User talk:Octane/Archive Apr 2007

Reformed Presbyterian Church
Would you be willing to give your input on a question at the Reformed Presbyterian Church talk page? Thanks! Nyttend 18:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

RPC userbox
Hi. Would you consider modifying the RPC userbox to contain the following:



If you do, it'd also be good to make the background to the appropriate square white.

-- TimNelson 12:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 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 04:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes
READ THE RULES at Category:User templates or other user template categories, they all say the same thing. DO NOT change your userboxes if you do not know how. You miscategorized your sci-fi userbox again. So knock it off. -PatPeter 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Sorry, I overreacted I am just being bombarded by comments from other users I am going on the defensive.
 * 2) What the hell do you mean I have a history of WP:CIVIL
 * 3) How dare you accuse me of trying to harm Wikipedia. I have dedicated countless edits and time to help Wikipedia and the thanks I get is a number of people yelling at me.
 * Yes, Political user templates avoided standardization, but your userbox was in CG:UT or Book fan user templates, hell I dont know I will update you tomorrow I am going to sleep. -PatPeter 03:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am trying to better organize all user templates with Wikiproject Source to Short and Wikiproject Category Cleanup, for example look at Category:User templates and Category:Language user templates in comparision to other user templates (I have some half-sorted so go to about three) and you will see how bad they are in organization, all the subpages are strewn in with templates, whole userpages are in these categories, it is a mess.


 * Also, what are you trying to convey to me when you tell me to look at WP:AGF? -PatPeter 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh my gosh you would be so good at WP:StS and WP:CGC, heak you already are. -PatPeter 18:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your namespace
Could you make the way your userpage is done into some kind of template or explain how you did it? I love how it's collapsible.--Viridistalk 02:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How was Firefox controversal?
Please restore; you should have discussed before moving. The move page warned you of that in bright red letters. - Davandron | Talk 04:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * None were encyclopædic, so I userfied them, per WP:GUS, as I mentioned in my edit summaries. There's nothing controversial about the templates&mdash;they just don't belong in the main Template: namespace, since they're not part of the encyclopædia itself.  Bl a  st  06.04.07 0414 (UTC)


 * Is any userbox encyclopedic? I've only seen that used project cited for controversial stuff. Or are you moving all userboxes to your personal space? - Davandron | Talk 04:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

novelas.wikia
Hey,I noticed the logo gone on my FFtemplate and noticed you posted.Same name,same sig I'm assuming you retired from Novelas?I'm sorta curious as to why you retiredUser:Serprex 05:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging of Spiderwebs in Space
I was so surprised to find that this article was tagged by you for merging. I wish for you to provide very good reasons, else I shall remove the tag. I'm not sure if it can be merged anyway, because it was chosen for DYK. Please explain yourself, and how it would even be relevent in the spiders article. I do not mean to impinge on your wikipedian skills or knowledges, but you should give reason on the article's talk page about this, and I should not have to 1. Contact you about it and 2. have an unexplained tag on the article that I put hard work into. I hope I do not cause offence, but I am quite taken with this merging tag which you have placed. ♣  ÅñôñÿMôús   Dîššíd3nt  10:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your apology was received, but I feel that I now must express an apology myself. Despite this, I am still in the same frame of mind. Listen, I appreciate your concerns, but many articles are left for 'dust' to gather over them, but that does not mean that they must be merged. Also note that those experiments which you were refering to that do not have their own article perhaps do not have enough information content to warrent their own article, or otherwise fit perfectly in the article, or are so connected and relative to the article that they should simply be part of it, or have simply not been made. Spiderwebs in space is noteworthy because of the undeniable oddity of the experiment, and, as such, would probably not go well as a section in another article. And just because the same trend does not exist with other experiments, it does not mean that mine should not exist. I also think you'll probably find that many singulary-experimental articles infact do exist, and if you call for a list of these, I would be only too happy to provide one. The experiment deserves it's own article - it's got enough content, 2 images, was chosen for DYK, presents information on a totally unorthadox and separarte topic to any previous article about spiders (that I know of), has it's own talk page and is well refernced. Why must it be merged? Other than the rather inconvincing statement that you made about the article gathering dust, which is not something I am particularly concerned with, nor I think is a proper, reasonable concern anyway, you have simply not provided enough reason for a merge to occur. It is just a waste of time, and could provoke a needless debate about a merge that really is just not even needed. I refer to the philosophy: 'why fix something that isn't broken?' I believe that this is applicable here. I now hope you see my side of the matter. Kind regards ♣   ÅñôñÿMôús   Dîššíd3nt  12:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I just added a See Also note to the Spider page,I think that should be enough?User:Serprex 12:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it doesn't really matter what you say, it's really 1 against 1 - you say one thing, I say another. i hope this doesnt result in an edit war, wherem you merge, and I simply unmerge it.

