User talk:Seb26/Archive/15

Cascading protection
Beware when using cascading protection, as it not only protects the most immediately transcluded page (e.g., your archives), but also every other article and template, image, or other media included in it and below it (i.e., it would fully protect any template or image that occurs in any of your archives-- regardless of where it occurs) -- slakr \ talk / 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna go ahead and disable it temporarily, as I'm not sure just what might be effected by it. Heh, I was trying to find an example, so I had to crawl through your archives... try editing WikiProject_Alternative_music/Newsletter/December 2007, for example. :P -- slakr  \ talk / 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cascading is tough stuff, has to be used only when necessary ;) Thanks for removing it, I think I'll just have to apply manual protection to each page. I suppose I could just substitute all templates I use on the archives, but I don't really think that would be the best approach to the problem. Thanks again :) Spebi 23:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, pages all individually protected with cascading turned off. Thanks again for notifying me Spebi 23:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Lollipop-3
Hi. I received a message on my talk page asking me if I would unprotect User talk:Lollipop-3. Of course I wasn't going to accede to such a request (banned users don't need talk pages! :)) but I noticed that in fact it's no longer protected. You probably know better than me whether protection is required or not, and I don't know if it was removed intentionally or accidentally. I'm not at all bothered, just letting you know in case it was a mistake. Thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the logs now at it appears to be protected until January 2009, which is when Lollipop-3's block (and/or ban?) will expire. I think it is an accepted convention to redirect a user's talk page to their user page when they are banned, and or indefinitely blocked, because a), they won't need it like you said, and b) to avoid confusion. The page was already protected when I redirected it. As it stands, I see no reason to have the protection lifted. Cheers, Spebi 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah... the talk page is protected, the user page isn't (which it redirects to). That's what threw me. Agree there's no reason to lift protection. Thanks! --kingboyk (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Spebi 23:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hahl
Hi! You must be kidding! Is there anything sensible about that article? Haal (and not Hahl) in Persian is the slang term for having fun. I do not see anything encyclopedic about that, neither it is worth having an article in English Wikipedia. Siba (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not particularly sure whether an article belongs here about it, I know for sure that it can't be deleted through speedy deletion. WP:CSD, which is the criterion for deleting "nonsense" things, states, "Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content." It goes on to state that the following are not included: "poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases". The Hahl article does not meet G1 at all, which is why I declined its speedy deletion. However, this does not mean the end of the road for deletion. If you still have a problem with the article, I suggest you either list it at Articles for deletion (debated for up to 5 days, or whenever a consensus is reached, by the community) or propose its deletion through PROD (the article will be tagged for deletion [not speedy] and if no one contests within a 5 day period, it is deleted). I hope this has helped. Cheers, Spebi 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your informative response. It did help. Siba (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Blink-182
I agree with the semi-protection. It's getting hit a lot lately. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking
Hi Spebi. Thanks for the support, it is much appreciated. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ALM
There's a problem with the FA wall. It's been noted at WT:ALM for a few days now; guess you have not noticed. NSR 77 T C  20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Featured portal candidates/Co-directors - Good move here. Cabalism is spreading (see the HK nom for instance...). Don't ask why I commented in this section ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rollback
My apologizes. I was using Lupin, and I clicked on the wrong rollback button, and it automatically saves pages, so.... I will try to be more careful. Again, Sorry! Ohmpandya  ( Talk to Me... )  20:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misunderstanding! I was not try to revert you. I was about the click on the edit below yours to rollback, but accidentally clicked on yours! Sorry! Ohmpandya  ( Talk to Me... )  20:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
A belated thank you for your RFA support! That's a nice picture of Brisbane. Archtransit (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations :) Thanks, I'm hoping we get in next year, and if we don't we're discussing a possible bid in 2010 for Sydney or Melbourne. Cheers, Spebi 21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA Archiving
Could you double-check your archiving at Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship? I think you may have removed some newer threads in favor of older ones (particularly this edit, where it's possible you copied instead of pasted. It shouldn't be a huge deal, but wanted to mention it to you directly instead of trying to fix it and - quite probably - buggering the whole thing up. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is quite a difficult page to archive, threads there get a lot of comments and it is hard to determine which ones are actually dead and which ones are still alive, and then you have to ensure that you haven't removed any threads you didn't have an intention to move... oh well, thanks for the heads up, it's been fixed now. ;) Spebi 21:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, that's the main reason I mentioned it to you, as I have no idea where I'd start. It probably wouldn't have been a big deal, had I not posted a thread a few minutes before. In any event, thanks for the quick response, and for handling the page in the first place! Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 21:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

