User talk:Mr. Absurd/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Editing Biological_classification.svg

Free images on Wikipedia, including this one, are generally hosted on Wikimedia Commons ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/ ) and that's where you can upload any images or changes to images, and they'll be seen on Wikipedia. E.g. The commons page for my drawing is [1] (you can click on the "en" tab on that page to get back to the wikipedia page for it -- It's a bit confusing). Click on "Upload file" on commons to upload your own image. If it has the same filename it will replace the original. Note that SVG isn't always very WYSIWYG when it comes to text and fonts and Wikipedia might render it differently to how you expect. But see how you go. —Pengo 04:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Rationale

Kindly fix your rationale on this image in a numbered manner. Thank you. --βandβ ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for that. It was actually right but it's more readable if you will write it in a numbered manner. Like this. Did i make it clear? --βandβ ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? Was my recent talk non-sense? --βand&β ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh. What i mean numbered is to number all your rationales. Its quite ambiguous because the rationale was written only in one paragraph. What i was supposed to say is to break that paragraph into numbered sentences to make it readable. Like this:

1. blah blah blah
2. blah blah blah
3. blah blah blah

et cetera. --βandβ ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

--βandβ ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Cars edit

142.177.234.115 keeps on adding the same unnecessary edits we ourselves removed. Apparently it's from the same IP sector, but the last six digits are different. I've got a feeling it's the same guy. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Engineer

Hi. What exactly were you trying to do with your huge edit to Engineer? The edit summary was really misleading, as your edit was, in part, a substantial content revision. I think I'd agree with many of the specific edits you made, but you also blanked a lot of text, which is not ok without some significant explanation. Because of the blanking and the misleading edit summary, I've reverted your edit in toto. Feel free to make your specific content edits with a proper edit summary; and if you believe that the section you deleted should be deleted, feel free to explain that in the talk page. Argyriou (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you inadvertently edited an older version of the page? A lot of what got changed was newer additions to the article. Since this appears to be an accident, and easily revertable, no harm, no foul. Argyriou (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably what happened. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hockey Hall of Fame

Hey, I reverted your edits. You're not necessarily wrong, but - since it is today's featured article - it's going to have higher IP traffic than pretty much everything else. They won't be able to go into preferences and resize their thumbnails. I know it's not really a policy-based reason for doing so...but it should probably have some discussion before it's done... --Smashville^BONK! 02:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I-mag teen magazine

Jackhowson (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Why have you requested my article, 'i-mag teen magazine' should be up for speedy deletion? I have put my opposition to that on my talk page. Hopefully you will give me a chance to continue with the page.

Templates can be set to auto-collapse when there are two or more templates in an article—so this is redundant

Ok-- tell me how. Noone has ever told me, I have only seen what I have done with Template:New Testament people collapsed. --Carlaude (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How do I make 'em a Nav box-- or find the inscructions there to?--Carlaude (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made such a Nav box at User:Carlaude/Sandbox2 but I still do not see how I could use it as both collapsed and uncollapsed. I also do not see how to contol the width and make it the size I want.--Carlaude (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr Seuss

Hi,

Whatever the German may have been, "Dr Seuss" is a household name, and has a single recognized English pronunciation. kwami (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Seuss

Hi Mr. Absurd,

Are you planning to build a better Dr. Seuss ABC page? I'm wondering why you redirected it to the Dr. Seuss main page when there was information on the ABC page. I'm new and still learning how all of this works. --Matthewrpeterson (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

{{National elections}}

It did mess up the headings. If you looked at the page after you made the change, the example template ({{Danish elections}}) had a purple top header bar (as standard), but then a pale grey 2nd and 3rd header bars (rather than matching the top colour). пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Watcher in the Water GAN

A surprisingly good first review! a couple of points:

• Why not consider removing the infobox? it seems to add nothing as everything is "unknown".
• They should move one of the fair use images so as to avoid sandwiching text between images.
• The "literary" section needs to be expanded and rewritten. This character is barely notable so it's important that this section is flawless, as it should be where the character's importance on the Lord of the Rings' universe is established. I would fail the article for this reason alone as it fails to be broad in its coverage (there's no mention on why the fellowship of the ring was there, what was Gandalf trying to do, etc).
• Your point 11: References are footnotes, so it really doesn't matter which title they use for the section. And I agree with you, using Amazon as a source is original research, but finding a reliable source that acknowledges the existence of this toys is highly unlikely. They should try and find a convincable and verifiable way around this.

