User talk:Fabartus/Archive05

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Re: Redlinked Image[edit]

That particular redlink seems to be the result of a typo of something, not a deletion. There is no deleted history at that title and both the the upload and deletion log come up empty[1].

I don't know of any tools that report on redlinked images, but I haven't rely checked either. Main problem is that the toolserver still don't have a working copy of the English Wikipedia database, and running it off a month old database dump may not be all that usefull. --Sherool (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

xpost reply Sherool
Thanks, sorry, my bad! I usually check the deletion logs and would have caught a typo I can but hope! I dislike bothering one I know is busy, Busy, BUSY! — but then would have been ignorant on the wider tools query! (dang time crunches, forever and always--but take as a compliment--I know the quality of your knowledge and rely on it!) Thanks again. // FrankB 16:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Am I missing something on policy?[edit]

I didn't check the actual content of the image, just noticed that it was an unused fair use image and tagged it that way. Plus, this is usually less time-consuming than copyvio, since you only have to tag the image and inform the uploader, and usually has the same effect in the end. Also, I'm not really sure the image qualifies as a copyright violation... --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xpost
  • Don't see how it can't be anything but a copyvio--ECARTA is copyrighted by copyright crazy Microsoft. If there is a single company who might complain about infringement, imho, it would likely be them with their record on the issue.
       Since when was doing the job right a casualty to a job being time consuming? We all get such munificent salaries for the work, after all! (<BSEG>) Regards // FrankB 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, use of the image in the Encarta article might be valid under fair use, and since it's properly sourced I don't think it's necessary a copyvio per se. Either way, I wouldn't really say tagging it as orphaned fair use was doing the job wrong, after all, it definitely is an unused fair use image, and why should I start a discussion about it being a copyvio when it can/should be deleted as orphaned fair use anyway? We don't take articles through AfDs when they qualify for speedy deletion, either, do we? --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Xpost, finis?
So sorry if you took that as critical, as I'm the first to admit the archane procedures involving image tagging and discussion, et. al. are fuzzy at best between my ears. I need to bite my fingers or tounge or something once in a while!
   While I know there has been a recent change in fair-use policy, and have seen one clear case of 'clear legal fair use' summarily speedy deleted since it was something which could be replaced, and that action overtly supported by Jimbo himself, (I know, since we debated same by email too), this seems to be a case that is far less justifiable than that case which I argued should be kept. Hence the speedy recommendation to Sherool, who is my image resource specialist when I smell something, or don't know myself.
   I've also been very missing from wp in the past several months, so I'm very out of touch as well.
   However, to me logically, if that could happen to a legal and justifiable incidence of fair use, it should apply as a square power to a non-legal copy. (IMHO, as I understand fair use in this case, unless the image is illustrating an article on ENCARTA itself, it would not be an occasion of fair use, at all.)
   Since this one was added by a three edit wonder, and specifically mislinked by the same inexperienced somewhat editor specifically on the town of Issus and Battles thereabouts, I feel fairly secure in asserting it wasn't for an article on ENCARTA! Think that beats this discussion to death. Sorry if you took that badly, I'll bite myself somewhere! <G> Best regards // FrankB 19:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning Template:WikiSpeciestmp1[edit]

Hi - just spotted something odd, and I'm sure there's a very good reason for it, but thought I should ask someone and you appear to be the "last person who touched it"...

The template {{WikiSpeciestmp1}} appears to include a link to the WikiSpecies project, but the link actually links to the Wikimedia Foundation, and the other projects are referred to as 'sister project's but that one isn't (I'm sure there's a good political reason for that).

Actually noticed this when looking at {{tl}} because it includes WikiSpeciestmp1 via lots of levels.

