User talk:Sladen/Archives/2018

Hogwarts Express

Hey,

Which source says that there wasn't a height restriction for Hogwarts Express? I also remember there not being a restriction before but there obviously is now. (Figured you would know which source it is rather than me having to click through over 40 sources).--Dom497 (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Never mind...it was right in front of me.

Because of what one of the Universal peeps said: "There's no limitation, no ride-height limitation", you think we should add something to the "History" tab saying something along the lines of: "Originally, the attraction did not have a set heigh restriction; however after opening, persons under 48 in are required to be with a supervising companion"? I couldn't find any strong evidence that there was never a height restriction but I'll keep digging.--Dom497 (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Dom497. Hopefully added in Special:Diff/821518643. It is really useful to re-read the first two Orland Sentinel articles in full; Universal VPs Alice Norsworthy and Thierry Coup talk (relatively openly) about why it was necessary to build the people mover link ("connector train"). Somewhat similarly, in Las Vegas the privately-built Mandalay Bay Tram was designed to keep customers roaming inside separate properties belonging to one company, to allow upselling to those customers, even though the development land available to that one company was separated by half a mile. The Sentinel articles talk about the instant 30% rise in visitors and the extreme imbalance caused by the opening of the first Harry Potter related shops, and peculiar knock-on effects of having to stop selling (alcoholic) drinks to cope with the demand for (non-alcoholic) ButterBeer. Like in Las Vegas the available development land was also half a mile, underneath Jaws, and the bit in the middle inconveniently used for other purposes: so requiring an elevated system, and a quite high capacity system at that. The windows need blacking out because of the backlot, but that is solved with projection on one side and LCD panels on the compartment glass. The interesting and unexpected development for Universal, and also recanted in those cites, is that the visitors surveyed came to view the connector train as an attraction (an unexpected secondary purpose). Queue the addition of the third Mk1 carriage on each train, and even more buffering/queueing capacity required. It is fundamentally a people mover/train/horizontal lift (elevator)/thing. Its purpose is to move everyone, including wheelchairs, buggies, push chairs, old people reasonably speedily—whilst keeping those people inside a single company's properties and upselling (double entry tickets + more merchandise = more cash). The supervised "height restriction" seems to be about preventing lost/enthusiastic children getting separated from adults, with no easy way to reunite them. —Sladen (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Dom497, was this useful? —Sladen (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC) It can often be quite time-consuming to research, locate diffs and respond.

Hogwarts Express FAC

Hi Sladen,

When you have a minute or two would you be able to respond to one of Brianboulton's comments (its the first one about having quotations in the references). Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Will do, need to work out what to say. —Sladen (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey are you still working this out?--Dom497 (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I know I'm kinda spamming you, but whats the status on this? In the interest of the FAC review I agree with the review that mentioned the quotes are not necessary in the references. I'll be removing them if you can't justify why you included them.--Dom497 (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Dom497, been holding back on this because a lot of relevant diffs turn out to relate to one particular editor. That leaves a choice between (a) choosing to reply as-is, (b) write something else, or (c) leaving it on silent pause to avoid conflict. Hearing a proposal to make additional edits likely to further impact long-term WP:INTEGRITY of the article, …is frustrating. What would be the benefit to our readers? —Sladen (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thats it; I've had enough. Your ambiguity, accusations/blaming, and desire to take things out of context to paint other users as the bad person have finally got to me. I tried to put up with it but you are just so ignorant. Do what you want with the Hogwarts Express article...I'm done with it.--Dom497 (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Like the fact that you didn't revert a one word change and instead added a tag to the article saying references need to be proved is just so dumb. Be fricken bold and just revert the edit.--Dom497 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

redoing indents

Hi Sladen, I'm leaving you a note here because I didn't want to crowd the Musk's Roadster talk page. I want to ask you to please try not to adjust others' indenting to your liking. I took the leftmost spot there because the indentation scheme had become chaotic and there was nowhere else to go really. It's okay to "go leftmost" when indentation gets too far to the right. I wasn't trying to play dominance games or anything. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello 98.216.245.29. Special:Diff/824211598 indents from position 0 to position 2 per WP:SIGCLEAN "Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. … Examples include fixing indentation levels". —Sladen (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe so, but messing around with indentations introduces a difficulty in that it moves things around to where people don't expect them. Also, what's difficult to read is a matter of opinion, and forcing one's opinion on the matter can appear as aggressive. That is, reformatting someone else's words is somewhat akin to changing their words. Except in extreme situations, altering formatting should be avoided, and even then it should be done apologetically to avoid interpretation as aggression. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

