User talk:Ed g2s/Archive6

Vasco da Gama
An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 03:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

U.S.electoral map
I appreciate the work you did to create the 2004 electoral map, but there's an error in it. We need to add a "3" pointing to Delaware. Kerry/Edwards received 252 electoral votes, but if you add up the blue-state numbers on the map, you'll see they total only 249. Also, there are only 50 numbers, but there should be 51, for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. The "3" that's pointing to the location of DC, on the Virginia-Maryland border, belongs there, but another "3" has to be crammed in for little Delaware. I have no idea how to edit images. Would you make the change? Thanks for any help you can give. JamesMLane 07:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Royalty-free London Underground diagram
The icon you used to represent national rail interchanges is copyrighted. ed g2s •  talk  14:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello Ed. You are correct about the Nation Rail symbol being copyrighted of course. It was something I spotted a while ago, but in the absence of an obvious alternative I left it in. I have yet to see a good, unambiguous symbol except perhaps the choo-choo train from the standard UK roadsigns. This though is representative of a bygone age of steam and increasingly meaningless to today's users. --DominicSayers 18:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think a free train icon is better than non-free BR logo as offering the image as it stands under the CC license is misleading. You should also consider removing the CC logo watermark, as there are limitations on its reproduction, such as it must link to the deed, and it cannot be altered (no-derivs is considered non-free on Wikipedia). ed g2s  &bull;  talk  19:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ed, I was agreeing with you. I just haven't done it yet. --DominicSayers 19:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I know, my main reason for posting was to point out the issue with the CC watermark. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  20:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Biography
I'm having some issues on John Vanbrugh. People keep removing the infobox! I think it's quite useful as it does take some hunting to find information about birth places, birth dates and death dates/places in many of the articles. Could you comment on the talk page? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Changes on Sept 14 to Template:Bridge3
Featured article status has attracted css editors to the template. Please do not change for a few days. I reverted to the last stable version.

Suggestion: Make a new template (e.g. Bridge3B) and copy the contents. Include the template on your user page, copying the calling info from the article. You may new view the effects of template changes in your own user page without effecting the article. When all is coorect you may elect to reference this in one live article for testing purposes. Only when all is satisfactory should the master template be changed. Please note: templates are potentially used widely and a change can affect many articles. I do have some technical questions regarding proper CSS use and your assistance will be welcome. Right now I have to keep vandals at bay. Best wishes, Leonard G. 02:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

old NPOV tag?
You tagged Lyn Walsh for NPOV consideration in September of 2004. There's nothing on the talk page of the article. If you still feel it needs NPOV could you leave a comment on what direction it needs to move. (It's one of the last cleanup pages from September 2004. I'm not expert in British politics, but I did wikilink it.  I'm not sure the heavy use of abbreviations is appropriate.  Not much work has been done on it in the last year.) RJFJR 00:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't remember editing that article at all, but I've removed the cleanup/NPOV tags now. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  12:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Invitation
Would you like to join WikiProject Cricket? =Nichalp «Talk»=  12:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Pixelquelle.de
Hi. Pixelquelle images aren't PD and are under a pretty restrictive (and unusable) license. Hence:

Featured picture nomination
Can I nominate Image:SnowflakeKenLibbrecht.jpg for a featured picture? --HappyCamper 19:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that we have permission to use it has no bearing on the license under which we can redistribute it. From WP:FPC:
 * fair use images are not appropriate candidates for inclusion in the featured pictures gallery. - ed g2s  &bull;  talk  09:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cambridge IP
I had to see what it was when I seen it posted to an anon's page. Way better looking than sharedip ;) You should add the IP range on the talk page, so other users don't have to look them up. Nice looking though, hope it lasts, granted it's been around for a year so far.   &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  14:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

