User talk:O/Archive 15

Revert-happy behavior
Reflexive reversion on the basis that an edit you didn't make wasn't discussed with you is not very wiki of you. It is not required to have a discussion before editing. This is a matter of official policy. I am of course well aware of WP:BRD, but the "R" in that is generally not brought into play unless someone has a substantive objection to the edit (your objection was only that it wasn't pre-discussed, which is a circumstantial objection, not a substantive one), and the burden is logically upon the reverting party to start the discussion as to what they think was wrong with the edit; I note that you have not done so (with regard to WP:ELG, I mean). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There already was a discussion on WT:ELG about some major changes to the guideline. That included what you have added/changed from the status quo. O 2 (息 • 吹) 23:52, 13 October 2007 (GMT)
 * I read through that. I don't believe I need permission to do something sensible on a page in which progress has stalled, especially a) basic readability formatting, b) WP:MOSNUM formatting corrections, and c) agreement between two conflicting documents (I know that you are under the impression that WP:FLAG doesn't mean anything; I have addressed this at length on my talk page in response to your message there), one of which has far more, and more broad, community buy-in than the narrow and almost unknown other; what template is at the top is of marginal consequence at best, when consistency in advice to our editors is at stake.  Anyway, I will check out the discussions you pointed me to.  I'm not trying to get a pissing match with you (or anyone), and won't editwar with you over any subsequent reversions if the a) are careful, and revert only what you have a substantive issue with, b) identify what that substantive issue is to use WP:BRD as a valid consensus-building mode. "We've talked about this before" isn't a substantive objection; my read of that discussion indicates that it petered out and has just been sitting there, which is a ripe opportunity for someone to be WP:BOLD and get the ball rolling again.  The discussion is also focussed on the concerns of WP:ELG's authors and users, with little regard for how WP:ELG must interoperate with other issues. That's to be expected initially, perhaps, but it shouldn't hinder those issues from being integrated. :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 01:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, I'm also not going to go and war on the page itself :-) Second, I'd have to partially agree with the MOSNUM fixes, but wouldn't nowrap be easier on the shield/route link part?  Third, I saw your suggestion that shields only should be used to eliminate a so-called redundancy, but it will not work.  If that were to be implemented, it would use Imagemap, which doesn't work with flowed text even with nowrap.  On your talk, you say that technically guidelines don't apply.  However, they're supposed to apply for most circumstances, unless something out of the blue comes up and needs to be dealt with in a different way not specified.  As with BOLD, the original initiator of the discussion (NE2) took some proposed [controversial] changes to the talk page and worked it out before they went live.  You, however, unilaterally made controversial changes to the status quo without any agreement from others.  The reason why nobody else is reverting your changes is because they don't feel like edit warring, and decide to discuss before any changes.  Lastly, I have yet to see any outside input for this.  Maybe there are concerns because of the lack of knowledge of how highway [articles] are structured and what not?  I don't know. O 2 (息 • 吹) 01:42, 14 October 2007 (GMT)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your TfD
Your TfD of the aircontent template was a bit rude. You clearly knew that this was a Project template, and you should have known that the heart of wiki is discussion. You might have been considerate enough to have brought your concerns to the people who developed the template prior to listing it for deletion. That's where content issues are supposed to be discussed. I noticed that your user boxes indicate you would like to be an admin one day...the core mission of admins it to promote and facility discussion in the proper places, and as well, admins are expected to recognize the flexibility of guidelines, especially when the guidelines themselves allow for flexibility. You might want to consider withdrawing your nom, and taking the discussion to the place where it should have been taken originally. Policy allows admins to close XfDs early if it is clear that the issue is a content dispute, and I almost closed it for that reason, but instead decided to allow you the opportunity to withdraw. Please let me know how you intend to proceed. Thanks.  AK Radecki Speaketh  05:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * …too late to withdraw now; as it was already closed per WP:SNOW. O 2 (息 • 吹) 01:41, 22 October 2007 (GMT)

Airbus A330
THanks for removing that Emirates pic from the Infobox on the Airbus A330. Someone added Emirates (and a few other Mid-East airlines, but curiously not El AL!) to most of the major airliner articles last week, and we're still trying to clean-up the messes they made.

About the side-by-side pics: That doesn't work well on monitors with smaller resolutions. I use 800x600 on my screen, and at that size, the text has letters stacked vertically between the two pics. On larger articles, it's usually easier just to stagger the placement. SOme tof the fancy formatting good for places where you need two pics side by side, or the pics need to be in a certian section, but there's no room to stagger them. Even then, stacking the pics on one side or the other seems to work better in most of those cases. Also, the MOS recommends placing left-aligned pics above the section heading ratehr than below. - BillCJ 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll see what I can do with the cleanup efforts. O 2 (息 • 吹) 04:14, 24 October 2007 (GMT)

Chesapeake Bay Bridge GA nom
A few days ago you reviewed the Chesapeake Bay Bridge article for its GA nom, but I still had a few questions regarding the assessment. I'm trying to get it ready for renomination so please respond there. Thanks.-Jeff (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

History of wikis
Thank you for undoing the vandalism on the History of Wikis article. The vandal replaced two sections by a few lines in French taken from an article on linguistics. The French text said something about repeating sentences without understanding them, seeming to imply that the article does that. Moreover, the vandal indicated that the change concerned switching the article with another, so I expected to find some kind of redirect, but there was none. By the way, your user page is fun. - Redeyed Treefrog 20:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your RFA
Hi! Thank you for closing it. I was just about to come and close it myself. Ilyushka88 11:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern was "apparent confusion of blocks and bans...I also don't know where you are going with questions 9 and 10."

I am aware of the difference between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN, and I can assure you that I will be correctly using this wikiterminology in the future. To question 9, what I meant was that I refuse to get involved in any deletion "discussion" revolving around lack of a use rationale. I will neither close such a debate as keep nor delete; I'd rather stay far away from the enforcement of 10c.

I must admit that I am not sure what is confusing about my response to question 10. Could you please elaborate? —Remember the dot (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for telling me to use edit summaries, although I did know that they were there before, but never bothered about them because no one would care anyways (but you did).

My second point: I have been editing a lot of the Shanghai Metro stuff and have noticed a lot of horrible grammar and punctuation, etc, you get my point. I was just wondering if you ever noticed that.

Thanks. Heights 22:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007
The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta FA
Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Line 5 for Shanghai Metro
Just to let you know, I finished the Shanghai Metro Line 5 infobox and the line map. I would be doing the Line 4 infobox if I knew how to make a circle (ring) line on a line map. If you know a way to make a circle line please leave a message and I'll be happy to make it for you. Heights (+) 01:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just do it like a normal line, except at the top and bottom mention that it is continued from the top or bottom. O2  (息 • 吹) 01:11, 03 November 2007 (GMT)
 * Thanks.. Ill try completing it tonight. Heights (+) 01:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I completed the Line 4 infobox + line map and Line 5 infobox + Line map. There might be some errors as I was in a rush, can you just check them over. Thanks. Heights (+) 01:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Shanghai Metro Map
I made this map:  it's better than the old one that was really messed up. However, I am not sure how to really put it onto the page Shanghai Metro, either its too small or it doesnt fit... Or we can just leave this alone and use the old map. Would like your feedback, thanks. Heights <font color="#0000FF">(Want to talk?) 23:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007
The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:white; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait till someone nominates me next time. Have a great day(or night)! -- Hdt 83     <font color="brown" face="Arial">Chat 05:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...
--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 01:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (video)

 * A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)