User talk:Best Dog Ever

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Best Dog Ever, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Laurinavicius (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to be a massive idiot to call a truthful statement vandalism. Sereptis (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)sereptis

Thanks!

For being patient with me and setting me straight on the Firefox article! I learned a valuable lesson, and I appreciate the suggestion about going to the Firefox forums. You truly are the Best Dog Ever! Have a great day. 24.10.181.254 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks bud. You too. By the way, I would have replied to your question, but I didn't know the answer. That's a big problem here. The people with the answers aren't on the talk pages.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to respond to my question, but appreciate more that you didn't address it--so that I learned my place--as well as that my comment belonged on Firefox forums, not here. Yeah, I could have even gone to the (not the Village Pump--I can't think of the name of it, but it seems like even Wikipedia has a place for questions like these, albeit mine would probably still be more appropriate in Firefox forums due to the length of my beastly "novel". Thanks again, and if we cross paths again, keep me in line if it appears as though I'm "wandering". I'll do the same for you. Oh, by the way, I observed on your User Page that you are a professional HTML-5 user. If you don't have time, don't worry about it, but if you have a spare second, is there any good links (Wiki or on the web) that you could inform me of that discuss the future of HTML-5? (Like on YouTube, for example). (Oh, also, I sometimes use my computer that has a 1080p resolution, so my comments appear shorter to me, but might be an eyesore for others who use different resolutions, so don't be afraid to give a gentle rebuke if my comments are unnecessarily long (this one included!) If you don't have those links, don't worry about it. Take care, friend. :) 24.10.181.254 (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference Desk! That's it! I should have just read your Discussion page closer. 24.10.181.254 (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any good links, but I believe that HTML 5 is over hyped. The video and audio tags aren't compatible across Safari and Firefox, yet. Internet Explorer does not currently support any HTML 5 tags, although it will in version 9, which is set to be released next year. Our "HTML 5" entry states that it will reach "Candidate Recommendation stage during 2012, and become a W3C Recommendation in the year 2022 or later." Even then, I'm sure there will be cross-browser compatability issues, just like with HTML 4 today. And even if there weren't compatability issues, HTML 5 (plus CSS 3 and JavaScript) would still lack many of the features of Flash and Silverlight.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it sounds over-hyped at the rate it's progressing. Oh well. I guess we are still a long ways off from having plugin-less video, etc. browsing. Thanks for responding! 24.10.181.254 (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

PUA

For answering my question at WP:RDC I hereby award Best Dog Ever this barnstar I made one minute ago! Kayau Voting IS evil 03:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Thank you very much!--Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks dude!

I really appreciate all the help, its comforting knowing that there's actually some decent people on wikipedia. Thanks for the link, have'nt tried it yet but i have no doubt that it'll probably work! I am really using the viruses for research though, not only testing antivirus programs but also to see the extent of damage from some of these viruses. If you find any other sites have particularly terrrible viruses please don't hesitate to contact me, I'm looking for the really really really nasty ones. Thanks again for all the help! Wikiholicforever (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edit in Microsoft Expression Web

Hi, Best Dog Ever

I'm writing in to inform you that your bold edit in Microsoft Expression Web article is contested per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. My concern is that the source seems to qualify as reliable because:

1. Bill Pearson profile (http://social.expression.microsoft.com/profile/bill pearson/) shows that he is affiliated with Microsoft and hence in a position to say what Microsoft Expression Web is and what it isn't. (Only forum admins my include this status info, hence it is authentic.)
2. The topic from which the quotation comes is stickied by a Microsoft moderator. No ordinary user can do that. This shows that the topic has the approval of Microsoft.

Still, if you disagree, I respect your right to engage in discussion in article talk page per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Fleet Command (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Good work, Best Dog Ever. Thanks for doing it.

But now, we can neither write "it is WYSIWYG" nor write "it is not WYSIWYG". We have to write the fact; and the fact is that Microsoft says it is WYSIWYG but some other authorities say it is not WYSIWYG. We should also cite from both.

Although, I have to admit that I don't know why some people call it WYSIWYG: I have a copy of MSEW v3 and what I see is clearly not what I get – or at least, only what I see in preview mode is what I get! Maybe we should include an appropriate screenshot, so that people can see for themselves.

Fleet Command (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. That's enough to discredit the forum post. Alright then, go ahead and call it WYSIWYG, citing three of your best sources – The latter source from Microsoft is great, IMHO. Although, you'd probably like to go the last remaining inch and make nobody can claim that the Pearson source is newer than Microsoft FrontPage to Expression Web; so make sure the from which you cite are about as latest the version of EW as possible.

