User:BrightStarSky
stuff
|
Tip of the day...
 Displaying one page within another = Transclusion
Including the contents of a template page on a different page (by surrounding the page name with double braces, i.e. "{{}}" and leaving out the "Template:" prefix) is called transclusion. This allows the other page to be automatically updated whenever the template page is updated. Besides templates, pages in the following namespaces can be transcluded:
The only difference between transcluding these and templates is that you must include the prefix (followed by a colon) with the page's name inside the double braces. Images also can be transcluded, but this is done using double square brackets instead of braces. Here are some examples of transclusion: {{Pic of the day}} · {{Help:Contents}} · [[Image:Wikipedia-logo.png]] – – Read more: To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use
{{tip of the day}} |
A barnstar for you![edit]
|
The Resilient Barnstar |
| Thanks for your well referenced updates. You do a great job here! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 05:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC) |
A Barnstar For You[edit]
|
The Resilient Barnstar | |
| You're doing wonderfully. My deepest respect to you for your resilience. You have become a productive editor, and a real asset to the project. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
and you deserve this:
|
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
| For making 8,428 edits, 99.09% of which were to the mainspace. Very, very few editors can claim such a high percentage. You are a most valued editor. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC) |
John Mooney's Page[edit]
Hi,
I read an article in the Economist recently that had a bit in about John Mooney, and when I looked at his page on Wikipedia I noticed that you had made a lot of edits to the page, so as someone who has an interest in him, I thought I;d ask your advice before updating his page. Basically, given his statements on his past troubles with mental health, I was wondering whether it was worth mentioning. My perspective is that I think that to have been so open is a very courageous thing, and I think he deserves credit for doing so, especially in the light of cricket's long-standing problems in that area. But I'm concerned that in mentioning it in some depth on his page, might seem like oblique criticism, which is the opposite of what I intend.
I'm happy to do the work, but I was just looking for someone else's perspective. Have you any thoughts?