Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/2013/March

José Ortíz de la Renta
He is the great great grandfather of Oscar de la Renta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.220.22 (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What exactly would you like us to do? Perhaps it would be better to discuss this matter at Talk:José Ortiz de la Renta? &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Category Members of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico by session is up for deletion
Some guys are discussing wether we should categorize members of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico by session at:


 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_9

Basically they want to merge Category:Members of the 29th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico into Category:Members of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico and so on for the 28th, 27th, 26th, and 25th session, etc.

Please state your opinion on this matter at:


 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_9

&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Template
The top of the page looks rather plain as if we just opened the WikiProject. Why is that? Well, it's because there's a user who keeps reverting it every time I reestablish the templates I made for the project not too long ago. Can someone help me gain a consensus so he can stop reverting it. Thank you, Feed  back  ☎ 02:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, the reason why I'm reverting you is because you are reverting the whole thing which is removing our archive links and the commands needed for the bot to archive our talk page. Furthermore, while your contribution is appreciated, it breaks the page when browsing it from a mobile device such as a smartphone. I made significant changes to avoid that. We have also been using the new style for months and no one complained about it. You are the one that came here and started reverting stuff which actually broke the page (by removing the bot and the index, and fucking up the navigational template since you didn't fix their redirects). Having said all that, I obviously like the way it is now since it is clean and easy to navigate and we have moved most of the previous content to categories which are automatically populated and such. We have also installed article alerts and made other changes to make it easy to participate in the project, such as a new sidebar navigation, a new template for our active users (not many as before), a new template for requested articles, and on and on. Once again, I ask you to not perform full reverts, they are really really hurtful. I don't see what was the obstacle that prevented you from simply asking on this talk page. It seems that this is a case of WP:OWN where you simply want it to reverted because you were the one that created the templates. I advise you to WP:LETGO and realize that nobody owns anything on Wikipedia and anyone can edit your changes without asking for your permission or anyone elses per WP:BOLD. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * you're making it hard to obey WP:BITE with that attitude you exhibit. Look, you've been here for a few months. You don't know exactly how things work. WP:BOLD is mainly about non-controversial changes like updating an article, fixing obvious mistakes, or adding content to the encyclopedia. You're ignoring the part of WP:BOLD that says you need to discuss changes on talk pages before you implement them. You shouted WP:LETGO which advises you to calm down and take a break. I for one took a very long break from editing and came back this month to see you revamp the project. You're taking advantage of the fact that this is a relatively small project and the editors don't visit regularly. There is an established consensus on how these pages look and how they are organized and you can't just overhaul it without some discussion. You also continue to issue a battleground mentality which, although is expected from a rookie editor, is very counter-productive to consensus-building. I am not the first editor to bring this to your attention. Anyway, like I said on your talk page, you should have tried gaining this consensus before you made these changes. It shouldn't have taken a mini-revert war for you to appear on this talk page and ask nicely. You have potential to be an asset to WP:PUR and Wikipedia as a whole, but you need to start learning what is and isn't acceptable behavior around here. Feed  back  ☎ 03:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been a week, and I'll take your lack of response as you dropping your stance on the issue. I will be re-posting the original designs that have been approved by the project almost 3 years ago. Feed  back  ☎ 04:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, I have been here for 12 years, but I don't understand how long I have been here is relevant to this conversation? Second of all, if you look at my talk page, you will notice that I'm busy in real life right now and can't be on Wikipedia as much as I would like to—I'm a volunteer, not an employee, Wikipedia is not my #1 priority on my life and I can't be here 24/7. Third, WP:BOLD applies solely to policies and guidelines, not to WikiProjects. Now, having said all that, what part of: YOUR DESIGN BREAKS NAVIGATION ON MOBILE DEVICES did you not understand? In case you don't understand what a mobile device is, that refers to devices such as an iPhone, an iPad, Samsung Galaxy, tablets, and Android devices. Look, we appreciate your contribution but such design was done in a time where mobile devices where not as popular as they are today. Now, seeing as you are so adamant to revert back to such design, please do tell which parts would you like to include back and we can surely place them back again as long as they don't break the page navigation on mobile devices. However, please cease performing full reverts, many other changes were done to the pages besides design (which seems to be your major prerogative). &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? The template was designed in 2010. Mobile devices were fairly popular. And I'm not the one who said WP:BOLD applied here. ^^^That was you. You've also only been regularly editing on Wikipedia for around 6 months. What is this 12 years nonsense?  Feed  back  ☎ 21:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)