User talk:Gracenotes/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Welcome to Gracenotes's talk page! Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

---

Archives: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15

20 singles template

Hey, I was thinking about nominating Template:20 Singles (which you made) for deletion for several reasons, but am wondering why you created it, and if its existence is still a good idea, and stuff like that. It would be great to know if the template is still worth keeping. Thank you, Gracenotes^T § 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I ended up creating a 21 Singles template, what it's used for is to show the years before and after a year listing single phonorecords in a given year. 21 singles gives me 10 before and 10 after the particular year. An even number means I have to make one of them have more than the other than be even. See, for example Category:1985 singles, which uses the 21 template. Since you mentioned it, I've marked it with the delete template. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 01:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Classy userspace

/me likes Gracenotes' user space (sorry for the IRC talk, force of habit I'm afraid) --Iamunknown 04:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bye

This place's problems aren't going to go away by themselves. And yet what incentive is there for anyone who tries to deal with them? And what happens when they try? There are just too many people here who disagree with me, I guess. The events of today were the final straw. I quit. Was nice knowing you – Qxz 09:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye, friend. I was going to send you an email, but you disabled that. So I don't have the luxury of being lucid. Please understand the following as best as you can, if you're seeing this.

1. If you meet people like you, you'll go crazy.
2. Coming back on the other side is still coming back.
3. If the latter part of 2 is not important to you, come back and help.
4. I'm going to treat your leaving as an object lesson.
   1. Corollary: I'm going to clear a backlog and welcome a new user.
   2. Exception: You're a human being.
5. The ability to be passionate about something is always equal to the ability to be emotional towards it. The former can change, but the latter hardly can.
6. What would Dolores do? Why should you do that? Why shouldn't you?
7. Have a nice life.

That's all. Gracenotes^T § 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I must have blinked and missed whatever Qxz got so terribly upset about. I'm sorry that he is as upset as he is, about whatever upset him. He doesn't want comments on his page, but if he reads here, I wish him well. Newyorkbrad 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Qxz

Hello Gracenotes, thanks for writing me. Feel free to revert me but I'll be honest with you editing in a retired note like that does not strike me as a good move. I've seen it time and time again where a user has seemingly retired only to come back later User:Radiant! is the most classic example that comes to mind. The retired sign has a certain finality to it that I don't see User:Qxz communicating, this is why I reverted. (→Netscott) 04:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

I had a question to ask you yesterday, but at the moment, I cant remember what it was,. Could you recall what I was going to ask you? _→AzaToth 13:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry to invade upon your question, Aza.) To Gracenotes: Lol to the CSS joke! I guess it's also better that I like your user space than taking up 10k about which icon should be used where. :-P --Iamunknown 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple TfD nominations

Thank you for the advice; they have now been combined. -- Avi 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

/(Hello|Hiya) Gracenote(s)+/

(Terribly formed regex, I know) It's certainly funny to see everyone talking in /reg\.ex/ speak at MediaWiki talk:Usernameblacklist. :-D --Iamunknown 21:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Not an everyday occurrence, certainly! Gracenotes^T § 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes

? Grandmasterka 07:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll endorse this when the time comes. If I have the chance to have a gander over your contributions, I'll nominate. Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 02:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a protected-deleted page may be in order... – Gurch 19:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone can temporarily sysop me and I could add it to Wikipedia:Protected titles. Gracenotes^T § 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You'd need an RfA for that. Oh wait... :/ – Gurch 21:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe a protected redirect to WP:BJAODN, but I kid... Gracenotes, you have a commitment to your beliefs that is admirable in what seems to be a culture of ambiguity. The few times I've bumped into you on the project, we've been on opposite sides of one issue or another. By the law of averages, we should end up on the same side one of these times. Best wishes. Carry on. --Ssbohio 04:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Self-awareness

A self aware template? Sounds confusing! Judging by the article, you want a template that knows it exists. I wish you luck! CarrotMan 10:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Template help

Hi. I am trying to redesign the project banner for WP:PipeOrgan. It is currently at User:Mdcollins1984/PipeOrgan template. (I have based it on Template:Dadsarmyproject).

The problem I have noticed is that the default label for the show/hide todo list is [hide], requiring two clicks from [hide] to [show] and once more to actually display the content. Is this a problem in the syntax? It is only a very small matter, but its bugging me!

If you've got time to take a quick look, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

–MDCollins (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I can see what you've done, but is it possible to integrate a table into a message box? I can attach it underneath the message box, but that obviously isn't any use, so is it possible for it to go inside? Alternatively, is a table with the same formatting - size colour/borders etc attached to the bottom of the message box the way forward?

–MDCollins (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's ok with me...?! Its great. One question before I go to bed and leave you in peace - is it possible for the transcluded material to all appear small? Obviously I can go to the source and make everything small there, but that would limit its use as a page in its own right. I have also removed the duplicate text but seem to have left a blank row.

As you've probably guessed, I'm c**p at dealing with all this sort of stuff, so really appreciate the help.