templates
Please stop unilaterally changing individual templates on the royal pages that (a) are part of a large series, (b) all designed to have the one design, and (c) have a design produced on the basis of a look agreed upon in a long discussion running in one case running to weeks involving multiple users. You have a history of doing this and it is grossly disrespectful to everyone else to decide that can unilaterally dump everyone else's communal work and replace it with a version that you alone prefer purely because you want to do it your way. Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 20:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C. FAC
Hi Ed, I've nominated Arsenal F.C. as a featured article candidate. I'd welcome any comments you might want to make on the nomination page, if you have the time to look it over. Thanks. Qwghlm 00:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Operation Clambake
An anonymous user keeps adding unsubstantiated clams claims about Heldal-Lund, and restores when I revert. I don't want to break 3RR so as an interested editor I hope you'll keep an eye on this article - thanks! – ciphergoth 12:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yellow Hard Hat
Although the nomination tanked anyway, I would like to note that the Image:YellowHardHat.jpg was appropriately licensed. The author allowed use for "personal or commercial works," and clarified via e-mail that Wikipedia's use of it was appropriate under the terms of his license. (This was not a permission of use, but a clarification that possible commercial use by Wikipedia was OK)

Would it help if I asked him to release it under the GFDL? --Anetode 13:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Birthday!
--User:Jenmoa 00:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Rosaparksarrested.jpeg
Just curious, you said this is AP from Library of Congress? Is it a work of the Library of Cognress, meaning, are they the providers now making it public domain? They may have bought the copyright as it is now national heritage. If you know that'd be great. gren グレン 13:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

class="infobox"
The replacement you did of this code makes the placement color and padding of templates harder to edit and it actually moved the box, messing up the entire page layout of WP:FAC. I hope you don't mind, but I find it being editable by everyone more important than the code being short. Or is there another reason or discussion I don't know about? - Mgm|(talk) 21:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course, fixing the code would also be helpful, I see you made the change in more than just the FAC boxes. - Mgm|(talk) 21:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * How can that css contain the different colors those template headers have and is it editable? They never appeared left aligned until your edit and I did clear my cache before I started Wikiing today, the Help desk was cached. - Mgm|(talk) 21:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Funny, the alignment is fine now even after your revert of my edits. Did you purge the pages used by the templates after changing them? Also, can that class be edited if it ever needs to be? - Mgm|(talk) 21:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's working now and it is still editable. I'm happy. (I did clear my browser cache Ctrl+F5) but apparently it didn't work. At least now it does. Thanks for staying patient with me. - Mgm|(talk) 22:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I usually ignore such notes unless I receive proof in diffs, or until I can get the same result in my interaction with a user. That's why I like discussion so much. It can clear up a lot of misunderstandings as our case shows. - Mgm|(talk) 22:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy
Hi, doing speedy deletions is a great way of easing wikistress, but be careful! This Spaghetti house siege article was a resonable capitalisation redirect with an obvious spelling error, which should not have been speedied. Regards. Rich  Farmbrough 18:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
An Editor's Barnstar for Ed g2s Thank you for clearing out un-needed lines of code in all of the Common Law templates! I'd appreciate if you could also have a glance at Template:Family law and Template:BusinessLaw. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC) 
 * Again, thanks! BD2412  T 23:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:SuccessorSeries
You substituted &amp;#124; for | in Template:USpresidents. This actually solved a problem I've been working on in a template that Template:USpresidents uses, namely Template:SuccessorSeries. Thank you for your (possibly inadvertent) help! For more, see Template talk:SuccessorSeries. --Mark Adler (Markles - talk) 19:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

and tags
Your work on Template:S-start uses   and   tags. Can you direct me to a Wikipedia article explaining these and similar html tags as used in Wikipedia? Thanks! --Mark Adler (Markles)  19:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

DLR
Hi. Just thought I'd prod you if you weren't away, that Image:Docklands Light Railway.svg needs updating as from yesterday. Ta, Morwen - Talk 22:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

SI physics units for electricity, deleted?
Just curious about why Template:SI electricity units was deleted. The comments there give no reason. Last time I looked, this template was used in numerous WP physics entries. What gives?--Wjbeaty 20:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm still learning WP. Someone (perhaps a vandal) must have blanked it and requested an admin to delete it.  Very odd.  But the deletion stuff doesn't appear in its history, so I can't see the perpetrator.--Wjbeaty 23:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Was it protected?
I was unaware of this, and I see no entry in the protection log, and I recall no message warning me that it was protected. – F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  18:22, Jan. 4, 2006
 * Ok. If you say you meant to protect it prior to the time I most recently moved it, I'll take your word for it and bow out for the time being. I only got involved in the first place because I witnessed a cut & paste move whilst patrolling recent changes. And things only got worse when I forgot what year it was... which was partly Splash's fault, btw (lol). – F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  18:32, Jan. 4, 2006