I agree with all of your other points, but remember to be open-minded if some of them get challenged. By the way, you might want to correct typos rather than comment on them, it takes less time and it's not against the GA process to correct minors when reviewing. Anyway, if you have more doubts don't hesitate and ask me or the other mentors. Thanks for reviewing, the project needs fresh and thorough reviewers like yourself!--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 09:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WITW

I've finished most of what you said and expanded the section (Literature) to make it more notable. What now? LOTRrules (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:C. S. Lewis

Hi.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:C._S._Lewis&curid=13221780&diff=210064413&oldid=203454731

How about this formatting, which removes that wide gap between the lines of group 1's name "The Chronicles" and "of Narnia" (via the groupstyle) and respaces the lists of links so they don't seem to form a continuous whole:

Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't reckon the size of the template is a problem, as it's automatically collapsed when appearing in articles. I do think it's a pity, though, that the current "standard" settings mean the two observations I made above occur. I'm hoping that someday sooner rather than later these standards may be amended, but in the meantime, if you agree that the template above is an improvement, let's override the standards rather than let them override us (and anyone else like-minded)? Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• That's generous of you and I'd like to try the above version to see if and how many other people might not prefer it, i.e. to start guaging a consensus one way or the other. Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• ...I see you've also "standardized" Template:Lists by country, another template that happens to be on my watchlist, so I've also restored the spacing there too. It's been like that for sometime (since 29 February, I think) and a number of people have edited it since without making changes to or queries about the spacing. I've also upgraded the linewrapping so the Firefox linewrap bug is handled. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Four Freedoms

It appears that you have merged the Four Freedoms (painting series) images. It is my understanding that we are not allowed to alter fair use images. I am going to revert to the original images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong, you are able to crop, alter fair use images. Do you think an infobox with individually titled images looks better? Maybe we could crop each image so that they could be laid out as before without inconsistent whitespace. Also, why are you against so many of the categories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK for The Seven Lady Godivas

On 6 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Seven Lady Godivas, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bobet 10:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

On horribleness and {{Penn}}

I wouldn't necessarily characterize my formatting as "horrible." At the very worst, it's a bit crufty, but I'd dispute even that. It's easier to read than the default format, it's more pleasing to the eye, and it fulfills the primary functions of a Wikipedia navbox while only deviating slightly from the guidelines, if at all. Guidelines are guidelines, but consensus is policy, so I've thrown the question out to Talk:University of Pennsylvania to see if a consensus can be reached on the format of this particular navbox. You may also want to respond to this question from the template's Talk page. --Dynaflow babble 06:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand wanting to use Penn's colours, but other than that I see absolutely no reason why all this non-standard formatting is necessary at all. I'm confused how you think it's easier to read—I disagree—and it also looks silly above or below other navboxes that conform to the established standard. I realize that "pleasing to the eye" is subjective, but I just don't see a need for this kind of formatting. There's a reason that Wikipedia has a meta-template and a general standard formatting that's pretty much cohesive across Wikipedia. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if everybody just tried to make their navboxes look nice? I think we should just stick to what we're given to work with. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Brontee

Because it is being used in an article where the smaller size fits it. However if you want to upload the larger one in a completely new upload (rather than over the smaller one) then no probs with that. Thanks! - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Elephant, The White Stripes.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Elephant, The White Stripes.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

History of the petroleum industry in Canada

I removed your comment about the need for references. That material is based on 30 years in the industry, and it reflects material from books and other stuff I have read and written. The info is correct, although in most cases I have no idea where I got the information. I wish I could include more specific references, but it wouldn't be reasonable to expect to find that stuff anymore -- especially since I have donated my oil and gas library to a specialist organization (Petroleum History Society) and don't even have the books anymore. Cheers. 13:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

New Infobox series template

Nice job on the new template! I looked it over and think it looks fine. only 1 pt I might bring up is the preceding and following pieces might be confusing. You might want to qualify it as another series written by the same person otherwise it might look like possibly 2 more books for the same series or just 2 books from that have come from left field somewhere. Jask99 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A book table

I saw your new info box and I think you've done some nice work. My only suggestion is that you might consider changing "cover artist" to "cover design," as some series use photography instead of artwork.

