}}</small></td> </tr>}}it appears on the screen just like that, so I had to change it. I think there might be a problem when using html?
I'll link you to the template I'm making so you can see what's going on:
http://www.silenthillheaven.com/wiki/index.php?title=Template:SHCharacter&action=submit
Again, thanks for your help! Danzalthar (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Captkeyes halo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Captkeyes halo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
DRV Conduct
What conduct of mine at DRV is frowned upon and by whom? Administrators do not always close debates by noting all arguments. For example Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007#Sexuality_and_gender_identification was closed with the summary: "The result of the debate was delete all based on strength of arguments." Hyacinth (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that you did not address my concerns or questions to you. Not to make the same mistake, I will "listen to myself." What you say is "my" side lost, but I did not participate in that discussion nor vote it in. Again, which conduct of my do you disapprove of? Are there specific actions or do you dislike my "tone"? Hyacinth (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies. I prefer to discuss. Four of my questions in the discussion, not even objections, have gone without reply, and I may prefer other participants "hector" me rather than ignore me. Hyacinth (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)