User talk:AzaToth

Archive: 1

Template:TestTemplates

Please see my comment on the template test page for my reasoning. Thank you, JHMM13 (T | C) 20:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comment. JHMM13 (T | C)

20:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I have replied to your comment. JHMM13 (T | C)

21:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, thanks JHMM13 (T | C)

21:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Mugshot

Hi AzaToth,

LOL! Good job on the mugshot on sockpuppets. That one really cracked me up.

Suggestion : Putting a height measurement in the background. On first impression it didn't look as obvious to me as a mugshot, but the image name did confirm that.

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 00:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I really love your sock puppet image. Just had to let you know. Ifnord 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:AUM

By reverting Template:Language, you are in violation of WP:AUM. IMPROVE the thing, don't crash Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 22:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are not in violation, becaue it is WP:AUM not WP:DUM (don't use meta templates). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please stop editing my signed comments at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Mozilla. —Cryptic (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited your signed comment. _→AzaToth 18:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

quicky templates

If you are going to create shortcut templates like Template:Tln, PLEASE make them subst'able so as they produce the smallest amount of text necessary to do they;re job. Subst'ing Tln is just damn ugly. -- Netoholic @ 18:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were not ment to be substed in the first place, I think they must work as a template call instead of only function if subst'd as you made it. Perhaps better to do a side-template (sln or simlar) that is subst only)_→AzaToth 18:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every such template should be subst'able. Shortcuts are only tolerable to a point. -- Netoholic @ 19:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any policy or guideline that states that all templates must be subst'able, also it's substable as it is, it won't break if you subst it. but adding subst in includeonly breaks the template if not substed, and that I think is not tolerable. _→AzaToth 19:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't go on about "policy or guideline"... common practice is to have these shortcuts, link Template:User, be subst'able. Also, why are you replacing fullurl with SEVER:localurl ? In any case, there is no strong need for ucfirst: to be in any of these. Please stop using the "clever" things, and start helping to make template maintenance practical. Page source should be as uncluttered as possible when these templates are subst'd. -- Netoholic @ 19:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are using the full external link style for Special:Whatlinkshere when the internal link works, is shorter, is friendly to those on slow connections, and is friendlier on the server. -- Netoholic @ 19:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did just copy from a other template that line (don't remember witch) _→AzaToth 19:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I remeber why there is the external style. It's because the paramter "limit=999" _→AzaToth 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so that link will load 999 backlinks, rather than the default of 50. This is why I said it's bad for users on slow connections and bad on the server. -- Netoholic @ 20:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:your tfd-vote on user en-5

yeh, the last one is my final one. Ill cross out my old one - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 21:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Language#Move

Template_talk:Language#Move ... I posted it on WP:RM. Thanks for your vote. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion box split

Now you tell me. *laughs* - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 22:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hehe :)_→AzaToth 22:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-LOC

If you are unsure of the outcome of a debate, then please do not close it. Deletion decisions should generally be left to admins anyway, since the deleting admin has to do all the legwork of checking the non-admin decision. -Splash^talk 23:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mozilla Firefox.png

Can you please cite the original source in the description? Otherwise, the image will be deleted. Thanks! —David Levy 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I had is cites at first, but it must have been deleted. At the moment I don't remember, but It should be in the deletion log of said image. _→AzaToth 20:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup-date uses month/year only

I've corrected the documentation to reflect this. If this was the only reason you created Template:Today, then please mark it for deletion. The problem with that template is that it present "today" in a format that's not very useful. -- Netoholic @ 21:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it didn't say anywhere what kind of date format to use, so I assumed iso-date _→AzaToth 21:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left-Right politics

You placed {{cleanup-date}} and {{self-reference}} on Left-Right politics. I see no indication of any self-references in the article, and you give no indication in what respect you think this longstanding article needs cleanup. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The self reference I was refering to is the sentence "As discussed in the next section," in the first section. _→AzaToth 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the threshold on template deletion?

