User:Qst/Archive 10
Re
[edit]"I do not appreciate being called toots, by the way. You are seriously in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Please stop insulting me and other editors, or you may endup being blocked. Qst (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)". -- It's just a colloquialism; it's not an insult, and it's quite far from a "serious personal attack". A serious personal attack would be a cuss-ridden rant torpedoing your integrity, religion, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, gender, etc. You chose to get offended by that; you can just as easily choose to get over yourself and move on from it. It's immaterial to the article in question. Let it go. Piercetheorganist 18:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: Menu
[edit]That's cool; I both have stolen and had my menu stolen several times. I kind of like having it stolen actually XD. Cheers! --tennisman 20:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops
[edit]Sorry about the block on TTW. I've been watching everything. KingPuppy 22:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hopefully if you're unbanned here, you'll be allowed to contribute there. Qst (talk) 08:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, can you show me an example? I have NEVER seen any thing listed by letter on category with the same name as the article, not near the right letter. TheBlazikenMaster 20:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, calm down. I'll find the link... Qst 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Quite a few are like that - especially biographical articles where the last name is put first to place them in alphabetical order. The name of the episode rather than the episode number seems like a much better solution as the episode number is the name of the article so can easily be found another way. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, hi Ryan :) Here is the link I was talking about. Although, as Ryan said, it is generally used more for biographical articles, it is helpful in order to make sure that any chance of it being categorised in the wrong letter, is zero. Qst 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh no, my lovely clean talk page is spoilt :) Just kidding, Qst 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, I mean what you do is this: [[category:Category name|Exact article name]], I wasn't asking about articles starting with the or a person's name. I mean what's the need? Normally stuff are automatically put into a category and is under the letter as the first letter of the article's name. What's the need for that? I don't see the need for that because it does that automatically, I hope you are getting what I mean. TheBlazikenMaster 20:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do, but it is just common practice to format categories like that. Qst 20:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you should make your own sandbox. I really find this unnecessery. Look at the bottom of Family Guy, you don't see that have this, do you? I can give you another example, many more. TheBlazikenMaster 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect — have you seen the state some Family Guy articles are in? I do have my own sandbox (points at menu at the top of the page), and yes - please do provide me with these links. However, I must add the a lot of articles do have this category format; and a lot don't - this is because it is compulsory for articles, it is just a common layout for categories. Qst 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yet your changes is the only ones I have seen that have this format to categories that are already listed under that letter without anyone copying and pasting the article's name. I still think it's unnecessary if you want it to be listed under the letter it's already listed under. And believe me, I am gonna find a proper place to discuss this, as you're the only one I know that does this. TheBlazikenMaster 21:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and no troubles, I just am confused. TheBlazikenMaster 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please do that, if thats what you would to enquire about. But is a preferred method among most experienced editors (not that I'm saying your inexperienced)... Qst 21:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and no troubles, I just am confused. TheBlazikenMaster 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yet your changes is the only ones I have seen that have this format to categories that are already listed under that letter without anyone copying and pasting the article's name. I still think it's unnecessary if you want it to be listed under the letter it's already listed under. And believe me, I am gonna find a proper place to discuss this, as you're the only one I know that does this. TheBlazikenMaster 21:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect — have you seen the state some Family Guy articles are in? I do have my own sandbox (points at menu at the top of the page), and yes - please do provide me with these links. However, I must add the a lot of articles do have this category format; and a lot don't - this is because it is compulsory for articles, it is just a common layout for categories. Qst 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you should make your own sandbox. I really find this unnecessery. Look at the bottom of Family Guy, you don't see that have this, do you? I can give you another example, many more. TheBlazikenMaster 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do, but it is just common practice to format categories like that. Qst 20:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, I mean what you do is this: [[category:Category name|Exact article name]], I wasn't asking about articles starting with the or a person's name. I mean what's the need? Normally stuff are automatically put into a category and is under the letter as the first letter of the article's name. What's the need for that? I don't see the need for that because it does that automatically, I hope you are getting what I mean. TheBlazikenMaster 20:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh no, my lovely clean talk page is spoilt :) Just kidding, Qst 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, hi Ryan :) Here is the link I was talking about. Although, as Ryan said, it is generally used more for biographical articles, it is helpful in order to make sure that any chance of it being categorised in the wrong letter, is zero. Qst 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Quite a few are like that - especially biographical articles where the last name is put first to place them in alphabetical order. The name of the episode rather than the episode number seems like a much better solution as the episode number is the name of the article so can easily be found another way. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
[edit]Hi Qst, thank you so much for voicing your support in my successful RfA. I'm humbled to have the community's trust. As I master the ways of the mop and bucket, please don't hesitate to message me for any advice or corrections. Cheers! Spellcast 22:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Enjoy the tools, I have no doubt in your ability to be a good admin. Qst 10:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Nominating me for adminship
[edit]Since I already have two nominations on my RFA page, I don't think you need to add a third nomination. It won't help me much, and it will take a few minutes of your time. I appreciate the sentiment, though. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'll send you an email later today. Qst 10:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thankspam
[edit]
...for your participation, criticism, and support in my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final count of 90/1/1. I appreciate all of your kind words, criticism, and suggestions. I extend a special thanks to Acalamari for his nomination, and Dihydrogen Monoxide and Husond for their coaching and nominations. If you need help in any administrative matters, please contact me.