Text indent with class=notice
One of my lesser known pet peeves is related to this revert you did. Specifically, that the ":" (colon symbol) at the start of the line translates into the HTML element  <DD> , which makes it a "Definition description". It's supposed to be paired with  <DT>  (Definition term) and create a definition list. This is why use of it only to indent is not a good practice, and why I used the CSS class="notice" to perform that. Using the CSS class also allows readers to hide or modify how those lines work (turn it bright yellow, if they wanted). Of course, we do use : all the time as a shortcut on talk pages, but we should avoid it where we can on articles, and a template should avoid it completely since it's "hands-off". Editors don't need to type the text out, and readers won't notice any difference. A good example is Template:Disambig which uses a simple CSS class in a similar way, which then produces indent and the double-line effect. Please, use the CSS class, and adjust to your personal liking in your own style sheet. – Netoholic @ 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of the benefits of using a CSS class, but the notice class has 1.2em of margin and padding. Disambig links have been marked up in this way for years, so I would like to know how you justify changing the default appearance of half the pages on Wikipedia without discussion? Also classes should not be used just because their current properties suit your needs. The notice class, not designed for top-line disambig notices, may need to be changed, and shouldn't be tied down by extra uses. The dablink class already exists for disambig links ("dablink"), and this class should be modified to add any padding which, until you've had a discussion about it, should be on the left only. ed g2s &bull; talk  15:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The notice, defined in MediaWiki:Common.css, really is intended for any simple inline text notices. The dablink class, which is only in MediaWiki:Monobook.css, is only defined as "display: none". I have no problem discussing a change to the notice class (perhaps to "margin: 0.5em 2em; padding: 0.2em;"), but I also think the current margin/padding is an appropriate amount.  Using a mismatched HTML tag to perform indentation isn't a good solution, especially when it limits what an end user can do with their own style sheet.  The alternative that you reverted was of such a subtle change that few would even notice a difference. We really should standardize on the notice class. – Netoholic @ 15:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Notice is for inline notices which, when sandwiched between text, may require extra padding. Dab links do not have vertical margins, this is the status quo. If you want to change that you need to have a discussion first. The monobook.css file can be changed to include extra rules for dablinks. The current system of definition lists is not ideal, but nor is it invalid code,  tags are not required in a definition list (from w3c:  ). ed g2s &bull;  talk  17:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the orginal edit that added the notice class (although the borders were moved out later). From the change made, you can see it was intended to be used for disambigs and stubs... neither of which are inline notices sandwiched between other text. I am all for adjusting the margins of that class.  If we do that, we can keep the original intent of the class and still address your concern.  Whether the DD is invalid is not so important as the fact that it doesn't allow personal customization. – Netoholic @ 17:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think it's any disturbance. Most times, people will manually insert extra line breaks, such as before {(disambig}}. We only need to define a reasonable minimum margin/padding. – Netoholic @ 18:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What is up with that.... we're here discussing what to do, and instead you run thru and remove the notice class from all those templates? What the hell is with that? What is the point of having a class if we don't use it consistently? – Netoholic @ 22:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing up Template:otheruses and Template:dablink. Would you also be able to get rid on the padding on Template:Main and Template:See? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 00:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Football squad templates
Please do us the courtesy of discussing changes to the football squad templates, either at Template talk:Football squad player or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football before implementing them. A lot of discussion went into their creation and it's unfair to drastically and arbitrarily change it without doing so. I've reverted your edits, perhaps we can talk over your proposed changes there. Qwghlm 17:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As well as Qwghlm noted above, you should propose first your modifies to the football squad templates before to implement them. I reverted your "version", and now I hope you first think and ask for a clear consensus before make these drastic changes to templates, as well as we did for making the current version. --Angelo 01:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You may open a new one on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. --Angelo 01:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay :-). Well, the old one is on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Clubs. --Angelo 01:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Tramlink map
This better? David Arthur 19:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

LU station lists
I rather liked the LU station lists with the coloured blocks - they looked substantially neater that way than just a bare list of links. While they needed a bit of tidying up to handle branches more neatly, your rather heavy-handed reversion of the whole lot without so much as a note on, say, the LU talk page seems rather discourteous to me. --Mpk 20:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)