Oh, and congratulation. That was a good job. Sorry for being busy on Wikimedia Commons and not being able to help. Fleet Command (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Your verification of assertion in Adobe Flash

Hello, BDE

Since it is you who attests, I won't contest; but you still need source. Verification is a pillar of Wikipedia, remember?

Mind you, I myself know of a couple of programs that are called Flash Decompiler or SWF Decompiler. [1][2][3][4][5] But I tried a couple of them and none of them decompiled; they just extracted resources. (It was as if someone claim to be selling you a disassembler but instead sell you ResEdit or IcoFX.)

Do you know any actual decompiler? Fleet Command (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It really decompiles? Then by all means, go ahead and cite from its website or something. You have my gratitude, BDE. Fleet Command (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

HTML5 and Flash

It's important that controversial topics adhere to neutral point of view and get extra-careful attention when it comes to verifiability and citing sources. Editors should allow their knowledge of the topic to guide them to evidence, from all angles, that is published in reliable sources. Then they can assemble that evidence, without pushing POV, and without producing claims of their own.

I posted three questions at Talk:Comparison of HTML5 and Flash about your edits. I've demonstrated that I'm willing to put in the work to make this as useful an article as possible, and going forward, hope we can work together constructively. --Pnm (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

standardization cannot be under the control of companies. every party has right to vote. adobe systems has many members in w3c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.181.38 (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Undoing someone's edit without edit summary

Hello, BDE

When you undo someone's edit that is not blatant vandalism, please provide an edit summary. Thanks in advance. Fleet Command (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not trolling?

Hello, BDE.

Regarding your edit to Talk:Gnash § Fair use rationale for Image:Gnash-logo.png, I think the guy was obviously trolling because:

1. He activated a 3-years-old fixed issue; hence no reason to reply
2. The post which he activated was from BetacommandBot, a Wikipedia bot; again, no less motivation to reply
3. He posted his comment in a place and manner that stands out (a key signature component of trolling)
4. His argument was a straw man argument: There is no question of one suing another; the issue was as simple as a wrong copyright tag. He is obviously making mountain of a molehill.

Now, I don't want to be anywhere near him the day the he discovers there is actually nothing free about his beloved free software. Fleet Command (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi FleetCommand. You could be right, but it's hard to tell when we're not face-to-face with someone whether they're trolling or not. He appears to be new (as evidenced by the improper formatting of his post), so he may just have been unaware he was talking to a bot. He may have just been complaining about our fair-use guidelines, which, I admit, is out of place on that page. But he was civil. If he comes back, we can use the opportunity to tell him about the proper pages on WP to discuss disagreements over policy.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

IOS

We had consensus for that title at Talk:IOS. Marcus Qwertyus 05:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on IOS. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Marcus Qwertyus 05:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Title on Apple iPhone OS

Why exactly did you choose this particular title for the article describing Apple's iOS product? Apple does not even call the software "iPhone OS" anymore, it makes little sense for this to be the article's title. Also, I am having trouble following links to the discussion that would justify your series of rename and moves. Can you please help bring this title and the IOS disambiguation pages back to following guidelines (and manual of style recommendations) as they were previously? thanks, riffic (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move

I have reverted you renaming of the iOS article. The present title is the result of a requested move (Talk:IOS (disambiguation)#Try it as a multi-move), so moving it to a new title is by definition contested and can only be accomplished through a new request at WP:RM. Favonian (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Email

Take the matter up with User:Marcus Qwertyus, who requested that the move be made. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I got involved because several page moves required an administrator's help. I supported the moves because the main article is named Email, not E-mail, and it has been at the name Email since July 2010. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. This is the twenty-first century, and sources are increasingly dropping the hyphen. Don't blame me. Look at the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Flash vs HTML

Stop adding irrelevant information into the Flash vs HTML article.

See Talk:Comparison_of_HTML5_and_Flash#Improvements_and_merging

Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 06:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for not reverting stuff and in general accepting/improving the updates I made. Thanks. May I ask how you have come to know/use Flash in the first place? -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 07:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I used to be a web developer and designer. I started off coding exclusively in HTML, CSS, and JavaScript and later moved on to building my web sites entirely in Flash.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Besides, I'm planning on merging the comparison article with Flash Player since most everything in the article is discussing flash player. Criticisms section can also be merged since FP already has most of those listed. Do you support this? -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 07:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Valuable material would be lost in the merge.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Material like what? I would preserve everything. --- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 07:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You may very well copy everything over, but this article covers areas that are specific to the Adobe Flash Platform and not the player, per se. Other users besides you and I would see that.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Then how about merging it with the Adobe_Flash#Alternatives section so its linked to the Flash platform as a whole? Does that sound good? -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 08:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Text