So should the WikiSpecies link be fixed? --Mortice 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luge/Bobsleigh[edit]

The only way to rename images is to download the image and reupload it (and all the licensing and other info) to a proper title - and fix any links. It's timeconsuming, but as far as I know the only way to do it. If you want better help, I suggest asking someone who contributes to the commons more often on their local 'village pump'. Or perhaps User:Quadell can be of assistence. Have a nice holiday season yourself. - Mgm|(talk) 21:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xpost mgm[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MacGyverMagic] *Thanks -- as I feared. Guess that improvement is still awaiting wishful fullfillment, no matter how long I take 'off' for RL matters! <g> Thanks // FrankB 21:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commonscat2M[edit]

Hi Frank! So many things I bump into on WP (ow!) remind me of you. In this case, it's the Commonscat2M template, which adds this line of text to the category pages it's on: "Purpose: Group and Categorize all en.wikipedia maps the same way as on the Commons." How can I get this line to not appear, as it makes no sense for it to show alongside the category's own explanatory text? Since you are Mr. Inter-Wiki Himself, maybe you can do it, or explain why the text should stay. I await. Cheers, Her Pegship 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original problem can be seen here. It appeared on Category:High Middle Ages and a few other medieval-era cats, but now that I noincluded the code, things look OK. And another thing!! I found the {{sisterwiki}} template produces weird results like those seen on Category:Music. Messy "Template:Void3" redlinks...what gives? Her Pegship 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Longish answers interleaved on Pegship // FrankB 03
22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain your reasoning[edit]

Transcluded to group thread this date from [[User talk:Hmains#Please_explain_your_reasoning

|Hmains#Please_explain_your_reasoning]] // FrankB 15:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re-Many edits this November 28th

You seem to have spent most or all of this edit day tearing down what others could live with. Such as: this (typical example) which action you took in dozens of categories. Apparently others found the association of utility, or it wouldn't have existed in so many pages.
   AT LEAST use {{Cat see also}} to provide a link when taking away a useful navigation and cross-connection link in the spirit of WP:Btw. Better yet, add some content instead of deleting the work of others.
   Are you one of those 'purists' who think there ought to be one or at most two category associations to things?
   A) If so, how are people that are trained differently than you (or far less) have been taught going to find things when they think of things in entirely different associative ways. Categories are for the customer, not us editors.
   B) Worse, moreover, what about people who have English as a second or third language? (We are writing for the lay-customer, not academics! 'They' already have access to ways and systems of categorizing stuff!) So think of the poor 14 year old struggling to learn associations sans your education, not your own way of perceiving the world. It may be obvious to you that those two were mother daughter, but I can assure you, it was not obvious to me that they are anything but somewhat related. In my 'thought picure' you degraded a lot of good pages by removing the more useful link and word association.
   C) How are you going to rationalize that dislike and ridgid adherece to some ideal only you percieve (I assure you others equally narrow, disagree with you on many other matters) with the different naming schemes on the other sister projects, in particular, on the commons??? The commons is at least as central to all the other sisters and other language projects as en.wp, after all.

