User:TheTrueSora/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, TheTrueSora/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am CTSWyneken. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Provide an Edit summary
• Take a look at Consensus of standards. It is always wise to read the talk page of an existing article before making major changes on it. Even then, I typically ask if anyone minds that I make a change. Very often they do! ;-)
• Create a User page

Again, welcome! And if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. --CTSWyneken 00:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding licensing notice

The licensing notice on my User Page was originally copied from one of the templates at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Large/Licencing. It is a little different from them, because it does not allow re-licensing under unknown future Creative Commons licenses. You are free to use it, and it is not necessary that you attribute it to me.

If you have any questions about anything I will be happy to help. - Centrx 20:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

userboxes

Maybe reading Wikipedia:Divisiveness would help. WAS 4.250 21:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep

Thank you very much for the help! Jeeps2009

UBX policy -- seems good to me

But what do I know? Cheers! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Spamming

Please don't spam any more user talk pages. Policy proposals should be publicised in the usual policy forums. --Tony Sidaway 01:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't consider it spamming; they had all voted on a deleted userbox, and so I thought they'd be interested in a way of settling the debate over userboxes once and for all. // ^The True _Sora 01:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps Village Pump may be better for this. - Mailer Diablo 05:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW there is no rule against telling people about proposals. Larix 16:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Userbox policy

This may sound a little odd, but I would like to personally thank you for taking the time to make this proposal and generate a reasonable level of support. I suggested a similar thing back in February (not as a policy, but in the midst of the great userbox argument), and was told it was technically infeasible. I never proceeded further; thanks for being bold enough to do so. (Also, RobChurch informs me it's been technically feasible for well over a year, and there wouldn't be any problems with implementing it, so there's no need to worry about that) – Gurch 16:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your support... I had actually no idea if the MediaWiki software would allow me to make a new namespace going into all of this, but I thought it needed to be tried anyway. Hopefully this will go to an official policy vote soon, so I will hope for your support then :) // ^The True _Sora 16:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll support it all the way, no question about that. While I haven't a clue how MediaWiki's innards actually work, it has been done before (the Portal and Portal_talk namespaces aren't built-in to MediaWiki but have been added to the various Wikipedias). Also, I'm sure the devs will appreciate your commitment if you do code it yourself, but in general if there's a community consensus that something is needed, and it's feasible, they'll work on it – Gurch 16:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Thanks for the proposal, it has my wholehearted support. Larix 16:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally support and stand behind your new userbox proposal; it would solve many of the issues raised by userbox deleters and is certainly better than this proposal (personal opinion). Freddie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 01:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Here is what the people on IRC said was in their logs:

(2006-03-25.162925.txt 17:50:33) <jwales> A userbox namespace? I hate it with the greatest possible passion. (2006-03-25.162925.txt 17:51:15) <jwales> It would send the message that userboxes are good and right.

I asked if it was ok to post it (I remember something about posting IRC logs being bad), but no one could remeber a rule against it. I still support the proposal. And am also sick of the fighting over this.--Rayc 19:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Rayc: I don't think posting two lines is going to offend anyone.

Hmmm, so Jimbo himself has spoken? Ho hum... well, he might have changed his mind in the intervening two months (we can but hope!), plus, at the end of the day it's really down to what the community thinks.

For the record I should state that when I mentioned it on IRC today responses ranged from support of the idea on its own merits to "aargh, anything to sort out this damn userbox problem!". So, draw what conclusions you will – Gurch 21:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

So it's an official proposal now?

Gah, just after I'd spent an hour answering questions on the draft. Anyway, you have my vote – Gurch 14:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, sorry about that- the draft had been running for almost 3 days now, with overwheleming support, so I thought I'd make at an official proposal (seeing as I want to get this resolved as soon as possible). // ^The True _Sora 14:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. A couple of people seem to be slightly confused, as they thought they'd already voted and have now discovered that wasn't actually the poll, but it seems to be running smoothly. I agree that the sooner this is resolved, the better (I was hoping it would be over by March, myself, but it's dragged on and on) – Gurch 18:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hello, I noticed that you had posted some comments to Rjensen concerning his rephrasing of articles primarily about republicans. I wrote an article about Neo-Mugwumps which was a phrase that I had heard repeatedly on talk radio several years ago. Rjensen first "re-phrased" it as though the word didnt exits, in addition adding things in like "..the person writing this didnt know what they were talking about." This is not a message board. After I deleted those "edits" he came back and qualified the phrase as though it does exist, but no one uses it, because I'm assuming all republicans suppport their candidates regardless of whether or not they agree with them. Phew.

Why should articles be phrased to only his liking under the solipsistic guise that its the valid "liking"?

I understand the self-victimizion of republicans these days especially in matters of media, but as a Libertarian leaning moderate I find it laughable that the mere existence of a term that doesnt follow suit with one persons definition should be rendered slack because whoever edits hasn't heard it, and or doesnt like what it says.

How do I get back to the original edit of my article? I only ask because you seemed to know what you were talking about when you addressed him.

Aubin 16:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Go to this page: Neo-Mugwump history, go into your edit by clicking the date of your last edit and save the changes. I suggest requesting arbitration with Rjensen if you feel this is a real problem; I've settled my debate with him, but I still don't like his POV edits. // ^The True _Sora 17:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)