So now you've started biasing the article towards Flash with the Anti-aliasing? I marked it "depends" because it only supports it for embedded fonts. You changed it to "yes" and moved the point to a footnote? Then why don't we do that for all the HTML points as well? Stop being biased towards Flash or stop editing the article to show that. I'm warning you about WP:COI if its not the first time you've been warned. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 08:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a different idea: why don't you stop being biased towards HTML? Every single edit you've made to the entry has been designed to portray "HTML 5" in a better light. You edited the part about anti-aliasing to make it look like it's off unless you manually embed them. In fact, it's almost always anti-aliased unless you use a non-standard font in animated text. You then removed my notes to make it more ambiguous. Also, I don't consider anything you say to be a warning.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Being an expert on Flash, I don't let that bias my edits into such articles. You do, and also revert valuable info only to retain biased information you want to include in the article. This is clearly visible and to solve this I've filed a Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Comparison_of HTML5 and Flash DR report. Please stop adding biased information. It is also pertinent to note that before my participation in the article, it was skewed completely in favor of Flash making no mentions whatsoever of features also available in HTML5 such as SVG, video, bitmap support, etc. What it was before vs My first edit and subsequently My latest edit -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 09:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, it is clear that you are not experienced with pure-AS3 projects, since you seem to have always used the Flash IDE as a primary starting point. Therefore your experience and expertise with anti-aliasing is restricted to use within the Flash IDE. Did you know, for example, that if you created a project in FlashDevelop, fonts would display without AA unless the font was manually embedded and the TextField pointed to using that anti-aliased font instead of the default that is using device fonts? Your expertise is very limited and you should not let that affect the contents of such comparison articles. Getting irritated and completely reverting my additions (instead of reverting just the parts you want to preserve) just because you are irritated is not appropriate on a community project that WP is. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 09:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"Every single edit"?? Then what about this, this and this where I have added features supported by Flash that were not present in the comparison before? Your claims are baseless. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 10:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I've kept your anti-alias comment in the comparison, so you don't blindly revert everything I've done. Sleep well. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 11:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Apple vs Flash

Main article: Apple and Adobe Flash controversy

I was the one to add those quotes in the first place. I'm trying to use "summary style" and keep things short and terse instead of branching out into long quotations. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 10:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, keep the long quotes. I've created the Apple and Adobe Flash controversy article where the issue can be discussed at length. You might actually like it! (its a fair review of the topic) Please don't revert my edits to the Comparison or Flash Player articles. Thanks. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 23:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Dude, please keep the short quotes in the FP article. The long quotes are already in the controversy article. Thanks -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 09:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I added the first one back in January, 2011: [6].—Best Dog Ever (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine then, keep your quote. I'm trimming the excess since the whole coverage is in the controversy article. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 13:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of HTML5 and Flash

Please stop edit-warring regarding the HTML/Flash article. Its fine to add features into the Flash part, but not fine to demote the HTML5 features (changing video streaming to red, changing HTML antialiasing to depends) or similar just to make Flash look better, and definitely not fine to revert everything I've done only to preserve some other content regarding Flash. I'm not biased towards HTML, on the contrary I'm the one to massively upgrade the comparison chart for Flash and HTML in the first place. See this, this and this where I have added features supported by Flash that were not present in the comparison before. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 09:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Closed discussions

