User talk:Slysplace/Archives/2007/November

NFL drafts
I will admit being ignorant on the fact that other drafts had already had the formatting that you were applying to the ones that I undid. However, I would like to ask your opinion on the readability of this formatting. I wouldn't be opposed to having the text small and in parentheses, because it (1) doesn't expand the row vertically and (2) is a lot easier to read. Having something in a italicized superscript just makes it too difficult to read, in my opinion. Am I the only one who shares this opinion?

You say that the Draft articles are inconsistent with their formatting. In this respect, I agree. But what should Wikipedia have the formatting be for NFL Draft articles? What would you prefer to have the formatting be? I think we should probably have a straw poll to discuss this in some centralized place.

I was unaware of the fact that I was undoing fixes that were run-on text without any spaces. I will soon revisit the edits I undid to ensure that I redo these edits to fix the run-ons.

You argue that I would make a featured article argument in my defense of the old format. I would hardly think of doing so: featured articles are constantly changed. We don't need to have a static article once an article becomes featured -- it should continue to grow and improve with time.

Furthermore, sorry for the late response -- I was out of town and didn't have access to a computer for a few days. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and keep up the good work. I look forward to your response about what formatting direction the Draft articles will take. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * RE: Opinions, obviously everyone will have a differing opinion, What I prefer is irrelevant to the cause of en:wiki it is and remains a open source project. Three days ago I was ready to post what would verge on a personal attack regarding the RV Edits you made, today I wonder is it even relevant, it was your anti-static FA statement that kept this from being a blatant flame style message against admins. I've posted many suggestions, and comments in the parent discussion group for the NFL wiki project and must admit the only reply I've received are from those who mess up worse than I, or those who feel they are personally responsible for the FA Status of the article.


 * Back to the issue at hand, I have probably an odd advantage over most wiki users and readers in that I have a Dual Monitor setup at 1680 x 1050, I have played with the resolution and even at the higher #'s I do not personally see a difference in readability. However: (superscript) vs superscript I must agree your suggestion is cleaner and easier to read and would be easy to implement. (Parenthesis) or not the change in text clearly shows it's reference information.


 * Lastly regarding a straw poll, Opinion (IMHO) is irrelevant in deciding consensus without discussion and debate. And I think there is even a WP policy against it (but cant quote it specifically) polls are easily padded and inherently harder to verify Slysplace  |  talk  22:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and converted 2000 NFL Draft from the aforementioned style to your proposed (style). Yes without concensus or discussion however a lot of work has been done lately to bring 2000 up to the 2001 standard so it seems like a good place to start. Slysplace  |  talk  23:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've started to convert the articles to the new format. Out of curiosity, how do you go about applying the changes? I cut and paste the article into Notepad and do a find and replace. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * RE: Cut and paste, I use a program called ultra Edit, it has a great search and replace feature, and memory of its use. I can paste in 20 articles, and replace the same thing in all of them at once. If I find another I can easily do it all over again. Slysplace  |  talk  02:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll have to look into that. That sounds really good. Thanks for all of your efforts and when I have time again, I'll continue contributing to the Draft articles. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I started cleanup of 2003 and I notice it parses horribly, Has something to do with the REF's in round one, I'm not very good an linking ref's so I thought I would mention it as it appears you had started the ref cleanup. In it's current condition the ref's in round one pull all of the refrences into round one from the bottom of the page, and the Top TOC does not show rounds 2+ until later in a seperate TOC. Slysplace  |  talk  13:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. My mistake. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please be careful when you are trimming the NFL draft articles? I found three separate instances where you used the name "Chapel Hill" when referring to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  It can be abbreviated as UNC, North Carolina, or University of North Carolina but not Chapel Hill.  I am not aware of anyone who refers to it as such.  Cheers!!!  Baegis 22:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)



Thank you for your kind comments, I do know people who refer to UNC as Chapel Hill might I also add that your lack of ref's in your comments make it hard to verify your concerns. Let me also point out there is no naming convention on the subject matter and after months of cleaning up the draft pages I assure you there remains worse situations to resolve, of these 3 alleged edits I have no interest nor concern. Furthermore I've not changed anything to reflect differently than other articles in the series. In other words there are more out there to fix on your naming convention quest, Happy Hunting. Slysplace |  talk  22:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Warren Commission
I already requested a block but the admins have not blocked the I.P. yet so I am following him and reverting the edits. thanks though. Sirkad   (Talk)   03:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, he's blocked now. Sirkad  (Talk)  03:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sign my guest book,(the link is on my user page) I'll give you a barnstar when I get back from school. =) Sirkad  (Talk)  15:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)



has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.