User talk:Seresin/Archive 35

Closing Discussion
I don't see how it is not the appropriate venue to ask what the policy is on the situation. I noted I did not want to name the person, but people immediately said details were needed or they couldn't answer. It is not an ANI issue as I have NOT asked for anyone to be sanctioned - I simply want to know is there some policy that addresses the situation, and I don't see how it is not generalizable enough for basic discussion. While I do personally think it is disruptive and shows the user has some serious need for other hobbies, I do not know one way or another if it is against any policy to just continue redoing the edits and having them reverted. He is not, in fact, the only editor making those edits, a few others "joined his cause" so to speak, which is one reason I tried to keep it more general. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Anma: VPP is generally just used for discussions about policy (for instance, suggesting a change to a policy), rather than discussions about behavior and whether or not it violates a policy. A better forum might be WP:RFC. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rjanag is correct. The answer is also simple: no, there isn't a particular policy proscribing his actions. Even if there was one, though, VPP is not the place to discuss whether the behavior violates the policy or what is to be done about it. If you wish to pursue resolution, an RfC on Giraffedata seems to be the best course of action. ÷seresin 20:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost "Features and admins"
Hi, you asked for feedback. I think it's a good page: well done. If I have to rack my brains for suggestions ... um ... well I did rack my brains and decided to show you what I meant on the page itself. Please revert what you don't like, and sorry to be so bold!
 * You might think of changing the order. Bots could go further down, I think, and maybe change the order from week to week if it suits the material.
 * You might consider dropping the information that no [topics, portals, etc] were promoted and mentioning only those categories in which there are promotions; same with the "former" subsection, and when it's short, as it is this week, I wonder whether it might be just tacked onto the end of the "Featured pages" subsection. Shorter is sexier, I think, and these formulaic statements might seem a little bureaucratic to some readers.
 * At the risk of offending featured-content nominators who aren't singled out, I'd be inclined to add anything interesting or unusual about the new content, even singling out one or two. That's your privilege, and frankly, if you create interest among our readers, that's the top priority. Without embarrassing anyone, it might be possible some weeks to give an idea of why content was delisted. In fact, it would be really good for the community to be reminded of why content is delisted. A quick look through the TFAs could reveal whether anything unusual happened during their day of glory, if you have the time. I'm sure a regular reviewer could be found to furnish you with snippets each week. Please let me know if you want me to organise it.
 * Admins might still go at the top—unsure—but the wording could be shortened."
 * Could the images be arranged in fewer than four per row? I suspect few people set up their browser windows to encompass four across, and the verticality doesn't matter, does it? The Chicago one looks stunning, but is tiny in the gallery. I was really bold and shoved it in at the top. Oh well ... Tony   (talk)  14:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't have a problem that you changed the page—specific examples like that are usually more useful—but I've reverted so that readers can see what it is like now, without assuming the changes you made have already been done, or having to go back a week to see the current format. I think dropping the "No X have been promoted" is a good idea, though I may merge them all into one sentence (Like No X, Y or Z were promoted) so that readers don't forget that they're there. Your third point is something worth considering, and something I had thought about before. Thanks for the suggestions. ÷seresin 20:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think after all the work I put into it, the page might well have been adopted this week. Tony   (talk)  02:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucracy
Hello there. Your edit summary of "bureaucracy" when reverting my edit at WP:MIA made your viewpoint clear. Perhaps the phrasing on the page itself, People who leave a goodbye message or a retired template on their user page or elsewhere, and then actually refrain from editing for at least 3 weeks are likely to have left permanently and may be added to the list. should be changed in your estimation? I welcome your thoughts on the matter. Regards, --~TPW 02:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well changing it would be more bureaucracy, wouldn't it :-)? It's not a page that really needs to have strict rules. Your removal was valid; it was pursuant to the page's stipulation (which is a reasonable one) and would likely have to stood had it been another user's entry you had removed. But I think Useight does not intend to return, and so I don't think there's a need to wait the whole time. If you do feel strongly that the entry should wait, I won't restore it. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. ÷seresin 02:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly not worth a genuine quibble to me, seems like your revert was a reasonable application of WP:IAR. I don't see my edits reverted terribly often, so when I do I like to learn from it if possible.  Thank you!--~TPW 02:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Signpost "Features and admins"
While I appreciate your effort to improve the features and admins page, I have found a little issue with it. In Safari 4 Mac OS X 10.6, it displays incorrectly (see image). Please run some compatibility tests to avoid further problems (it looks different in Opera, Chrome, Firefox, and Safari). Thanks,  mo no so ck   17:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think changing it to 3-perrow fixed those problems. It looks fine in all the browsers I have access to (IE/Chrome/Safari/Opera/Firefox). Thanks ÷seresin 02:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Redesigning page -signpost featured page
thanks, the only problem i think i have with it is that the TFP strip on the right means there's a white gap on the left between the text at the top and the promoted pictures at the bottom. i don't think i've got an unusual set-up so i expect others have the same problem. we could potentially drop the TFP strip or reduce it. the gallery at the bottom also seems to run off the page to right, Tom B (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what your problem with the rendering is; I imagine it's something similar to the problem in the picture in the section above. If so, I've changed how many images are in each row, so it should be resolved. If it isn't in this week's issue, let me know. Thanks for the point here. ÷seresin 02:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a screenshot, and further explanation of some problems, at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-06-07/Features and admins. I'll try poking at the code a bit later. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this week's edition when it is published. I think those problems should be fixed, but if not let me know. ÷seresin 19:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia Signpost/2010-06-14/Features and admins...
 * The whitegap fix using 3 rows looks good.
 * (Can we update last week's edition, so that it isn't broken in perpetuity?)