In sum, I really think that was a poor edit spurt. Please keep the customer in mind better. Best regards // FrankB 21:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xpost to make thread
on tFabartus above here // FrankB 15:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments Regarding your comments on my talk page. It would be more helpful if, instead of making so many assumptions about what I was doing and then being upset about it, you would first ask so we could discuss it. Thanks Hmains 02:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now have had a chance to look at this. Wiki 'Search' was not working 'again' so it took a few minutes. I was working on the 'History of Europe' category. I saw that some articles were double leveled: they existed directly in the 'History of Europe' category and in the 'Maps of the History of Europe' category, which was in the 'History of Europe Category'. Seeing no great purpose in such doubling and going with the WP guideline/whatever (which I cannot cite offhand) that such double leveling is frowned on, I corrected the situation. This also help to keep the article list in categories within reasonable numbers--by having and using good sub-categories to organize information. From what I can see, this is done a lot. Thanks Hmains 03:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and my other edits were similar: handling double level categories. Hmains 04:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I've been over busy, and am playing catch up all over my life. Also it didn't seem to need an direct answer, as it's all caught up in the dynamic of what the category system is for, which is as you hopefully know, politically disputed from time to time. I think on it in terms of WP:Btw, which is a tool for users and for editors, and arguably, one of wikipedia's most powerful features. Removing links in the chain detracts from that power. Secondarily, the template tagging with Commonscat2 or Commonscat4 variants is to keep the category system consistant across the two sisters, the heavy weight gorrillas in the fight which most of the other sisters link to, and interwiki equivilents with and on. So once 'Equalized', changing those is a step back to 'Matching', which is a Work in Progress autocategorizing status—whereas 'equalized' were 'Done' cats. In sum, you've mixed up the two list cats contents now with that spate of edits (or probably have, I haven't had time to get into that side of it).
       In this particular instance, map category tagging is in reality a seperate side-tree in parallell to the main category system. There has been a lot of manpower involved in first designing and structuring a uniform system of maps categories that can take into account a rational equivilence of local distinctions (usually Provincal governments down through boro/township/town, which varies a lot across our globe), and such needs. The work is just nearing completion, and involves a lot of image re-catting too. It began back in June!
       The double level tagging you removed was to ensure people working history articles had access to the information, and the new category schemes, which is a mirror of the commons, where the work began. So from a strict slim-cat tree edit philosophy your edit is understandable, from adding usability, visability, and cross-linking, and category equalization, it was unhelpful. The newer tagging experience/solution was to add {{Cat see also}} whilst improving text intros in cats across the board, and so the long term impact of your edit may have been the same, but those links aren't there today, and as I note here, you impacted the 'Done' and 'Needs more work' lists in some way. Since they are but rough, it'll be okay. I just wish people would focus on adding instead of subtracting from the system, or making an inquiry ahead of a big set of changes like you did. Have a good holiday. // FrankB 17:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not follow much of what you are saying. I am just a simple editor, but I work on many things. Are you concerned only about my having put several maps in one category and then referencing that category instead of each map? Hmains 03:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not at all. My 'psuedo-gripe' is with the block of categories wherein you removed the double leveled category--the 'advertising' notation, if you will, that the 'newish parrallel map tree' is even there. The problem isn't a problem per se, but a solution set to question of timing, familiarity, system software capabilities, and catalog philosopy taken against man-power resources. Basically, the lot of us who were working on straightening out maps, categorization of such, etc. were happy with the double categorys because the new system has many 'blank' categories, and is derivative of the commons cats. Mnay 'Old hands' are not even yet aware of the new structure, so the advertising is desirable for a time, hence the double level of catting.
       The 'equalized' part means the category systems are in synch in the title of Category:Wikipedia categories equalized with Wikimedia Commons categories, which name and cat came out of a formal CFD vote. Conngversely, substituting the word 'matching' gives a WIP list Category:Wikipedia categories matching with Wikimedia Commons categories, and both are controlled by templates such as the one we most recently discussed--the categories are 'temporary' markers... and the plan is to 'vanish' the autocategorization at a later time--much later at the moment.

... more later

Unfortunately, I'm due at the dentist's and will have to finish later. I'll drop a heads up note then. ttfn // FrankB 15:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a guideline[edit]

See the instructions at the top of the voteing page: "Voters are requested not to add extensive comments to their votes. An uninvolved party may move long comments to the talk page. Voters may ask questions of the candidate at any time at their questions page."Geni 16:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate statements are also on the voteing page Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote.Geni 20:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons:Early Middle Ages maps article[edit]

Hi Farbatus, I answered you - both on my talk page and in Commons talk page. Better continue there as a follow-up.

Ultrogothe 16:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

xpost reply
here per suggestion on above linked talk.
Bonjour
... which exhausts my feeble French! Just wanted to acknowledge getting your answer. Unfortunately I'm plumb out of time for wiki matters today until after you'll be likely asleep. I'll get back to you and drop a notification here then, but I can probably find a couple of other people with at least a small interest. Mine is large, and parallel's your motives. Suggest you drop me an email (google omit)... then we can use that to notify each other we left a message on the talk pages to discuss the business and organization as needed. That should keep us in touch. My wikitime is severely limited at the moment, so slow steady progress and an ally is all I can offer. Best wishes // en.wp/commons/Meta user:Fabartus and here (omit IP) 12 décembre 2006 à 18:41 (CET) // FrankB 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up Template:WikiFur for deletion vote[edit]