I'm concerned about Template:User_allow_fairuse. Are you sure that you closed its vote correctly? Isn't the deletion threshold for templates higher than that? I thought it was 66% or 75% but now I can't find the figure. --James S. 21:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the answer is not documented(!) So, I put up a vote here. What have you been using? I counted 34 in favor to 43 against. --James S. 21:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't try to count the votes, but to grasp a reverse consensus (a later vote is perhaps more accurrate than an early vote), and for me it seems that the most votes leaned to delete at the end, but perhaps I'm wrong. _→AzaToth 21:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't weigh votes on age. --Adrian Buehlmann 00:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that later votes have gone throught more discussions, but perhaps I'm wrong. _→AzaToth 00:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This assumes that people that voted early just left without further watching the discussion. But we cannot make that assumption. Instead, we must assume that all discussion participants constantly watch all voices and if the early voters do not change their votes, we must assume they deem their votes still current and correct. Otherwise we would encourage participants to constantly update their signing dates, which seems a bit odd to me. I see there is some logic in your argument, Carl, but I think your proposed bias for late-voters is just too complicated and maybe even unjust. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User wikipedia

why did you rvv my edit there? I rvv:ed it back, according to the ongoing deswitching. _→AzaToth 22:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are breaking my and many other poeples userpage. You should fix all userpages prior to doing that. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no difference, they are only extracted, there were only four that was missplaced that I forgot to put back. Perhaps it's one of them you are refering to. and please be more civil. _→AzaToth 23:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my userpages. I was being perfectly civil. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I think I was a bit to rought on you, sorry :) _→AzaToth 18:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to change the image on {{User wikipedia/Counter Vandalism Unit}}, there is a {{User wikipedia/Counter Vandalism Unit (alternative)}} using that image. I go changing the image back to 2.5 again. _→AzaToth 18:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the primary image is the other way around... .5 ones the alternative image :P

I am glad we are working together on this. I generaly explode when external events break my userpage. Sry...

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought the "alternate" version was the "old" version, therefor the 2.0 image instead of the 2.5 image, but I can always have wrong :) I wasn't try to break things (like the admin below did), we are just in progress to deswitch all userboxes (O.T. where I was the black sheep in the first place...) _→AzaToth 18:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second edit, thatnks for that too. Feel free to edit my userpage so long as its for the better :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling my horns grows, and my red tail is lurking on the floor :) _→AzaToth 18:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-templates

Hi. Could you use "/" to separate parts of subpage names, rather than ":", please? ":" is used on MediaWiki to denote namespaces, so it's confusing to see them going elsewhere. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 15:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, not again, I used / before, but that was bad, so I used : instead. hmm, could you identify any better? _→AzaToth 15:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages are forbidden in the article namespace. In other namespaces, they are fine. It is useful to have the subpage capability that "/" gives. [[Sam Korn]] 15:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that / can denote or also. so ot would then be like {{User wikipedia/Association of Members' Advocates}}? _→AzaToth 15:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given Wikipedia's syntax rules, I think that would be pefectly fine. [[Sam Korn]] 15:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have moved all wikipedia: to wikipedia/ now, don't know what others to change. _→AzaToth 15:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. [[Sam Korn]] 15:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin privledges

This is not an issue of reverting to a preferred version. It is an issue of reverting to a version that isn't completely against policy. Phil Sandifer 16:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's your prefered version, and you ignore all ongoing work going on. _→AzaToth 16:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if you go around to all user pages now and change all boxes to the new ones, please do so now, you must hurry before users get angry. _→AzaToth 16:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, start an RfC on me. Phil Sandifer 16:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 4 _→AzaToth 18:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carl. I know that Snowspinner wants a fast track to remove uses of qif and that it might be better to do this in a more smoth manner, but please do not take that so serious. It's only about the user pages and I think there is something in Radiant's statement that it might otherwise take ages until all users have adapted and it doesn't hurt that much if the user pages are broken for some time (I mean we are all a bit lazy about our user pages, aren't we? :-). I'm shure Radiant and Snowspinner do not intend to attack user boxes by this. Please consider withdrawing your RfC in order to preserve Wikipedian-hours. --Adrian Buehlmann 22:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TFD closings

Thanks for helping out with clearing the TFD backlog. However, I hope you don't mind a couple of suggestions...