Neranei
This RfA thanks inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.
- Your're welcome, have fun with the tools. Qst 10:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello
[edit]Hello fro thw cheesegrater2003
- Um, hello...Qst 10:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sig
[edit]Hi Qst, thanks for your comment on my RfA page, but why does your signature there link to User:Daniel? --Oxymoron83 11:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I copied the code from Daniel, but then decided to go with <font> tags instead of <span>, I then found a very similar colour and changed the code, I must have forgotten to change the link. Qst 13:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
RE:Afd closures
[edit]Hey Qst! I've not closed any AFDs since my statemet, here. Thanks. Rudget zŋ 16:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Logo
[edit]About this edit, I know MedCom have mostly moved on to a slightly different logo - but I still think it will cause confusion if people involved in MedCab use the old one given the similarity of the designs. Probably better to think of it as two versions of the MedCom logo rather than the old one being available. It might be an idea to create something new and distinctive for MedCab though. WjBscribe 02:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you're right, but me and creating graphics/images don't go together very well
. I'll see what I can do though. Qst 10:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please
[edit]Please Qst, I've respectfully requested you don't interact with Daniel. I'm not sure how you came up with your conclusions without going through his contributions. If there's anything seriously wrong about his editing, someone else will notice and comment without you having to, but this was not something serious. Come through me if you have anything that really concerns you. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't actually going through his contributions, I was skimming through some old AfD's log to see if there was any to close as a non admin, and I noticed them, I didn't realise I had to tell you first. Qst 11:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Daniel didn't do anything wrong by the way, after relisting the AfD's, he commented out the old ones - an acceptable thing to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- You may want to wait to have someone else review this one. If it were me, I would not pass it as a GA at this point, and there is a lot of work to be done that I would probably hesitate before simply putting it on hold either. The Intro/Lead is a bit too short, the Reception section only cites one source, and there are multiple grammatical and copyediting errors in other sections of the article. Overall, yes, I can tell there was some work done on the article, and good job so far with the sourcing, but you may want to get someone else's opinion on this - not too mention a good proofreading. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 06:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC).
- Okay - I will copyedit it and correct any bad punctuation (I admit, I'm not too good with grammar). However, I must disagree about the "reception" section having only reference, that is the only non-trivial reception available, and every piece of information in the reception section is covered by that reference, hence forth - I think the reference section is OK as it is, but I'll work on it tonight (GMT time) :-) Qst 10:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Looks better. Again, I'm glad you worked on some of my suggestions, the article is better for it, but I don't think I'm the best person to review it for you. Best if you wait for another reviewer to come along. If you are getting antsy about waiting for a GA review, one way to address that would be for you to yourself review one of the other candidates on the WP:GAC, from the same subsection as your GA nomination, "Television episodes". Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC).
- Okay - well thanks anyway :) I'll just have to be patient... Qst 16:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Looks better. Again, I'm glad you worked on some of my suggestions, the article is better for it, but I don't think I'm the best person to review it for you. Best if you wait for another reviewer to come along. If you are getting antsy about waiting for a GA review, one way to address that would be for you to yourself review one of the other candidates on the WP:GAC, from the same subsection as your GA nomination, "Television episodes". Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC).
CHU
[edit]We're coming into contact almost daily now at changing username, but even still, thanks for the edit update. Rudget zŋ 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, thats OK :) You weren't in the wrong at all - I just removed it to prevent the new user becoming confused...we were all new one day, those were the days :) Qst 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Your icons section...
[edit]Still links to Wikipedia:Administrators :) just in case you hadn't realised! By the way, everything is okay, yes? Anthøny 21:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, everything is good, thanks. Are you okay? Sorry about the link - I changed User:Qst/Userpage/Icons to link the protection policy as my userpage is semi-protected, but when it came to my talk page, which is not semi'd — I had to change it to another system, hence the traffic light "wikimood" system. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll go and change it now. Regards, Qst 21:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Übersetzung Jimbo´s Seite
[edit]Schade es hätte Jimbo sicher gefallen. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Bugert
- I don't speak German - please use English here as this is the English Wikipedia. Thank you, Qst 15:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Return to previous Wiki activity
[edit]Nice to see you back! :) Rudget.talk 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. —Qst 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Howdy, just wanted to keep you in the loop on this one. User:Qst/Userboxes is, for some reason, showing up in candidates for speedy deletion today; a page transcluded in it was deleted at your request, and I figure it is some kind of bug. I left a note at the village pump. I don't think there is anything you need to do about it (unless you see a way to fix it), but I thought you might want to know. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, it has been fixed. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)