re: Template:WikiFur(edit talk links history) Template up for deletion; You also need to consider actions to clarify your relationship to the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia:Sister projects with some entry or mentions.
   Also, as has been 'picked on', the acceptable style for such links is well established. Use Template:Commonscat(edit talk links history) or {{Wiktionarycat1}} as style/size guideline and boilerplate guideline, also see category:Interwiki link templates. See also Category:Interwiki utility templates for a host of examples where some variation has be introduced in coloration, for examples see Template:Interwikitmp-grp0(edit talk links history) and technique, the sucked-in member templates. Those are currently experimentally equiped with two perameters to play with sizing and such. Best regards // FrankB 17:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. Honestly, I am not too bothered whether or not the template is kept. As noted by another contributor, there are currently no articles which make use of it. There appears to be some confusion about its intended use - the template is intended for the talk page, as an indicator of the original source in compliance with the GFDL. It is not intended to go on the article page as an "advert" like the sister projects templates. While this might actually be a good idea in a few restricted cases (there was a similar one on the furry fandom article in the past) that is not the purpose of this template.
   As for "our relationship" - WikiFur is a separate wiki hosted by Wikia. There is no official relationship, although many users contribute to both. I consider WikiFur and Wikipedia (and similar sites) as "friends" who can help one another out - WikiFur provides more detailed coverage of furry fandom topics that Wikipedia would like to avoid, while Wikipedia is great for us to link all those topics which are not relevant to the furry fandom. A good example of this on Wikipedia is furry convention, which directs users who are looking for more information which Wikipedia cannot provide (as it is non-verifiable) to the appropriate WikiFur articles. GreenReaper 17:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ArbCom protected page edit suggestion[edit]

Hi! this says you hold some of the keys to the kingdom. I was just purusing candidate statements and wanted to segue into a voting page, but there is no link. Twould be good if there was! // FrankB 20:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I was coming in through the backdoor here... still seems worth doing. // FrankB 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI -- Suggested here you two split the task. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fabartus (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I've copied the "election status" box that appears at the top of the main page to the top of the candidate statements page. Most people should come in through the main page and they should see the link there, so noone thought to link to the vote page from the statements page. That should be sufficient.
If you want the individual links you can see them alongside the statements at the voting page. --bainer (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cresta Run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

Oh dear, you're quite right, I had no intention of removing the image. It's lucky you followed up behind and remedied my rather hamfisted edit.

As far as the substansive nature of my edit goes (removing the list of search terms from the introduction), this is something which I suppose is open to debate. In all the time I have been on Wikipedia I can safely say that I have never come across this usage before, even in situations where a connected search term redirects to another article, as in this case. It does seem somewhat superfluous given that 'Redirected from XXX' is added to the top of the page in all cases of redirection. I'm also unsure whether it is appropriate to use the {{disambig}} template in an article; my reading of WP:DAB suggests that this template is for use in disamiguation pages only (although this is a guideline, not mandatory policy).

Best wishes, Xdamrtalk 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I've seen a few like such, but can't say when or where. I'll refer it to higher, who would be cognizant of various debates on standards such over the years and the way things have evolved and drifted. Seems a minor matter either way. // FrankB 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas -- Frank's Wet Noodle award[edit]