If you close a decision as "keep", please edit the relevant template, remove the deletion notice, and add a link to the debate that resulted in keeping it.
If you close a decision as "delete", please list the relevant template in the holding cell at the bottom of TFD, so that it can be properly deprecated and deleted.
Please don't make closing statements as "keep until Mediawiki updated" unless you know that such an update is actually forthcoming.
Please don't invalidate votes because they refer to uselessness; lack of usability is a good reason for deprecating a template. However, as you correctly say, ugliness is not - that would be a reason for editing the template.
Yours, R adiant _>|< 21:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll remember that, off cours I wasn't finish yet (I had just collect the information and try to close the discussions), I thought I could wait to update the templates when I move them from TfD to the archive (or simlar), I havn't moved them yet to the holding cell those to be deleted. I understand the usefullness, sorry :) The reson for them to be unfinished was because I had to go to east, and forgot) _→AzaToth 21:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tfd header

Hmmm? AfD has always done it the "result, header, debate" way around and the phrasing chosen (by you?) for {tfd top} says "below". I guess you're importing from CfD? I've never liked the layout over there in this regard; I think the purpose of those closure tags is to enclose the debate, not to leave part of it outside. There should be no need for anyone to edit the debate after it is closed. It's not particularly important, though. -Splash^talk 22:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I usually don't refere the header as part of the debate, just as a pointer to the entry. _→AzaToth 22:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't really mind whether TfD adopts the CfD or AfD format. But if it's to be CfD, then {tfd top} needs rephrasing. -Splash^talk 22:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TFD

You process is very nice and all, but it's over-thought. Having all votes related to a speedy keep/delete being displayed for the full 7 days that that sub-page is displayed is unnecessary. It just adds to the over size of the rendered WP:TFD page, with no value. If people want to see the votes prior to closure, they can use the diff link I provided. -- Netoholic @ 02:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

afd3

You closed the TfD vote on {{afd3}}, but you didn't remove the TfD tag from the template. Please do so, and leave the result of the vote on the talk page.--Srleffler 04:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD top/bottom

Oooh, that's pretty. I can think of one immediate use, which is to collapse the quickly-growing userbox debates without having to heft them to a subpage with all the watchlist problems that can produce. Whether we actually need to collapse closed debates in archived pages, I'm not sure...and it adds to the wikicode whilst they stay on the mainpage. Possible though. You'll need to comment at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion#Blech first, though. -Splash^talk 02:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Firefox-screenshot.png

We have a free use image available -the original submission, being a screenshot on a linux system. That image is licensable under GPL. The screenshot of firefox on a Mac OSX was not the initial screenshot, and is a fair use image. Seeing as free use is better than fair use, I am of the opinion that the original screenshot, taken on a Linux system, is the one that should be used. This was, of course, why I reverted to that version, but it seems as if I was re-reverted. I don't want to engage in an edit war over this image, but I do feel that the GPL license-able image is the one which we should be using. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

replied on Image talk:Firefox-screenshot.png _→AzaToth 01:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UU Move

"moved Template:User unun to Template:User religion/Unitarian Universalist"

One obvious question comes to mind:

Why?

