User talk:Khukri/archive4

←Archive 3 (101 - 150)

Khukri's talk archive 4 (151 - 200). Please do not modify

Archive 5 (201 - 250)→

Neturei Karta dispute/vandalism

I've added a small section (talmud interpertations) into the topic of Neturei Karta (which took a while to make due to the complexity of the talmud) and it appears that other people [a.k.a. user:Bsnowball] are "trigger happy" to remove it despite it's intelectual relevance and encyclopedic importance. to the best of my knowledge, encyclopedias are supposed to expand sub-topics on their subjects and not look for the shortest, least informative, dictionary-like descriptions.

Jaakobou 09:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at the subject and I don't know enough about it to interfere, so all I can say is bring your problems to the articles talk page, avoid WP:3rr and if he/she ignores your arguments (unreasonably I might add) then give me another shout. Sorry I can't be of any more help. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 09:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Kris Radlinski - VP

You reverted all my changes. Why? I was adding information, not vandalising it. I've changed it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.136.183 (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

IP 84.217.134.8 Vandalism

I added the blatant vandal tag because it appeared to me as if he was changing information ruthlessly in an effort to mess up the page. Sbrools 19:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No probs, Wikipedia can only really deal with referenced material, and I remember the radlinski move over stories and usually it only came down to unsubstantiated tabloid rumours. Unless you can reference it I wouldn't really think about adding it to his biog piece. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Templates for WP:UW

Since we have separated test templates and vandalism templates, I don't see why we should have a vandalism level 0. If you can't give it above a 0, it's really a test, not vandalism, as current guidelines state to start at level 2 for nonsense and such. I personally don't even think there should be a vand1, but other users do so it should stay. I think there should be no level 0 for other types of vandalism also, like blanking. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 18:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:UWLS

Hi,

You are down as a member of the WikiProject on user warning layout standardisation. I and a number of editors for the last couple of months have been working on the harmonisation of the current warning message templates, at WP:UW. I have spoken to a couple of other members of your project, and I would like to merge it and it's talk pages with ours. If you still have interest in the project or would like to participate or have any thoughts on the combined projects please let me know. Any other problems don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Randy Johnston 18:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for dealing with AmericanBrit for me. I was afraid he would get away with making personal attacks on me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.130.138.12 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Thank you - that was a vandal.

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page - I really appreciate it. (I think it's an AOL user whose spam link I reverted. Oh well.) :-P --TheOtherBob 21:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

eh?

umm, got a message saying I vandalised a page, I didn't. Are you sure it was me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.230.215 (talk • contribs)

It was the same IP, see here, I suggest you get yourself a login to avoid this problem of shared routers, etc in the future. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 23:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your Message

I am not being mean about user 64.130.138.12 he was vandalizing the article Sodomy and then Survivor. And he blames relatives, leaves attacks on my user page and then deletes them. If I got too made, Im sorry but I just hate vandalisum so much I guess I get too angry when calling down the vandals. American Brit 02:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I explained to you that the Survivor image spoiled the newest season without warning, but you won't listen. And as for the sodomy article, my brother reverted it the second he made it. I also made no attacks on you, I told you that Wikipedia wouldn't ban me for something as petty as that, and I reverted my messages because I didn't feel like it was worth arguing about. Now you're saying you hate me, and accuse me of lying to get other users on my side. If anyone deserves to be banned, it's you, not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.138.12 (talk • contribs)

Alright, I've been following this argument ever since the Sodomy article. At first, while I thought American Brit was acting overly harsh in every single possible way... which he kinda was.. it was still my opinion that his "target" was guilty of vandalism and should be banned. I no longer think that, and if anyone should be banned it should without a doubt be American Brit. He has refused that guy's every attempt at mediation, even when he gave perfectly logical excuses for the wrongful edits. He has personally attacked the guy, he has been stubborn and hard-headed, and frankly, he has shown very little logical thought. I'm not a participator in this argument, and I can't say much, but he also seems to be toying under the notion that it's his holy-beyond-words duty to stomp out vandalism, even though he is nothing more than your average ho-hum user. So I suppose you could also throw in delusions of grandeur and arrogance into the long list of accusations. However I do have one criticism for the victim, who for one reason or another doesn't have a username. Why on Earth don't you have your own account?! I highly recommend that you get one, so that damaging mix ups such as this one don't happen again. Anyway, that's all I have to say. I hope my two cents help in your decision Khukri! -Keegah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keegah (talk • contribs)

---

First of all would all editors please sign their comments using ~~~~. OK to start, my issuing of agf warnings to you both was not about the initial accusations of vandalism but from the ensuing comments. A couple of points, the old {{wr}} warning removal templates do not exist anymore. It is no longer an offence to delete warnings from a talk page, hence it is not blockable.

American Brit, I would suggest you have another look at this editors history here there is one instances of vandalism on the article Sodomy, which was self reverted, and not reverted by yourself. His/her rational behind the removal of the image on Survivor (TV series) could be genuine, as they have tried to discuss the matter with you at some length. I'm sorry to say this but I believe have a misguided understanding of Recent Change patrol, it is not a fight, crusade, or anything else glamourous. It is a necessary janitorial duty to keep Wikipedia in good order. It is not WP:AGF on a first users vandalism/edit that you instantly start threatening users with a ban such as here or here. Also you waited a almost 5 hours in issuing a final warning to a new editor talk page, for which you didn't revert the vandalism. I don't have time to analyse every contribution of you both, but I would be very interested in what lies 64.130.138.12 has stated. Also your continued threats of blocks will not be getting anyone banned for a year. Wikipedia, as it's motto states, is the encyclopedia which can be edited by anyone, and your thoughts here of who should or should not edit wikipedia is again not assuming good faith. There are admins on wikipedia who are years younger than yourself, and who are respected by the community. You are not an administrator, and you do not have the right to make these threats. I think it would be better if you left this user to me, if I see any further vandalism I will go through the correct channels to have a punitive block applied.

64.130.138.12, I suggest you get an account if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia in a constructive manner, and this will stop any problems you have with vandalising syblings. It will also but an end to this affair if you no longer edit using this IP. Also I would suggest in User preferences under the edit tab you select Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary as currently you have only left one edit summary/header.

I hope that you will not be posting each other messages again. I will keep an eye out and take the required action, and I think this should be the end to this subject. And lets, for both your sakes, not see it escalate out of hand. If you have any further problems please don't hesitate to leave me a message here. Best regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

2007

Happy New Year! E104421 13:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

grammar and punctuation edits to Uncertainty principle

Hi -- You reverted some of my grammar and punctuation edits to the Uncertainty principle, but actually I think I'm correct, so I've re-reverted. I've opened up a discussion on the article's talk page in hopes of avoiding an edit war.--75.83.140.254 18:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Rugby ball

I just reverted the change, as it is not of the same image and should not have been changed as such. Cheers. --Bob 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been correctly reverted. You just need to refresh your page. If you like, report him to User:Femto's talk page, as he has just been further blocked for 1 week by him for vandalism. --Bob 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Advice given where needed :)

I think it would be best to relist it on today's page, so we can get more views - there probably aren't enough comments for there to be "a consensus of no consensus" as I like to think of it. Normally we don't relist on TfD on the basis of too few !votes, but I think that this is overlookable when there's no consensus in the !votes cast. Good work on them, by the way :) Martinp23 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep - I do a cut and paste, and put a note on the debate that it has been relisted to generate further consensus (sorry for the time I took to reply - was making my first edits to Wikinews :)) Martinp23 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Delinquent Road Hazards

Please don't close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as Delete if you aren't an administrator. That's pretty clearly stated in Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions, and the reason for it should be obvious - it leaves the actual article around.

What ended up happening in this case was one person tagged it for Speedy deletion, while yet another complained at AN/I, and the deletion was performed by an admin - yet a third. So three other people got involved. What's more, if no one had complained, the article would still be sitting there. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Khukri, when you close deletion debates, remember to put the header right at the top. I've just had to fix four you closed, which were affecting the bot. And, as AnonEMouse said above, please don't close debates as delete if you are not an admin. I'll go and delete an article from such a debate now. Thanks. --Majorly (Talk) 18:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And if there are any more you closed as delete, could you please let me know so I can delete them. --Majorly (Talk) 18:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Majorly fixed three others you closed. Meanwhile, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan as keep - which in theory would be OK, but you missed that the last person commenting there showed the most recent revision was a clear copyright violation! Please, please, please be more careful. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

+ I replied in depth on [[User talk:|Majorly|Majorly]]'s Talk page, but just to re-iterate sorry about that, and have no fear I won't be going near them again. It's the reason I've aalways avoided trying to help out in these sort of things, as it's never as clear cut as it looks. Again sorry about that and thanks for picking it up. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome; and thank you for the civil response. Do read the non-admins closing guideline linked to above: even a non-admin can help out on the absolutely straight-forward keeps that have lasted out their time, but even on those you do have to read the whole thing, because it isn't just a vote - even if twenty people say one thing, one person can say something else which can be very important. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mood Ring Colors

Jan 8, 2007

To; Khukri,

I have a question regarding your addition of the color "Orange- Guilty Feelings. . .etc" to the "Mood Ring Color Chart" on the Wikipedia Article about "Mood Rings". Where did you get your information from regarding that entry for the color "Orange" on a "Mood Ring"? Is it from an older "Mood Ring Chart" from back in the 1960's or 1970's? I tend to agree with the mood that is designated for the color orange, though I think that the color "Orange" should be placed inbetween "Gray" & "Amber" on the "Mood Color Chart".

Would appreciate a response as I am very intrigued and curious about the addition of the color "Orange" to the "Mood Chart".

Thank you for your time.

Signed, Dawn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnofrabbits (talk • contribs)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar :D! And, you're welcome - it was an interesting excercise for me :). Thanks again, Martinp23 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW barnstar

Thanks a lot, your barnstar really cheered me up. If you need help at anytime for anything (even some booooring stuff, which UW was not), don't hesitate to call me! PS:The new templates surely are sexy. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, I appreciate the appreciation! -- Renesis (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 12:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from the puppy - I'm not even sure I deserve any appreciation, but I am sure you deserve the barnstar below. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, was a nice gesture ^_^ ShakingSpirit^talk 14:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar from WP:UW

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to Khukri for doing the most towards getting WikiProject user warnings to the review phase, and for being the sole person to give barnstars to those who helped, as you can't really give yourself a barnstar. -- kenb215 talk 05:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Template copyediting

I'm heading home from work now, but will do later tonight ^_^ I've made a note of my changes on the project talk page. ShakingSpirit^talk 15:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Uw

Hi, I was actually just doing one set to show how it is to be used. I've added documentation at Template:Uw to show the possible parameters. If you'd like to do a search and replace now, you can, although I don't know how easy it is going to be (since you need to specify the warning level to get the correct icon). I've done the uw-vandalism set, so I'll stop for now. -- Renesis (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Messageboxes

Hi, I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Messageboxes to standardize meta messageboxes along the lines of WP:UW. Would you like to join? You've done great work on standardization for the user warnings project and your input would be very valuable to this WikiProject (you are even the first person I have asked to join!). Let me know. Thanks! -- Renesis (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Super 14 peer review

Hi, I was wondering if you could comment on the Super 14 page at it's peer review here. I would really appreciate the input. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 22:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter Doyle.

I have never heard of Peter Doyle in my life and I have certainly never vandalised his page. Please refrain from sending me further messages claiming I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.200.67.155 (talk • contribs)

Someone from this IP did, here Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

From First to Last "vandalism"

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the From First to Last page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Khukri (talk . contribs) 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC) - Found this on the talk page for my IP; the so called vandalism you referred to was the removal of "add sonnys girlfriend on Myspace

myspace.com/dream_a_little_sonny" from the article, which was unnecessarily there, and the removal of a bunch of HTML gibberish from another section. As a result, I fail to see why you would revert the edits that removed that nonsense. :/

First of all please sign your posts with ~~~~ that way it makes my life easier to find the problem. Yep, my mistake all I saw was the adding of a myspace link which 99% of the time is vandalism. I've reverted the changes to a previous version and removed your warning. Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for your understanding. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, it was hard for me to catch at first, but I finally pinned down that that particular IP didn't cause the vandalism in question. --Coredesat 23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, OhanaUnited, hereby award you the 2nd anti-vandalism barnstar for help reverting a blank-page vandalism on my userpage. OhanaUnited 19:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Columns

I tweaked the width to 40% of the total table width. That's far from perfect but that's the only simple workaround I could think of. Tell me if that's better -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am at work in fact right now :) I am leaving, ETA 30 mins or so! -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Templatesnotice

As the main editor of this template, I thought I would check with you that my latest edit to it [1] makes the link point to the location you intended? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your commitment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings!

Sebastian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm sorry, I don't want to be so single minded that I criticise small things instead of acknowledging the big overall work that you're putting into this! — Sebastian 09:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Super job revamping the whole Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace page! --LakeHMM 01:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar - that was a pleasant surprise! I'm especially happy that it's a different kind from the one I already have. Actually, you deserved it more than I did, since you already switched the mode of the discussion from "forceful" to "nice" before me. But I had some discussions with much less openminded partners, where I wished I had received a barnstar, so I gratefully accept it.

I felt inspired to contribute some more to the project page. Did you notice that I left a note with a question at the bottom of Systemic problems with the current levels, too? — Sebastian 07:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:uw-vandalism4im

what do you think about that one? To be honest I regretted creating it just after pressing the save button... -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think for the use of one word i.e. last/only the two warnings are the same, and to be honest I think by the time you are at the point of telling people your giving them no other chances, however you word it, it's usually ignored. What I don't like is the amateur dramatics of the IM warning, the blatant vandal is slightly better, but I think both can be worded into level 4. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

your revert

the revert [2], I really don't understand, I though the consensus was to change it in that way. _→AzaToth 14:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd already posted to your talk page when you posted this, but to clarify, the concensus was only about the automatic inclusion of the numbering not the change to the guidelines. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot offer

I have zero programming skills that could create a bot which could accomplish the task. I'd like to run a bot, but unfortunately, I posess no skills to do so. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes to 3RR templates

Hi Khukri. Thanks for writing to me. It's not a big deal to me and I'm not gonna revisit those pages, but I do wish to explain the rationale for my changes. My concern is nowhere in the templates was the term "3RR" mentioned. For such a widely used term that seemed to be a glaring mistake. Moreover, the term "three-revert rule" was used in each case before "3RR" was mentioned. Grammatically, too, it seems better to avoid using the same term again, since we have another term that we should get across to the user. But whatever is fine with me. Thanks for letting me know. Xiner (talk, email) 15:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, what else can I say? Thank you! Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 15:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. Why are you removing .svg version of the icon in that vandalism template? - Darwinek 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care about that, I just followed the recommendation to replace same .png image with .svg one. Leaving it now. - Darwinek 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk page templates

Khukri,

I don't think it would be a good idea to redirect all discussion to WT:UTM. If these templates are adopted, there will be quite a lot of discussion, much of it relevant to single templates, and I think WT:UTM would be overloaded. And even if not, it's good to be able to see on the talk page of a template if an issue has been brought up before, instead of having to search through WT:UTM.

So I put in a messagebox advising discussing multiple-template issues at WT:UTM. Λυδαcιτγ 03:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

I don't have words strong enough to express the way your nomination made me feel. Thank you so much! Unfortunately I don't think I am ready yet to become an administrator. My knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and ways of doing is still far from perfect, and I know I have still a lot of room for improvement in my behaviour (I feel I am a bit too bold sometimes). I must admit I am a bit afraid of working without a net as I am used to do (it's always easier when someone double checks your work). I will definitely work towards that goal and eventually achieve it. Maybe I will try in a month or two. Thank you again for your trust. Working with you on WP:UW was a great experience, I am proud of being one of the little hands that worked on that project (and I will continue to help of course). If you have any advice or criticism to give me on the way I worked, it will be more than welcome! -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Pat on the back

I really applaud the work being done at WP:UTM, so I wanted to give you (another) pat on the back for your hard work there.--Kubigula (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it always appreciated to be appreciated it's not just me though it's people like your self who've come in and helped out that have started turning it into the complete system. Many thanks ^{Khukri -} 08:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

No, I've got the main user talk templates page on my watchlist, so I saw Ned and followed his edits. I think I'll add some of my favorites to my my watchlist for the future. Good luck with him, John Reaves (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

John Caldwell (boxer)

I HAVE BEEN COMMISSIONED TO WRITE A BOOK ON IRISH BOXING AND I WISH TO EXERCISE MY COPYRIGHT ON THIS ARTICLE ... PLEASE DELETE

BARRY FLYNN (FLORRIEBINN) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.27.15.61 (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

I take it you are talking about my reversion of your removal of information without an edit summary to John Caldwell (boxer) here. I've done a string search on the web and cannot find any other copyrighted text that you refer to, could you provide a link to the copyright infringement please? If you say you have been commissioned to write a book, does that not mean it is not been written yet, if so how is it therefore copyrightable material? If you feel there has been a copyright violation, please read here and follow the instructions. Regards ^{Khukri -} 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I'll create the nomination if you accept – please do accept! =) --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Go on ;-) -- Heligoland 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

From your message, it appears you don't seem to be sure. I am certainly sure, and I think you should go for it whilst you still can :P --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

UTM

Thanks for the barn star, and great work yourself in getting everything organized. :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 07:46Z

The RFC-related templates

{{ArticleConcern}}, {{ArticleDiscussion}}, {{ArticleResult}}, {{ConductConcern}}, {{ConductDiscussion}}, {{ConductResult}}, {{UsernameConcern}}, {{UsernameDiscussion}}, and {{UsernameAllowed}}, came about due to requests and suggestions on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.

I expect that discussion and revision of wording to fit the needs of RFC escalation will go on for a while.

If the names must be shorter (yet can still be comprehensible and easy to remember), I don't think anyone would object -- certainly not me, the fewer keystrokes the better!

However, please don't TfD them while we're still trying to work out a consistent and civil notification scheme.

We've already had a TfD on "UsernameAllowed" (closed as "Keep"), and the reasoning there applies to all nine templates.

Also, with regard to brevity of text: the problem had been that so often a brief ("terse") text on the "concern" topics had come across as hostile or accusatory, and we wanted something more carefully diplomatic to avoid making such an impression. The explanations of process are to help new users understand their options -- since most problematic usernames tend to get addressed while they're new, and the article/conduct templates derive from the username templates.

Please understand, these are not for the gross, blatant, or obvious violations of policy that get warnings escalating to blocks. These are for the "grey-area" topics where RFC consensus might conceivably end up allowing whatever had raised concern. They're not intended to be equivalent to the "warning" templates, though I think they should be listed alongside them, as alternatives when a "warning" is either too harsh a reaction or too certain a claim of wrongfulness.

Would you please take this into account? Thanks! -- Ben 17:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, and don't worry nothing will get TfD's in the near future. I saw the Username malarky TfD the other week and I thought I caught most of yours. Any I have put as TFD just change it to rename. Just my tuppence worth but maybe trying to group them with the prefix rfc, and all the templates titles should be in lowerecase. Also please get stuck in I'm not the oracle on templates, just someone who is now going cross eyed having looked at them for so long. Cheers ^Khukri 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Just my tuppence worth but maybe trying to group them with the prefix rfc, and all the templates titles should be in lowerecase."   Okay. The long forms now also have lowercased shortcuts. Since the longstanding {{UsernameBlocked}} already had shortcut {{unb}}, I gave the others similar shortcuts (as close as I could get, since {{ucr}} and {{unc}} were already taken), and then also rfc-prefix forms with just three letters after the dash:

(edit view)

RFC-related templates and shortcuts:

Template	lowercase	rfc- prefix	short	rfc- prefix	Parameters, (req)uired or (opt)ional
{{ArticleDiscussion}}	{{articlediscussion}}	{{rfc-articlediscussion}}	{{artd}}	{{rfc-ard}}	article name (req)
{{ArticleResult}}	{{articleresult}}	{{rfc-articleresult}}	{{artr}}	{{rfc-arr}}	article name (req), outcome of RFC (opt)
{{UsernameConcern}}	{{usernameconcern}}	{{rfc-usernameconcern}}	{{uncon}}	{{rfc-unc}}	nature of objection (opt)
{{UsernameDiscussion}}	{{usernamediscussion}}	{{rfc-usernamediscussion}}	{{und}}	{{rfc-und}}	name issue in discussion (opt)
{{UsernameNotice}}	{{usernamenotice}}	{{rfc-usernamenotice}}	{{un}}	{{rfc-unn}}	RFC/NAME subject's name (req)
{{UsernameAllowed}}	{{usernameallowed}}	{{rfc-usernameallowed}}	{{una}}	{{rfc-una}}	archived RFC's "oldid=#" (opt)
{{UsernameBlocked}}	{{usernameblocked}}	{{rfc-usernameblocked}}	{{unb}}	{{rfc-unb}}	reason for block (opt)

All these templates (except {{UsernameBlocked}}) will automatically add your signature, unless you add the optional parameter sig=n.

Will that suit your needs? -- Ben 08:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not about my needs, but anyway fantastic job, and thanks alot will make my life easier when I start doing all the redirects, etc. Cheers ^Khukri 08:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

On WT:RFC someone asked for a template to notify other users of a conduct RFC (not about them), which I hadn't thought to write because such a short text is almost as easy to just type from scratch, but hey, if it saves a few keystrokes and it's wanted, that's reason enough. So I've created {{ConductDiscussion}} (used as {{subst:ucn|username}} for short), and it's in the table. I've replaced the previously hard-coded table above with a template that Gracenotes was kind enough to create, so any further entries will automagically appear above. -- Ben 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Having done some tinkering, I'm actually feeling rather proud of {{ucn}} / {{ConductNotice}}, after all. I built in a bit of functionality that makes it a little more than just a short text-printing macro. When someone's already been the subject of one or more previous RFCs, the new RFC is supposed to have a number appended to the name. RFC#1 may be "John Doe", but after that come "John Doe 2", "John Doe 3", and so forth, which would put the burden on you to look up the current RFC's number and add that to the notice. Originally I made this an optional parameter: {{subst:ucn|John Doe|2}}, etc. But now, as long as the numbering is standard format (not in parentheses or Roman numerals or anything odd like that), and all the RFCs are still around to be counted, this template will look up the number for you and provide the correct link -- so all you have to provide is the username.   <wipes sweat from brow>   -- Ben 05:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Also please be aware of BigDT's new template UsernameBlocked-vandal, which is not RFC-related, and therefore is not in the above table, nor should it have an rfc- prefix, but still may be very useful at (for instance) WP:AIV. I've also mentioned at WT:AIV, but noted that the name may change if it's fitted into the standardized scheme. -- 17:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Small issue with {{uw-biog1}}

Khukri, there is a small issue with "biog1". If you use the template with an article name, there is no space between "contributions" and "to" - it makes it "...thank you for your contributionsto <articlename>". I tried to fix it, but you can't test changes - you have to save the change before the new template goes into effect. I don't want to experiment on the template any more - can you fix it?--Kubigula (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I decided I like your solution (cheating or not). Thanks for your help.--Kubigula (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:UTM

Replied there. See my comments. --sunstar net^talk 14:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

vandarizm

Where was this discussion, exactly? I see one mention of the spelling difference in the 5 archives of WT:UTM, and every other occurrence of "vandalise" seems to be just people pasting it in from the messages themselves. (You also said it once.) A 3-man straw poll with the supermajority opinion being "no one cares" is the only mention made of the subject on WT:UW or any of its archives, and there is no discussion on the warning template pages themselves. I find the WP:VAND usage rather compelling here, and would switch it the other direction if that were the usage on VAND as well. (I'm American but I really prefer British spelling for most things since I've grown up on a diet of British literature.) --tjstrf talk 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how that helped, since there were no occurrences of "vandalise" on the previous page version at all. For the sake of discussion I checked the Vandalism article itself and found that it doesn't have any uses of vandalis/ze anywhere on the page, but does have one use of "vandalized". --tjstrf talk 09:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, on WP:VAND there was almost exclusive usage of ize in general, with the exception of one "advertise" which is never spelled advertize anyway. --tjstrf talk 09:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No big deal, I was just rather mystified as to what you thought you were doing. I don't really care too much about the template spelling either as far as that goes. And no, we don't spell it vandalizm, though that is apparently the right spelling in some continental European tongues, it's just that with our accents the -ise ending is naturally said as ice, which is wrong, so we use z there instead. Except in advertise, which as a result is often misread as ad-vert-ice rather than ad-ver-tize. --tjstrf talk 10:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Thanks, James086^Talk 13:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cv

Your recent edit to Template:Cv seems to radically change its behavior retroactively. Was this discussed somewhere? -Harmil 20:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This would only be the case if the template hadn't been issued correctly and not substituted. As for the header it's was agreed in both WP:UW & WP:UTM that templates are not to automatically include headers as editors will have to remember which templates are headered and which are not. If you have any queries on this I'm not going to be around much for the next week or so, so I suggest you bring it up WP:UTM and the guys there will help you out, or you can wait till I come back. Cheers ^Khukri 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The requested diff

Hi...here is a diff that demonstrates the issue.[3] Thanks in advance, Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at it here...if you want, try to add something to it, [4]with a # in front of it. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 20:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi..I figured out what it is doing. Look at this page: User talk:76.188.139.124. Note that it now indents whatever comes after it? Is there a way to get it to stop doing that? Thanks in advance, Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry was away most of the weekend, but have seen User:SMcCandlish has sorted it. ^Khukri 08:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher Application

Dear Khukri,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

Martinp23 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my relative inactivity recently - you may have seen the notice on my userpage for about a month. Let me know if you need anything :) (I'm on IRC virtaully all the time) Martinp23 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

You may wish to read through WP:CANVASS. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your post but it's a bit of a tightrope to walk this one. After we did the first part of the harmonisation program we recieved alot of criticism from editors, along the lines of how dare we change their favorite templates, etc, without making a concerted effort to inform the community. I have only 'spammed' admin noticeboard, village pump proposal, and editors who have listed themselves as active or interested in the WP:UW. I hope you can understand as one of the driving members behind WP:UW if I didn't make at least a half arsed attempt at posting this info on the relevant noticeboards then I'd get accused of being a one man show trying to push stuff through. As I said damned if you do damned if you don't. ^Khukri 14:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is less than a clear cut case of WP:CANVASS, it seems you are being neutral in your message as well as hitting both sides of the debate. I am personally fine with it, but another admin may think differently. Thanks for you effort to improve the warning system. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Even though I have my own agenda in this matter, to get a clear cut concise system, the last thing I want is for 1) to be seen to be railroading this, and 2) for editors to think that this was done behind their backs. Even now an oppose has appeared for exactly this reason, and for that reason, I think I might extend the deadline just to try and garner greater objective opinions from all sides. Cheers again. ^Khukri 16:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the spam, for the record I don't mind. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why I think the article about R19 should stay

Dear Khukri, I think that the article I wrote about R19 Youth Ministries should stay on Wikipedia because it is a youth group from South Hills Bible Chapel, a church which has an article on Wikipedia. Personally, I think that if you allow South Hills Bible Chapel to have an article, why won't you let their youth group, one of the largest in the Pittsburgh area, have an article too? Please reconsider speedily deleting it!

Joshua —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piratesmvp (talk • contribs) 03:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for your message. The page has already been deleted, and the deleting administrator most probably agreed with myself. I left a message explaining why I put your page up for speedy deletion on your talk page, primarily as it did not meet notability. Unfortunately the argument of well X has a page, means we should be allowed to have one is non sequitur. If you disgree with this deletion there is recourse open to you. I suggest you read both the deletion policy & undeletion policy and then if you are convinced your page meets criteria contact the deleting admin and then as a last option you may go for a deletion review. My personal opinion is that it would be unlikely to pass, and if I were you I would go about ascertaining notablity for South Hills Bible Chapel before it gets afd'd as at the moment it's question of notability is very tenuous. If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout and I will point you in the right direction. Regards ^Khukri 08:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)