I call on you to listen to me another time: the article has enough content to stand alone as an article, a see also refering to it has been put on the spiders page. The fact that it will simply sit there to gather dust is not even a problem, not a concern (even then how did you find the page if it is such an off-the-side topic?) I believe a merge is just a superfluous, unneeded waste of time, energy, discussion and debate. I hope you see it my way, but if you do not, then you shall have to find another supporter to take any action, for I refuse to give in to your opinion on an article which currently has not had any problems for what is now over 2 months. i will not be debating this topic any further, and I hope that you will finally see the idiocy of this idea to merge. ♣  ÅñôñÿMôús   Dîššíd3nt  06:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? That is the only question. Why must it be merged? Why can you simply not do with the See Also that has been added to the Spider page? Why must you create a hassle about the merge? Just leaving it would make things so much easier! I do not have time to debate this with you! I have already told you about each of your aguments! I have already explained why each one of them is either: trivial, baseless, untrue, foolish (no offence, and I do mean that) or pointless. I am simply no longer interested in this. You are wasting my time. Another user has added it to the spiders see also section, that should be enough Please, just stop concerning yourself with an article which is just fine? Why can you not just let it be? ♣   ÅñôñÿMôús   Dîššíd3nt  06:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Allow me to interject here. I haven't much personal interest in the topic, and can see both sides of the issue to some degree. For now, at least, I think its best to let the article collect dust. Give it a chance for additional editors to come across it, and exert influence on its development. Meanwhile, I've tentatively removed the merge tags, as that seems to be the talk-page concensus. Sdsds 02:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

SMART-L "spelling correction"
Hi. Your edit to "correct" the spell of Signaal>Signal would we totally understandable, but for the comment on the article: Mark83 17:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not sure what you meant about header/copyright. The only thing I can think of is the Firefox logo, which I've removed to play safe! Best regards. Mark83 21:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem & thanks again. Mark83 21:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Facebook Userbox
Thanks for your attempts to improve the facebook userbox, but I really did want it the way it was (which is why I designed it that way). In particular, I did actually want the whole name 'facebook' in there. Thanks anyway, though. Dan0 00 20:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion thanks
I actually do appreciate your recent comments on my talk page, providing as you did a "third opinion" on my interactions with another editor. If you're willing to continue the dialog, I would appreciate that too! In general it has been incredibly difficult for me to criticize the work of another Wikipedia editor without my comments being taken as criticism of that editor's intentions. I honestly would like to improve in that regard! In this particular case, I was trying to convince the other editor to edit more carefully; that the article was about a controversial topic; that discussing edits on the talk-page before making them would help assure the edits adequately reflected more of the relevent points of view. So my intention was to stop or slow that editor's series of apparently careless edits. I truly wasn't trying to inflame, or make any assertion about bad faith. I was trying to change another editor's behavior to be more cooperative and less independent. The approach I took was to let that editor know that in my opinion, their edits were causing harm to the article. What actually happened was quite the opposite of my hopes: that editor continued, perhaps even more independently, to edit the article. So that's really why I would value more of your "third opinion" on the subject: my actions resulted in the opposite of my intent! Again, thanks for your involvement to this point, and I hope you are willing to continue the discussion! Sdsds 21:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Boy Scout
Eh, in general, I was a Cub Scout, but they don't have that template, lol and I was too busy/lazy to make, besides, Cub Scout is just a younger version of Boy Scouts run by the BSA. Anyways, I was more or not really doing much in Cub Scouts and my mom was getting tired of paying dues. Plus, now I have more reasons as I look back on it, I don't want to support an organization that discriminates against atheist/agnostics and gay people. --Saint-Paddy 01:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, you're a furry and /b/tard. Wow, that's a big laugh! --Saint-Paddy 02:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

image:Grammar Nazi.svg
Hi, I was wondering where you found a source about this flag. My google search could only find 1 similar image, so I was wondering if you invented the flag or if it was had some "legitimity"? :) (To be honest I personally think it is a very bad taste flag, but if there's some kind of source, I'll live with it ;) -- lucasbfr talk 08:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

quack?
walks like a duck. — coe l acan — 19:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:User gatech
Does not need to be userfied. Please put it back. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)