I could understand moving it to {{unitarian universalist}}, but "user religion/Unitarian Universalist"?!!? That's long and needlessly elaborate enough to almost seem self-referentially satirical. -Silence 20:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did simlar moves for all templates for religions to make it streamline (logic). _→AzaToth 20:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a truly horrible, ridiculous, unnecessary, and downright wasteful idea. Streamlining and organization is already taken care of by the fact that all the templates are included in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion, meaning anyone can instantly scroll through them all; while that helps plenty with keeping the templates consistent and organized, your changes do nothing to help further those aims (or any other aims that I can see!). All you've done is cause massive inconvenience, hundreds of unnecessary redirects, a lot of future hassle for thousands of editors who have to remember, type, copy-paste, etc. many more characters, and a truly awful system to organize all these templates under. And I'm being generous here. -Silence 21:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the moves, this really needs discussion first. If it happened, I didn't see it. Please point it out. The wonder of Wikipedia is that things can be reverted, and those reverts can be undone just as easily. --Golbez 22:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall there was a consensus that all non-babel userboxes should have a specific prefix. _→AzaToth 22:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where? When? Why? They already have a prefix: "user". There aren't so many userboxes that we should need to go beyond that for something as major as a world religion or huge philosophical movement; people will understand "user atheist" without "user religion/atheist". If we do add "religion", we should do it carefully, specifically, and after case-by-case discussion, lest we run back into the bizarre page names and errors that occurred when you mass-moved everything on "Userboxes:Religion", even ones that aren't really religious (like the Santa Claus template). -Silence 22:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSS Hack

I'm not at all mandating that WP:AUM is a good thing. I had just had given up arguing against it given that strong support from top-shots and thought that if Netoholic and others really are so inclined to use the CSS trick then it is better to take the CSS (or weeble) instead of eliminiating every sort of template. Somewhat as a stop gap measure, until we have conditionals in MediaWiki. I also thought why not try out that CSS more extensively and see how bad or good it really is? At least we have now lots of other poeple taking care of the missing conditional support. I'm happy that Brion now put some stop to that AUM terror, but unfortunately his statements still leave room for lot of intepretation. However this is largely unimportant given his express intention to move conditionals into code.

However bad that CSS trick may be, I think one somewhat nice (but not so important aspect) is that it looks not so bad on tables (only in the wiki source, html is bad). Extract from Template:Infobox President:

|- class{{{party|}}}="hiddenStructure"
! Political party
| {{{party}}}

In the end, I think we both will finally get what we always wanted: conditionals in MediaWiki :-). --Adrian Buehlmann 10:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I'm currently looking into reverting Template:Taxobox back to the meta-template version (since it looks awful in Lynx and doubtless other browsers that lack CSS support). However, in a userspace test it seems the template has been broken. I've checked the dependencies of the template and it doesn't seem like many of the templates were modified, but I thought you might be able to take a look at it and figure it out. My userspace test is at User:Locke Cole/Blue Whale and User:Locke Cole/Taxobox (which is currently reduced down to a simple example that breaks). Feel free to edit either of those pages if you'd like to test yourself. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off course I could help, but I don't understand exactly what the problem are :) _→AzaToth 14:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yesterday it wasn't working (of course I still should have checked prior to asking, but I didn't figure it'd fix itself). I think someones been messing with some of the meta-templates it uses though, but now that it works, I'll assume it's safe to revert Template:Taxobox. Thanks for your time! —Locke Cole • t • c 14:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_22#Template:User_freedom

You tagged this template as speedy kept per the concencus, however, it seems someone has decided to delete it regardless, and add {{deletedpage}}. Can I ask you overrule this per the TfD. Thanks! Ian¹³_ID:540053 16:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems someone reopened TfD once I got it undeleted. You seem to have voted twice, one keep and one delete, can you please clarify? Ian¹³_ID:540053 20:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

per ugliness I vote delete, per logic I vote keep. _→AzaToth 21:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, its just that users don't usually vote twice. Usually, you vote on the topic too, since looks can be changed. Ian¹³_ID:540053 21:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cant be a robot always :) (Also, there is no things like votes per logic, only relative consensus...) _→AzaToth 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If and Boolean Templates

Yep maybe a little bit in acurate. I think with the current debate over server load etc we should try to redirect people to a better method. Probably need some sort of note for If templates as well. Sorry if I've mees things up. --Salix alba (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Nice work archiving Talk:Conspiracy theory. It looks very tidy and professional now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]