One Wikipedian once characterized the environment here as having an adversarial and crisis-oriented mindset. The template idea would work, provided that you could justify why attending to those concerns would trump whatever they were working on. This will be quite an uphill battle I suspect; it's a systemic problem that a single Wikipedian can't fix by themselves. Of course, every little bit counts - you might do this on a small scale for those users you're familiar with at first. There might be a certain type of tactical diplomacy which would be most effective, but you'd need to experiment a bit if you want to go this direction. --HappyCamper 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the moral support and response, all.
I realized last evening shortly after trying to halt time waste for all when writing W.marsh (this), that the problem is more me and my expectations than anything else. (This should amuse the lawyer in a few of you!) What I, colored by my 30 years in the service, would have called dereliction of duty and brought one up on charges for not doing is not seen as a mandatory duty by the civilian mindset at all, nor as much more than business as usual. Yawn. In the meantime, I've been going Grrrrrrrrooooowwwwwwl and getting hypertensive. {I2}}In sum, it's an interesting self-realization, as I didn't know the military had quite that deep a hold on my internal processes, outlook, or equanimity. Perhaps with this realization I can stop getting upset at the lack and such, but I suspect it's still a cultural matter we should address and shape with some better humored descendant of my own Ranting version, which word, made me concede that fight. Good documentation is fundamental to all scholarship, and most corporate decision making. Compare and contrast that I once got fired for sharing a company fact with an outside vendor (making a department look correctly like assholes) and the fact that any editor can tag an In-your-face template without justifying it... making us look bad to whomever comes along next in the whole world. Not an ideal situation.
Thanks for rallying to look in and comments and all, and I would like to develop the chide into something acceptable by this society. My emotions, and I believe gripes are clear in that text, so how do we make it short and sweet, preferrably, a touch funny. Best regards // FrankB 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you still want feedback on this? Because I see it's now deleted. If I understand correctly, you intended that as tongue-in-cheek but people took it for a personal attack? Irony is kind of tricky online. (Radiant) 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please. After the faux pas of applying the draft rant—it was, albeit one I'd refined to capture the essence of my gripe as it impacts others time, may as well own that—my original intent is and was to come up with a gentle reminder that is really uncontroversial, and preferably humorous, as my title suggests. Trouble is from the edit that triggered the draft, to the moment I 'took the plunge' and layed it down on one guy I was caught up by another 4-5 occasions when I wished I'd had it finished, and what little time I had to work on it was soley on the link malfunction. (Mea Culpa) I really didn't go back through the text again at all. (Mea culpa)
       I generally know to vett something I write in an emotional state anywhere from three days to a week later, as well as get a second or third reader. (Mea maxima culpa) I've actually been expecting some input from CBDunkerson and another I'd asked to look in via email as well as a diagnoses on the link. I simply broke my own rule caught up in a moment of pique, I guess being honest in retrospect. I've been off in RL far too much and am still pressed by those conflicting priorities, so I guess I pressed back against what I saw as near unpardonable lack of concern many here evince in such unilateral actions sans thought (or so it seems) about 'the needs of we who edit there later'. IMHO, a {{clean}}, to give an concrete example, needs a sentence or three outlining the matters the applying editor perceives as problematic.
       Last evening, I realized others don't see it as the same discourtesy nor as a negligence as I do, and the guidelines and template imbedded links would imply (See the above link to W.marsh). Nonetheless, changing that lackadaisical attitude in out society toward good documentation seems a worthy goal, and is certainly consistent with the intent of a lot of tags, such as the talk page references in mergeto, mergefrom, clean, etc. (An example of mine, I don't do many, and more often remove such, which I comment similarly with my reasons when removing one. Plus, if I can ID the applier, drop them a note.)
       My current thought is to take some of the sting out of a family of templates using a funny cartoonish image of much shorter size and so more similar to barnstars—tentatively entitled 'Non-star' awards which would cite an edit and template (Still need that link fix!) but focus much more narrowly, perhaps citing guidelines and their oft repeated message to discuss things on the talk page. Ideally, with a little fun, we can get better compliance with the documentation. I'm sure I'm not the only one stupid enough to check why and such on talk pages... and history summations to see how long a template has been in place.
       As far as the deletion, I decided it was better to not ask people I don't know and don't know me until I can get together with others like you who I've at least rubbed shoulders with over the last few years, after initially trying to turn the deletion discussion to a discussion on the template talk of the merits; no one bought in and commented, so I caved—quickly.
       As a result I figured the best course was to violate the village pump and retract the request people look in on the lynching by commenting it out. Then moved the template to user space User:Fabartus/Wet noodle award after copying over the tfd discussion to the talk. Then db-authored the redirects after making them into just links so as to disarm the template. Ditto the link fix on the one page I used it. Seemed the most respectful thing I could do for others time, since it was never intended for 'unveiling'—I just goofed up royally. Sigh. I'm AD/HD and impulse like that make for occasional large gaffs I'm afraid—one reason I've not bothered to self-nom for Admin. I have enough trouble juggling what I've already got up in the air. Sigh.
        So take a look at the talk (User talk:Fabartus/Wet noodle award), as the template is designed to be included, so not visible in the template itself.
       The way way forward has me stumped. Any suggestions (Anyone!)? // FrankB 23:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This section 'Closed', discuss on User talk:Fabartus/Wet noodle award (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Fabartus/Wet noodle award|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I'll be xposting some emails to as well. // FrankB 19
49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: I am too existant![edit]