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You've been reported. See WP:AN3#User:Best Dog Ever reported by User:Tom Jenkins (Result: ). You may add your own comment there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Comparison of HTML5 and Flash". Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. EarwigBot operator / talk 09:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC) IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper Please say your opinion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper (2nd nomination). Thanks. NickSt (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Small token ★   the minimal barnstar   Thank you for all your help on the ref desk. pablo 09:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry to bother you, but can you again try to help with the IE8/IE10 thing you helped me with yesterday at the Reference Desk? I've performed multiple system restores; each one gets me back to IE8, but I can't keep the system from downloading the IE10 update (it appears to be packaged with important updates that I don't want to avoid), and whenever I disable IE10, it simply disables IE entirely. I've even put IE8's entire group of folders onto a flash drive, but the system refuses to open the installation file. I doubt that Microsoft will care if I tell them that I see this as malware (which I do, because it installs itself and I can't get rid of it), so I feel hopeless. 98.223.199.119 (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Hi. You're not bothering me. I would recommend disabling automatic updates on your computer. Then, you can choose which updates to install. To do so, you go to Start → Control Panel → Windows Update → Change Settings. Under "Important Updates," choose something other than "Install Updates Automatically." Personally, I have it set to "Never check for updates." Then, I click on the "Check for updates" button every once in a while to see what's available. Then, you're shown something like this: http://www.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/windows-update-550x405.jpg. It'll tell you the number of important updates in blue text. You click on that text and then you are able to uncheck the box for IE 10.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Tutoring help Hi, I hope you are well. I was wondering if you could help me. I wish to learn ‘Photoshop’ and ‘illustrator’, from the very basic to the most advanced level. Could you please guide me and or help me in order to learn…? Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Hi. I learned mostly by watching video tutorials from Lynda.com (particularly those by Deke McClelland). The One-on-One series is divided into four levels (fundamentals, intermediate, advanced, and mastery): http://www.lynda.com/Photoshop-tutorials/Photoshop-CC-One-One-Fundamentals/124096-2.html http://www.lynda.com/Photoshop-tutorials/Photoshop-CC-One-One-Intermediate/124097-2.html http://www.lynda.com/Photoshop-tutorials/Photoshop-CC-One-One-Advanced/124098-2.html http://www.lynda.com/Photoshop-tutorials/Photoshop-CC-One-One-Mastery/124099-2.html http://www.lynda.com/Illustrator-tutorials/Illustrator-CC-One-One-Fundamentals/124100-2.html http://www.lynda.com/Illustrator-tutorials/Illustrator-CC-One-One-Intermediate/124101-2.html http://www.lynda.com/Illustrator-tutorials/Illustrator-CC-One-One-Advanced/124102-2.html http://www.lynda.com/Illustrator-tutorials/Illustrator-CC-One-One-Mastery/124402-2.html Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC) I currently don't have the facility to watch videos; I've archives the URLs for future use. Could you guide me to a '.pdf' file(s) that I could download, for the complete Fundamental, Intermediate, Advanced, and Mastery levels, of Photoshop and Illustrator CS6, please? You'll have a better idea then me in choosing which guide(s) will be suitable for me at first glances... Mr. Prophet (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC) I haven't ever read any books on Photoshop or Illustrator. So, your guess would be as good as mine about which ebooks would be best for learning Photoshop. Sorry.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Okay, thank you anyway. I appreciate it... Regards -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Btw, what would you suggest learning first? -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC) I would definitely start with Photoshop. Much of what you learn in that program will carry over to Illustrator. Also, for day-to-day use, I find myself using Photoshop a lot more than Illustrator. So, for the typical user, Photoshop is more important.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Okay, thanks. Take care! -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC) No problem. You too.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC) ArbCom elections are now open! Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC) ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! Hello, Best Dog Ever. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) tick tock article I *did* provide a link but someone renamed it! Bgwhite moved page Tick-Tock model/Atom roadmap to Draft:Tick-Tock model/Atom roadmap without leaving a redirect: Doesn't belong here. Not a place for templates or for holding Bgwhite moved page Tick-Tock model/main roadmap to Draft:Tick-Tock model/main roadmap without leaving a redirect: Not a place for a template or for holding Also it wasn't a mere link, it was a transclusion which contained a link and the table. So the table would have been still inside the original article (per reference), if Bgwhite hadn't renamed the sub-pages without adding redirects. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC) As I've explained to Pizzahut, there cannot be a redirect to a draft page, else it will be speedy deleted under R2. Also explained, templates don't go in articles space. Breaking of tables of an article and moving them to subpages isn't the way to go. Best Dog Ever was correct in reverting the main article. I should have done that too. Bgwhite (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Yes that's all right what you're saying Bgwhite. However the problem is that because you didn't (couldn't) leave a redirect, people were thinking that I deleted the tables, which isn't true at all - they were still transcluded *and* linked in the articles before you moved the sub pages to Draft space. Thus I think that if you for some reason can't leave a redirect, you should check the articles which link to the sub pages, and fix (e.g. reverting) the affected articles if necessary, so I don't have to deal with wrong accusations in the edit history of these articles and on my talk page.--Pizzahut2 (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC) For demonstration: User:Pizzahut2/sandbox The advantage being that the roadmap can be in two (or more) articles. Why in several articles? At first (in 2013, so 3 years ago) people wanted to move the roadmaps from Tick-Tock model to List of Intel CPU microarchitectures. Then someone reverted this move on *one* of the pages, so the roadmaps were on two. Years later, I've started editing the main roadmap a lot, so had to keep both articles in sync. I've then moved the roadmap again as no one in three years (!) had argued against the move, and the revert was due to other reasons. But soon this 2nd attempt got reverted again. So my idea to please everyone was, use a template for the road maps so it can be used in several articles. That's not even something that has never done before, as there already is a simplified one here: Template:Intel processor roadmap. However the visual editor, which is extremely useful for tables, doesn't work in templates. So I made article sub pages instead and trancluded them. But seems this is against the rules unfortunately, so now I'm out of ideas. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC) ArbCom 2017 election voter message Hello, Best Dog Ever. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) ArbCom 2018 election voter message Hello, Best Dog Ever. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)