On the General Forum, I've been discussing a recent change I've made to Private (novel series). I've created a table for the "Book releases" section by using an "Episode list" template. The only problem is that it causes titles to be displayed in quotation marks instead of italics. I was wondering if you knew how we might be able to create a book-specific table to amend this. Thanks. James26 (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Regional tartans of Canada

On 28 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Regional tartans of Canada, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

American alligator information in Restoration of the Everglades

Hi, Mr Absurd. Thanks for the additional information to the article. Can you supply me with the source you used for the information about the protected status of alligators? Right now it seems as if it's all sourced in Lodge, which it is not. Thanks. Moni3 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

DuPrau Template

In the nicest way possible, I would like you to stop un-doing my work on this template. I have done every article on here according to Miss DuPrau's wishes via email, and since these things are about her, I believe it would be best to have things her way. Please don't revert any large edits like this without first discussing them in the discussion section. Thanks, Johnnywalterboy (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

While it's great that you want to follow her wishes, that doesn't trump general Wikipedia style rules. If you look at other similar templates, you'll see why I made the changes that I did, to follow a general consistent style. If you let me know what specific things she wanted or what specific issues you had with my changes, I can give you the reasoning behind my changes. We can certainly try to accomodate her personal wishes, but they are no reason for deviating from Wikipedia norms — see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Mr. Absurd (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your automated script

Please stop running whatever automated script you are using, it is incorrectly posting comments that should be in the userspace in the mainspace. - Icewedge (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not an automated script, it's a manual notification (basically the same thing though). I definitely didn't mean to post in an article mainspace though—where did I? I only meant to post on user talk pages. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You have created at least 15 pages such as Merbabu:User talk:Merbabu (now deleted). - Icewedge (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that happened... I think it might have something to do with using a short-cut control-e to automatically edit a page when I was already at a blank page. Thanks for letting me know, I'll be more careful next time. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Check your own edit history, and add a CSD tag to the pages you have created; I will work on deleting them. In addition, you are spamming the talk pages of dozens of editors, and this is not appropriate either. Propose your change in a central discussion area first, please. Those who wish to participate in the discussion can do so, or not, as they wish. Risker (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any of them in my contribs—they just show up as User talk. Also, I was afraid of that. My reasoning was, I would want to know about a proposal at a Wikiproject I was part of, and I don't regularly check talk pages of Wikiprojects because they don't generally have that much discussion and watchlists aren't too effective for that (not that I'm justifying what I did). Thanks for the warning. Sorry. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they're not showing up because Icewedge has already deleted them. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not me personally, I am not an admin, but yes they seem to have all been dealt with. - Icewedge (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, not to be rude, but what specifically was wrong with what I did? I've looked at WP:CANVAS, and I wasn't "excessive cross-posting" (these are all listed as active members of WikiProject History), "campaigning" (my tone was neutral), or "votestacking" (I didn't pick only some editors who I thought would agree). It was, as the guideline suggests, limited, neutral, non-partisan, and open. So what would be the problem with this? (Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to be snappy). Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The new pages were dealt with by another admin before I got to them, so that is taken care of. Infoboxes can be rather a contentious issue; I have seen edit wars between members of different projects insisting that theirs is the "right" one for a specific page, and many articles have overlapping projects that have an interest in them. The standardisation you are proposing doesn't just affect Wikiproject History, for example; many country-specific wikiprojects have designed an infobox that they feel is best for their project and there is overlap between Wikiproject History. There are many editors, particularly those who write at a higher level, who prefer not to have infoboxes at all, too, as they can clash with the layout and presentation of some of our highest-quality pages.

Because you were sending messages to members of such a large project, you've affected the watchlists of hundreds of editors. Meanwhile, many of those you have posted to are no longer with Wikipedia, or have simply failed to remove their names from the active membership list of the wikiproject. Each editor is responsible for keeping track of the projects in which s/he has an interest. At this point, I'd say this is a case of enthusiastic good intentions. No worries. Risker (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Identifying sidebar templates as such

Hi again.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:United_States_history_%28sidebar%29&action=history

Do you think, then, people would mind if I renamed all sidebar templates in the category as "Template:...sidebar"? (Yes, without the brackets.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In a word, yes, I think they would mind (though personally I don't particularly care either way). First of all, I don't think they're generally called "sidebar" templates — I think "series" is what's more often used, although I could be wrong. Then there's also the fact that there are probably hundreds of series templates, meaning that to change them all is a pretty large undertaking, and should have a clearly established consensus before any large-scale changes are made. And third, I would think something more along the lines of what's used for infoboxes would be appropriate (i.e. Template:Series History of the United States or Template:Sidebar History of the United States).