Oh, whoops! ;) Yeah, the backslash was the problem. Pages have been moved to the "forward slash," location -- see User:Fabartus/Wet noodle award. I was hoping to fix incoming links, since there seem to be more than just two, but it looks like you guys used some piped syntax. When I have a moment, I'll see if I can switch the links over; if not, you're welcome to fix that. Apologies for not leaving a note about it, before. Luna Santin 02:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something a bit different[edit]

I'm flattered you asked. I'm afraid I'm not a graphics guy; I've gotten a couple of Barnstars (whatever that name means) but I couldn't draw anything on a computer screen to save my life. I can copy-paste existing stuff in Photoshop, but not design anything myself. Still, nice to be well-thought-of! --Tenebrae 04:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, me too. I Wikibreak during workdays, so let me mull and get back to you tomorrow night. 'Night! --Tenebrae 04:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:vandalism by 207.8.197.2[edit]

Blocked already, if he is back vandalising, the block will get longer. You may want to report such incidents via WP:VIP (isn't this an ironical shortcut :D) or related pages.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Piotr! I think doc'ing it as I did should be enough for now. // FrankB 00:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for butting in this friendly conversation, but I do wince at this edit of yours. I don't think that Piotrus needs your (or my) help. He should take responsibility for referring to fellow admins as "vandals" and for spamming citation requested templates to featured articles with over seventy inline citations. Such immature behaviour certainly merits defrocking. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse to Ghirlandajo[edit]