Best wishes,

–MDCollins (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually forget what I've just asked you, I'll create a new page with an abbreviated list on it. Thanks again. –MDCollins (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

MFD discussion

Hey! There is an interesting discussion on MFD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates, I don't know what you think about it, but maybe you should take a look. Anyways, how was the AP calculus review going for you? Wooyi 02:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry... I was reverting vandalism a bit to quickly. --Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • Uncyc) 03:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: MfD

There's already an established consensus that pages like Special:Upload are necessary. Being silly != being funny gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

April Fools Day

That was a fun couple of hours. Its amazing how fast we (the serious editors) were all able to get back to regular business though. I expect we'll still be cleaning up vandalism for the rest of the day though. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA question

My reply to your comment at a recent RfA:

Isn't that a bit circular? Unless you mean "inexperience" in a different way than I'm interpreting it. Gracenotes^T § 19:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nope... and I've said it in many opposes before without anyone saying anything. ;) To elaborate, project-space is a portion of our encyclopedia (the domain of the "nuts-and-bolts" pages, if you will.) "Wiki-Process" (like due process) is the method of doing things thoughtfully, thoroughly, and expeditiously. To learn the method (an acquired skill), you show involvement in the "domain". To learn how to bake, you work in a bakery; to learn blacksmithing, you apprentice in a forge. This is the only sense in which one might call the sentence "circular"; it is a useful comment, though, because it explains what the candidate lacks ("process skill") and where he can remedy the lack (project-space.)

On an unrelated note, are you friends with/an acquaintance of the User:Grace Note? I'll bet you get asked that question fairly often. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 20:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding. I suppose I shall list the top three Gracenotes misconceptions :)

3. I am related to Gracenote, the software

2. I am, or know, Grace Note (talk · contribs)

1. I am female.

Those are all false. Gracenotes^T § 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Transcribing for fun:

• This isn't new to me. The analogy just seems a bit shaky. If experience is just as important as what the policies and guidelines say, then said policies and guidelines really need to be rewritten... Gracenotes^T § 20:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If there is one thing I've learned about a wiki, it is that policies and guidelines can never fully be written. The project is too dynamic to permit that. That's why experience is very important. Anyway, in any field of endeavor, the written code cannot replicate the lived experience -- in wikis, this is especially true. We do have a "policy" called ignore all rules, remember? Any place with a written policy like that one is destined to have a subtle component to its work! ;) Xoloz 20:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually assumed that you were male, because User:Grace Note is male as well. You have in common with him now the trait of wondering about my RfA philosophy, though your response is infinitely politer. His was, "fuck off", and I quote. :) Despite gruffness, the other Grace can be funny, lest you receive an unfair impression. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh good heavens, please follow your own intuition, as following mine will likely only lead you to the nuthouse! ;)

Seriously, I am a longtime somewhat-bitter opponent of Ignore All Rules, but the "policy" isn't going away. My response to that is to set adminship standards that are higher than average, to aid in the selection of more seasoned candidates (ie., ones less likely to go nuts and cause extreme grief for everyone. The blurb on my userpage tries to suggest the link between my RfA standards and the existence of IAR, without being so explicit as to incite a hornet's nest of anger. The short version is, though, that I ideally want to see every candidate hang around project-space for a while in order to weed out... ahem... those who might be prone to misunderstanding and misusing our more "subtle" policies, of which IAR is a cornerstone. I'm glad to be in the minority on many opposes, because I'm still serving as a helpful gadfly. Someone has to be willing to stand apart from the crowd on occasion. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh heck, feel free to bring up old arguments on my talk page, if you want a discussant -- I'm too busy to keep abreast of the latest currents of wiki-thought, so I could use the exercise. In particular: Gadflies might be bad? By Socrates! Convince me, and I might conform to the herd! :)

IAR is a good principle that has no business being written down. In practice, every thoughtful person knows "don't be hamstrung into stupidity by 'the rules'" -- in writing, the "policy" reads like insanity, and tends to make newbies (and the less mature) do stupid things. In this sense, the written rule is a violation of WP:BEANS, which I hold to be a guiding principle of common sense. Now that ArbCom has become more muscular in removing problematic admins, the issue is much less pressing than it was two years ago; however, I do think that RfA is a fair place to screen for the tendency to use it, as you suggested. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Hi Gracenotes: I couldn't find the discussion on updating the speedy deletion template links. Do you have a link to the discussion? (I fully believe you, I just want to check it out) Thanks. —METS501 (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem... see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive#wpReason and implementation. There was one objection—that it sounded silly—but after interrogating the user on IRC a bit, I couldn't get any thing other than that. Gracenotes^T § 03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A bit of BRD here :) If you don't like it, tell me. Gracenotes^T § 03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hi there! I noticed that your userpage employs cross namespace redirects and was wondering if you might fix them up or have them deleted? We talked on IRC about this, but here's hoping that this will serve as a reminder, as you didn't appear to feel up to it when we chatted. Cheers mate! (hehe) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 04:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you broke something

Template:Db-copyvio has a stray bracket in it somewhere, which is getting the template listed as a CSD. Could you take a look at it? --Wafulz 04:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also see {{db-userreq}} and {{db-author}}. They're both placing themselves in into the deletion by author cat. Something to do with