This is all just my opinion, though, so take it as you will. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the talkpage alert. I appreciate your opinion as I realize the change might be noticed by a few people (such as yourself). I half-agree and half-disagree with it, along these lines: I'd go for "Sidebar:Template-name" (so, "Sidebar:History of the United States") if, for instance, "Infobox:Template-name" rather than "Template:Infobox Template-name" were possible, but "Template:Sidebar Template-name" and especially "Template:Series Template-name" seem even less intuitive to me than "Template:Infobox Template-name". I guess "Template:Series Template-name" seems the least workable to me as it seems the most likely to produce potentially confusing names; "Series History of..." would be in the running as an example, as I can imagine someone reading it as a miscapitalized "Series history of...". I'm also not sure about "series" as the most appropriate name for such templates, as it describes a use of rather than the format/design of the template. (I also think I've seen standard navboxes referring to series, although I can't recall a particular example at the moment.) I picked up "sidebar" from its use in some template names and on talkpages.

So, I arrive at "Template-name sidebar". I had started using "Template-name (sidebar)", i.e. with brackets in the same way Wikipedia articles disambiguate topics, but, prompted by comments elsewhere, have come round to thinking they're unnecessary in the context of templates.

One way or another, I think it might be useful if "sidebar" templates' names indicated their format/design in some way, as infoboxes already do (and navboxes would automatically do by the omission of "sidebar" and "infobox" in their names, alongside where/how they're transcluded).

Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, it is a bit tricky, because as you said, it's not quite the same as with infobox. I see what you mean about "sidebar" being less ambiguous than "series" too. Something including the word "box", like in "infobox", would be best, but "seriesbox" is too awkward. I'm kind of on the fence about whether it's actually needed or not... I think it's helpful, but not absolutely necessary. Were you thinking of making a site-wide proposal or just looking at the "History of..." articles? Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think I'm also in the "it isn't sorely needed, but might be worthwhile" camp, so wasn't thinking of a site-wide proposal ("top-down") but trying it here and there until it's either taken up (with/without modification) or struck out. Here's another whole category of candidates -- but take a look at the subcategory. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I see what you mean... it's kind of all over the place. But seeing it like that isn't so bad as I thought... I could definitely live with appending "sidebar" to the end.
• Also, have you read my proposal at WikiProject History? I think if we go ahead with it I might propose a similar change for the "Politics of foo" boxes (although thankfully they have a meta-template for that already, so it would just involve some minor tweaking). Hopefully the "owners" of that template are open to change. Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Going by the heading, I can guess it's not unrelated to this sidebar stuff. Give me 24hrs to read and ponder. Right now, though, I have to finish up here and log off. I've left your talkback alert in place as a reminder. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The infobox standard seems a good idea and I see it's already awaiting deployment. Hope it all works out. Meanwhile, User:Checco, who compiled many/most/all of the Italy politics sidebars implied above, has asked me to revert the "sidebar" additions to the names (which I'll get round to a little later). Oh well. Lastly, in case it drifts out of sight, [2]. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

the toy story template

You modified the Toy Story template per WP:NAVBOX (thank you). Please be aware that there are a number of Pixar-related templates that were created at the same time that you might want to also investigate. SpikeJones (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Following your lead, I removed the colors on the other Pixar-related templates that the same user had created. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hey Mr. Absurd,

I just had some question about uploading non-free images while following non-free content guidlines and I hoped you would help. Mlsguy0037 (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Country history

Hi. I have proposed some new ideas about the template there, but I assume you haven't seen it yet, have you? --Passawuth (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going on a semi-Wikibreak, so go ahead. Mr. Absurd (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that I've now happened on a use of {{Country history}} "in the field" and think it looks great. So, I was motivated to visit its page and found myself tweaking it a little. Hope the result is okay. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Halloween (The Office)

I'd just like to question your reasoning on failing this article as a GA nom. The 30 some-odd other Office GA articles contain only the three sections, and are extremely similar to the article in length. What would you state that should be in the production section other than that which is already there? Your comments about the reception section are also odd to me; What would you say should be placed in the reception section other than review information and statistics? Mastrchf (^t/_c) 02:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of my point. There really aren't any other sources to add more content, but I don't think the amount of content in the article right now is sufficient for GA standards. So basically, you've done the best you can under the circumstances, but I don't think it's enough to pass. Even though a two- or three-section article can certainly be GA, this one has essentially only two very short sections of encyclopedic content (plot isn't really encyclopedic).

If the two sections were long and fleshed out, like in "Goodbye, Toby", I would pass it, but this isn't the case. I do understand that there is rather a large precedent here, but wp:other stuff exists. It's definitely very difficult to judge— there aren't huge differences between this article and another GA article from The Office — but I still feel that it's not GA-quality, though it's hard for me to give more specific reasons why.

If you feel very strongly about this, feel free to put it up for Wikipedia:Good article reassessment and we can see what others have to say. Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted your reasoning. Also, please don't just stick your message template at the top of a page as you did on my talk page. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 23:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)