98.216.245.29, WP:THREAD states "Indentation is used to keep talk pages readable … indented one more level than the comment it replies to". —Sladen (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I hear you. Still, indenting on talk pages is, in practice, more informal than you put forward here. Altering someone's formatting should be rare and be done only in extreme conditions, and then it's a really good idea to talk about why in the edit summary - humbly. Altering words and formatting is fraught with civility hazards. It's just the way it is. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Tesla Roadster orbit.svg

Hey there! I'm replying to you here, since the talk page on the article for Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster has gotten way too large for its own good! Just a few tweaks I wanted to request of the SVG version you created for my graphic; Nagualdesign requested that "Sol" in my graphic be changed to "Sun", and I'd like to fulfil his request. I'd like the text to also be returned to the original Sans font that it was in my original raster graphic diagram. If it's also not too much of a hassle, I'd like to see the transparent-background version of the graphic be converted into vector graphics as well! Thanks in advance! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 02:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

PhilipTerryGraham, yup, the "Sol"→"Sun" is easy, even without a vector editor, SVG can be opened in a text editor and the string changed. For adjusting font, we need to know the exact name and point-size—"Sans" is only a generic name, and the computer needs to know exactly, otherwise it will just use some other generic "Sans-serif" font when rendering. —Sladen (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: hectoring

Please don't {{U}} me again to repeat a request. You repeated your demand for exact wording SIX times. I gave you your answer and you made it clear to everyone that you don't agree. Repetition isn't going to make me change my mind. I wouldn't even be saying this on your talk page except you have demonstrated that you intend to re-post the same thing every single time I answer you. This applies equally to any other subject: you don't need to ping me to force me to give you my attention, and you don't need to repeat whatever your question is ad nauseam. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, not sure where the impression somebody "made it clear to everyone that you don't agree" has been given. Five concise requests have been made for greater specificity in order to have the opportunity to better understand what is being asked/proposed/suggested. With hard information, it may be possible to form an opinion—or continue not to have an opinion, for example, owing to lack of available information with sufficient precision. —Sladen (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That’s the seventh time you’ve repeated that. I’m no longer trying to get you to understand anything. I’m telling you: don’t ping me again, and stop re-posting the same questions at me. If you don’t like my first answer you’re going to just have to live with it.—21:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Heliocentric orbit

The car is in heliocentric orbit as well as thousands or other artificial objects. I perceive that entry to be synthesis and misleading. [[1]]. Please don't enhance the status of the car to that of a manned spacecraft. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded, thank you for getting in contact. Please can you help everyone by suggesting a wording that is felt to be accurate and which you are likely to be comfortable with. —Sladen (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

"It joins hundreds of other artificial objects in heliocentric orbit" List of artificial objects in heliocentric orbit. Sorry. You have been great. I'm Feeling frustrated with the spacecraft status insinuated from the inception of this article. Peace. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded, Hopefully we may find a solution that keep the specific mention and its accompanying citation—doing so is probably less likely to risk upsetting any other editors (particularly those who may have added it originally). Would "It joins hundreds of other artificial objects in heliocentric orbit, including […Apollo LM-4 etc…]" work? Or if not, perhaps it would also be possible to talk about "having controls", or "featuring input controls", "originally designed for human use" etc. As a reader, the information is fascinating, and would like to express gratitude to whomever originally research and added the citation. —Sladen (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow thanks

This table you created seems very helpful! I am only requesting a relaxation in the tools used from my main account for very specicic edits, the same way I can use HotCat to modify categories. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Magioladitis, glad it was/is useful: please feel free to take the table and improve. From reading the feedback, most is pointing to oversight (ie. no wikt:judge, jury and executioner setup, no "Magio" in all three columns). Suggest withdrawing the Arbcom request: the result is likely to be status quo, or more restrictions. Plus people keep pointing to BFRA: additional permissions not needed. —Sladen (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Third request to stop harassing me

Comment removed: Special:Diff/826552568 "rvt trolling. see WP:TPO". Similar request for specificity by another editor: Special:Diff/826583145.

I've asked you twice before to stop hectoring me with your repeated demands for "propose concrete wording". I've explained to you several times why. You've explained several times why you think I ought to. Repeating why we disagree about this topic is unnecessary. Your behavior is both harassment towards me, and is wasting the time of other editors on a talk page that is already bloated with more discussion than most editors wish to read. Maybe you honestly believe that re-posting the same request over and over is helping but you have now made this same request at least five times now. Posting it a sixth, or seventh, or eighth time is not going to be productive. Please do not re-explain why you think concrete wording is necessary. You have already done that multiple times as well.