  • FYI, I hardly see how drawing potential ire of someone is aiding or going to the aid of Piotr. I merely stated my reaction to the various wikified links, cites, and such that were cavalierly discarded in the edit in question. Such actions by any editor is a blatant act of spitting in the face to another, and much worse, totally disrespectful of another's time. So I have merely stated what I consistently feel about juvenile tendancies on this whole project to weild reverts as if they were anything but an excuse to do a quality edit with appropriate workmanship like effort. Piotr's edit added information which was discarded, that editor acted as a spoiled child kicking his heels and lacking the discipline to update the outcome to the intervening edits, discarded them all for his convienience or ego. In short, it was dispicable and childish and demeans the very name of editor, much less the office of admin, as I believe him to be. If he were my kid I'd discipline him and pull all video priviledges for a week and have him write several essays on treating others as he wanted to be treated. This being a wiki, the best I could do was tell him firmly a small amount of the disdain I felt for his blatant and egregious disrespect of others' edits. Shrug. I do that from time to time, and recently decided it was a good idea to systematize it.
       Examin User talk:Fabartus/Wet noodle award discussion. Someone that discards links and cites is not making a quality edit and is wasting peoples time—in this case, many others, as Piotr asked for it to be reviewed on the AN/I and you were quick to chirp in with the matter on the RFC like any conscienceless tattle-tale maneuvering for self-interest. You admins, above all others need to think of that with every action you take—how many people are you going to impact with a decision needs to be a consistent and constant decision by all of us, but especially by you whom are supposed to be good examples and whizzes at knowing all the rules inside out and paragons at following same. Instead we witness petty bickering and constant angling for advantage between you all. This project is not some hobby, not some school boy intermural game, but serious adult activity. It's enough to make me feel like throwing up. So to me, that editor is the one that needs chastised, and I did so.
       I did not do so, on AN\I which is much too public, but on the semi-privacy of his talk. Hopefully, he will also feel some official displeasure. If you can't take straight talk, you're well advised to stay clear of me. If you can't treat your actions here with gravitas, go play on another website. If you can't act maturely, and with reason, go see a shrink. Edit warring is immature. Game, set, match. Live with it, deal with it. Secondly, how do you construe my action is tied in any way to the request I made of Piotr about making sure that IP was being watched. I'm not an admin, and probably won't be an admin, and only sporadically think otherwise and when I find myself doing so, then I take a sanity pill an get better. I wrote Jimbo last week that he couldn't pay me enough to take the job. So I rotate asking Admins I know for admin-powers help when I have something that needs an admin. That hardly makes me a partisan of Piotr, and in fact the record in the archive01 in Talk:1632 series#Archive1 will show you we have built a working relationship on a start (initial meeting) of disagreeing. Plus I was critical of his article. But we have worked together on occasion, but I'm far closer and in far more frequent contact with a host of others. Piotr's talk link just happened to be handy in the RFC on another tab. So I resent your suspicious mind assuming I was acting on anything but wikibusiness I initiated.
       As for reverts, in general, in this mileu, they disgust me. Please note the overstated total I've applied in that discussion, I've lost firm count, but I suspect the true number (discounting some vandalism no-brainers) is more like seven or eight, and each one was a special case in some respect. Compare that with your own practices and whether or not you notify the editor or editors concerned with reasons and then let it stand as they change it, no matter what they do. I recommend the same to anyone, and you'll find you won't get involved in these pseudo-matters-of-honor and get far more done in more articles. In short you'll grow up enough to give others space, and have plenty of scope for your own ego-stoking activities. You'll not find a double either by me—I just don't let any article get that important to me—more importantly, I may speak harshly to some at times, but I respect another's attempt at contributing, even when that degrades the overall outcome. It's necessary because of the five pillars, live it, don't just give it lip service. There is too much to improve and add to without that sort of idiocy. Note how I documented it and dicussed one of the very few with the editor I reverted above and on his talk. So yes, I'm self righteous about such, and if you want to imagine me in Piotrs corner, you are delusional and need help. Have I made a comment on the RFC?
       Fortunately for all of you, I'm not Emperor of the Universe. If I had my way, that power would be severely constrained solely to to such one time edits, with the provisio that such a documentation trail were established with it (and vandalism). Normally, I would have also documented on the talk as well. In the matter at hand, I was too busy, and settled for said note to the user, as it was a minor matter of taste, not very important.
       Insofar as I can see, neither you nor Piotr is standing on firm ground in the RFC, which it was hard not to wander into given the note on AN/I. In fact, I'll be surprised if there isn't a finding of fact against you as I see a pattern disturbingly like a vendetta against Piotr by you. The comment you interjected here is an action which really speaks louder than words. As far as whining and posting on interest notice boards, so what. Shrug, and only a very small one at that. Go post on some of your own. Better yet, demonstrate some maturity and go find another ten or twenty articles to nurture. I hope to hell you aren't so narrowly focused that only one or one area, or group of is your sole interest in a field of action which is, well pardon the obvious, encyclopediac in scope. For Pete's sake with a million plus articles can't you find something of interest where you and Piotr don't cross paths? Go help on the commons or Meta, this is all disgustingly juvenile.
       As far as Piotr's use or alledged threats to use the v-word, piffle. He's entitled to his opinion, and in mine, if someone proporting to be an adult working in the real world (which excludes government, law, and academia) can't handle a little straight talk, they need to go sue their parents for a retarded upbringing. People differ, they argue, and they get hot at times. If and only if they hold a grudge, or act to escalate an imbroglio, are such picadillo's of concern, and invariably, such reflects badly on their maturity and ability to make sound judgements. Mature people aplologize, come to an accomidation, and at worst, avoid each other thereafter, not continue to throw gasoline on a fire. IMHO, WP:CIV has been given far too much weight as an attempt to combat edit waring such as you appear to be waging on Piotr, and is attacking the wrong issue. (Worse, you appear to be engaged in a systematic vendetta. Sorry, but that's what I see in the RFC. That and whining because someone else is better at political gamesmanship, like either of you should be partaking of such.)
       The Real underlying problem is not CIV, but the attitudes of people towards the article in play, and whether they are mature enough to let others have room to pose contrary views, whether they recognize they have no ownership or ego involvement with such (or should not), and whether they are smart enough to just let it be when they have a disagreement with anyone about anything. So ask your self this, why are you all hot and bothered about any one article or set of articles, or editor of said articles. If you are at all, from where I sit, you need to get your head screwed on straight and stop banging it against walls. If you have a favorite flavor of something (Don't I recollect a nationalistic view underlying your 'evidence' and arguements against Piotr? What's that say about you? Move on and find another sandbox to play in fer Pete's sake!) If it isn't going to matter to the size of your house, or the car or cars and other toys you have, or the size of your portfolio, or the ability to buy braces for your kids teeth in ten years, let it go. Note the forgoing means everything on this website. It's not adding to your wealth, quite the opposite.
       I hope that clarifys as to whether I am in Piotr's corner or shaking my head in disdain at you both and the editor that throws away cites and links. I trust I made it plain that it is the latter. Have a happy holiday season, but don't try to suck other people into your pathetic little power games. // FrankB 09:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Moon Article[edit]

The edits you made to the New Moon article are worse than the previous version. Why would you want to obfuscate plain dates, for example? Your text also has spelling/grammar errors. Victor Engel 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Victor Engel + newbie welcome.
(See also WP:VPP) // FrankB 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quilt[edit]

Plenty of room left :) I've added it in the corner. (Radiant) 09:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite book[edit]

Cordell, Bruce R. (2001). Manual of the Planes. Wizards of the Coast. ISBN 798-0-7869-1850-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

looks ok? Rich Farmbrough, 10:11 19 December 2006 (GMT).