 * I still believe the other issues are worth tinkering with though:
 * Section headers: Could we add headers to the top two sections?
 * For RfA, perhaps "Promotion report" or "Promoted users" or "User-rights promotions".
 * For the TFAs, perhaps "This week's TFAs".
 * TFP column's background color: Could we use a neutral gray (perhaps #EFEFEF) or no background color, instead of the greenish-beige #CCCC99 that is currently used? Mainly because the beige is a poor mat color for some of those images.
 * I've tested out those tweaks, see what you think.
 * Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (yes no maybe? :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't ignoring you. I'll look at those changes when I go to write this week's issue. My inclination though I not to add headers or change the colors. Headers for one topic is cluttered, and I don't really agree that it's confusing. I think the color is neutral enough, and I wanted something slightly more bold than a grey. ÷seresin 06:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Signpost
Ouch, that was close, I was initiating publication already... glad we didn't miss your piece. Speaking of publication, would you mind updating the issue page (Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Templates/Issue)? I can do the rest (already prepared the edits). Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Well, I could also have remembered seeing Ragesoss fetch them from your userspace some weeks ago... Now I definitely know.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

multiple image
Hey,

Can you give me more details on the problem with the "spacing on the side" you mentioned to JM? Is this the page you're using as a test case? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. See this revision. The border on the right does not exist there. ÷seresin 23:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, right. Fixed - I'd nested the additional 12px width too deeply. Can you have a look and see if JM's fork is still needed? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, it works. Thanks. ÷seresin 21:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier_Front Deletion
Hi Seresin. Although I am new to Wikipedia, I would like to ask if it is possible to put http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier_Front back up as it is a popular game and I tried showing this game off to my friends but they laughed at me after the removal! I know... this does sound childlish mainly because I am only 16. If possible, please put this back up. Thank you, Kelvin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelv876 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Vacation storebuilder
Thanks for trashing Vacation storebuilder. Perhaps you might delete User:ToddKane22‎‎ which is a copy of the same article. The user, who is listed as an employee of the company has already been warned for COI. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Fred Figglehorn
Why did you revert my edits to Fred Figglehorn? The proposed split stood for two weeks unopposed. 117Avenue (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, the AfD consensus was to merge. Barring developments, the decision stands. Cruikshank is still solely notable in the context of the channel, and so the content belongs together. ÷seresin 07:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How do I appeal this discussion? I thought a proposed split would be the proper place for any grievances to air. The discussion was 16 months ago, and the decision can't be held forever, Cruikshank is starting to branch away from Fred, and like I said in my proposal, the article is confusing discussing the character, the series, and the actor. 117Avenue (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then fix the article; it's not an insolvable flaw. If you really wish to pursue a split, I suggest creating a draft of the proposed Cruikshank article and going to WP:DRV. You might not necessary need a draft first, but I anticipate you will need one before those at DRV allow the article to be created. ÷seresin 20:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, its just really annoying when you put hours of work into writing articles, just to have them reverted two minutes later. 117Avenue (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

PBSKIDS

 * Thanks for the invitation. I'm not really interested, but I appreciate the note. ÷seresin 19:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)