If you really feel like a request for exact wording is really necessary, could you at least stop with the {{tlx|U|Dennis Bratland}} passive-aggressive crap? The reason I muted notifications from you is that you abused the notification button. If you are capable of replying to others without needing to be pinged every single time there is a post, don't you think others are just as capable of tracking their watch list as you are?

What about posting a request for exact wording by making a big show of not addressing me directly by name, perhaps by writing D_____ B______? Would that be a hilariously great idea? No. That would be more passive aggressive harassment. Adding these little flourishes is exactly the kind of thing that the WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND policy is telling you not to do. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

DON'T PANIC!

While WP:MOSCAPS is a good guideline, especially when copying headlines and such, the reason I chose to write "DON'T PANIC!" verbatim (ie, "in large, friendly letters") is because of the context; As documented here, the Hitchhiker's Guide says, "It is said that despite its many glaring (and occasionally fatal) inaccuracies, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy itself has outsold the Encyclopedia Galactica because it is slightly cheaper, and because it has the words 'DON'T PANIC' in large, friendly letters on the cover." The capital letters are part of the joke, and of course guidelines are only guidelines. I just wanted to say that I appreciate the compromise. I thought I'd mention it here rather than clog up the Roadster talk page (so that Dennis has more room for his tirades ). nagualdesign 00:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC) nagualdesign, really appreciated for taking the time to write the above here. Both reading the first time and again now! Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dom497 (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Dom497. Please see Special:Diff/828128944 over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)/archive2#Ideas for discussion. Thank you for the enthusiastic contributions and additional suggestions. —Sladen (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dom497 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hogwarts Express FAC

FYI, Sarastro left some comments today on the Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort) FA review here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)/archive2. In short, he wanted the Screamscape.com info addressed, the duplicate links removed, and a final word from you and one other user before the article gets promoted. Since Dom497 has vanished, I decided to take charge and guide the review the rest of the way. I deleted the Screamscape.com info from the article entirely (I believe you brought up that issue, originally) and I removed all of the duplicate links that I could see. In regards to the last item, you were pinged several times by multiple users on the FA review page, which means you are probably already aware that we would like your final input, but I'm leaving this message on your talk page also in order to perform due diligence. If you leave no comments on the FA review, we will assume that you are no longer interested in participating in it. Thank you. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 21:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Update: Dom497 is back now (he was on vacation, apparently). I also forgot to specify earlier that we would like you to comment in the coordinator notes section at the bottom of the FA review page. We just need you to officially declare whether you support, oppose, or that you neither support nor oppose this nomination. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 13:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Jackdude101, hopefully replied in Special:Diff/827711035/827724980. Please give me a heads up if these are any further grammatical mistakes, or anything could do with refining/extra diffs—it has ended up being quite long. —Sladen (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you happy with the current state of the article? Can I ping all the reviewers to take another look at the article?--Dom497 (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dom497: If you want to continue the review, you should withdraw your most recent message to Sarastro where you requested that the review be closed. Also, with the consensus of both of you and Sladen, I am willing to do a top-to-bottom copy edit of the article to remove any possibility of MOS:OUTUNIVERSE violations. Sladen, that is the only sticking point as far as you are concerned, correct? Jackdude101 ^talk cont 15:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jackdude101: My request still holds given all this work that is happening. I honestly think all this work is outside of what the nomination process should be (at this point, most of the article has been rewritten in a sense), but I'm just chugging along since Sladen seemed to have a revelation and wants to see this nomination pass.--Dom497 (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dom497: Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought when you said you wanted the review closed you meant that you wanted it archived (so that the review could start from scratch after two weeks). On a related note, I did a supplemental image review of the three new images that were recently added and gave them my stamp of approval. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 18:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Special:Diff/829740187 appears to have stricken the withdrawl request. Hopefully the useful advice offered in Special:Diff/828809751 about detecting reliability of sources can be reflected upon. Jackdude101, yes of course, copy-editing from a wider selection of editors is generally beneficial. —Sladen (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong links

Hi Sladen. In your addition to the Roadster/Falcon picture licensing conditions,[2] you pointed to two URLs which do not work. Please update them. — JFG ^talk 10:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Following this edit, I decided to take my kids on one of the Thames Clippers from North Greenwich to Westminster, and they loved it. Since they went free, and I could just clock in with my Oyster Card, I can do this again easily if the weather's nice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sladen. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)