LOL[edit]

Radiant!'s Your sneaky sneaker graphic brought to mind this quote from Stargate: "We can only hope that this is the final footwear to descend." Cheers!Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmmm - have you ever read Footfall by Niven and Pournelle? Good tale! Highly recommended. Is there a reason you don't allow email for these less than businesslike mess{egesings) <g>? T'would be nice, being friends and all. Also still have the ident protection if go strictly through the wiki-email facility, so enabling is no risk. Think on it.
       Hmmmm2- Who waz it that said: 'Of course I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?' Don't recall, but I likee the quote. // FrankB 18:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Welcome2[edit]

Hi! I'm on the welcoming committee too, [snip] Happy holidays, // FrankB 07:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, FrankB! I did as you suggested.

--Sylvia A 22:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer[edit]

  • Excuse me. I answered you on your talk page on the 11th. You did not further answer me. Can we start with the answer I gave you. Thanks Hmains 03:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bad idea?[edit]

Regarding your post on my talk page. I think it is probably a bad idea, and got deleted quickly because of that.--Commander Keane 05:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xpost
Updated your links and focus of the discussion. BTW-Is there any reason 'edit section' isn't working on your talk page? // FrankB 16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

The reasoning is that both pages cover the same topic. I thought that were obvious but I'll clarify if it's not. What page protect are you talking about? Regarding test templates, I don't understand what you mean by null feedback. But they are generally read by the IP and thus might help. (Radiant) 09:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nawh -- was teasing you in line with my Wet noodle discussion... see the suggested templates nos. #1 and #2 on User talk:Fabartus/Wet noodle award People who (1) apply a tag to merge and then (3) don't link to (2) a discussion they innaugerate are imho, misusing the tags since the link is explicit to the templates.
   I concur that the two in question are overlapping, but one is an essay, the other a guideline proposal, and some suggestion of how and why to do the job as you see it can be done would be a starting place for others. In other less obvious cases, that innaugeral discussion should have some clear reasoning. That's all. In this case, as with all merge proposals, the talk on such needs be centralized to one or the other as well. Best regards // FrankB 16:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Header templates[edit]

Sorry for the slow response on the header/footer templates. I've been all over the country recently during my Christmas vacation and haven't had time to focus on wiki-issues lately. I took a look at the templates, and decided that all of them, redirects included, should simply be deleted. Even though the result of the TfD was to userfy, they weren't being used and disuse has long been grounds for template deletion. I'm sorry it took so long to do something, I'm usually more helpful, especially with templates. Anyway, I'm happy to have been of help and I wish you a happy holiday season. Regards, RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your post on my talk page[edit]

Hi, sorry but I was away for a few weeks and just noticed your post now. I notice the link you posted for comment is now a redlink; are you still looking for further comment? Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 00:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xpost
But the answer is yes, at least on the ideas and suggestions side. Currently looking for some 'suggested messages' that are not my ranting template (It was Bad, but I was mad), but which would none-the-less move our society towards a bit better documentation discipline.
I fixed up the one link... there was one in the tfd too, but I couldn't check it and find it just now. The whole thing was copied to that talk though, to start it off. A backlink there to the TFD archive should be working, if you want to see the original... I just userfied it and db-authored the 'proto-proto-draft' that captures my gripes and groans at least. So yeah, but take your time. Thanks. Have a great holiday season // FrankB 00:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and best wishes for the holidays to you too. I've left my comments on the modified link. JYolkowski // talk 00:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
move section
Question from Mister.Manticore to talk:1632 series for answer in context. // FrankB 15:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fabartus/Archive05&oldid=1142996609"