CheckUzar

 * Thanks Alison! :) Spebi 21:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it me or some cases were mistakenly closed without a verdict, eg Coloane.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 00:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a comment tag that made all outstanding requests be hidden, but it's fixed now so all the cases without any verdict appear properly now. Spebi 00:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Radiohead.jpg
Pretty cool! You wanna try and make one for Powderfinger? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that'd be cool. I'll see if I can make a larger one with slightly better quality for the portal, like similar to Portal:Music. Spebi 06:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on tables
You worked a lot on List of Powderfinger awards. All the WP:FLs with award tables repeat table elements, specifically
 * |style="background: #ddffdd"| Won
 * |style="background: #ffdddd"| Nominated

I'm thinking it would be helpful for uniformity and maintenance if these were templated as award-won and award-nom. Has this been done before, or is there a reason not to do this? Gimmetrow 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. Perhaps we could even consider putting the whole table syntax into a separate template titled Award table or the like. I don't think anyone has ever considered doing this; I certainly haven't, and no one I worked with on the Powderfinger awards list brought it up (maybe because we didn't spend as much time on it than we did on Powderfinger discography, whose infobox was later implemented into a template). Anyway, it's a good idea and should work well. Spebi 21:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, giving it a try. Gimmetrow 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tested it out here. You're welcome to revert. Original version had:
 * Article size: 18,441 bytes
 * Pre-expand include size: 126914/2048000 bytes
 * Post-expand include size: 65222/2048000 bytes
 * Template argument size: 50973/2048000 bytes

Modified version had:
 * Article size: 16,628 bytes
 * Pre-expand include size: 161753/2048000 bytes
 * Post-expand include size: 70776/2048000 bytes
 * Template argument size: 51392/2048000 bytes

Doesn't seem too bad. Gimmetrow 23:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! Spebi 23:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!
Thanks for helping out with semi-protecting the Gackt page. It's been the bane of my existence lately what's been going on on that page for the past few months, so I don't feel that it's over but it certainly sends a message- thanks very much. :) (Tsukiakari (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

AfD question
Hi - I noticed you have closed the Mark Offerdahl AfD. An editor had added in Rodney Davies as part of the same discussion and I just wanted to know if that means the Mark Offerdahl AfD also covers Rodney Davies or if the article needs to go to another AfD? Many thanks, • Florrie • leave a note • 08:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say for Rodney Davies to be deleted it would have to undergo another AfD. Many articles are deleted through one debate if they are in a particular series, however, this one differs, and I think it would be best if the Rodney Davies article is debated again. Spebi 08:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Righto. Cheers. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 08:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Meetup/Brisbane 2
Hey there. You've expressed an interest in attending this via Skype. If you're still interested, could you please give some input on the project page as to date/time, and we'll see if we're still going to go ahead with that. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Signature
Is this good enough? -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  15:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Isn't there anyway I can contact Lollipop-3? I don't have her email, and I can't talk to her at all. I don't plan to really do so here, thus getting her into trouble. Which I do not want. Can you please do something? (I love entei (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC))
 * She's blocked and banned here, and she hasn't specified an e-mail address, so that rules out all possibilities of contacting her here, which means I can't do anything. Sorry. Spebi 21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:SockpuppetCheckuser
Btw I undid your edit here, because it was breaking the tagging I did before: I sometimes tag people without linking to their case (for example when the tagging occurs after an IP check). I agree the syntax is a bit weird though, I don't know how to be able to have both. -- lucasbfr  talk 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh right, sorry. Didn't think about that... Spebi 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Block tip
Thanks for the tip. I usually allow creation of an account because many IPs are shared by different users and blocking innocent users' ability to create accounts can cause collateral damage. Most vandals probably won't make the extra effort to create an account to continue vandalizing and if he/she does, it can be blocked too. -- Hdt 83     Chat 04:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music January 2008 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated xihix  (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC).