User talk:Nickps

A trout for you

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You somehow broke hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of infoboxes and assorted templates by nominating Template:Both and Template:If both at TfD. Massive confusion ensued at Talk pages across the project as non-technical folk (like me) wondered why their beloved infoboxes had huge red error messages. Toadspike [Talk] 12:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I knew I'd get one sooner or later. Guess I should have chosen "disabled" from the start lol. Nickps (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Beautiful.

I added the cats to WP:CSD a while ago, so I was nervous that there was a big diff about the cats, but I see you fixed them all, beautiful! jp×g🗯️ 02:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sidebar TemplateStyles

Just want to draw your attention to WP:TemplateStyles#Guidelines, particularly the item about CSS conventions.

Separately, a future improvement: don't move text-align: center from collapsible sidebars, use |centered list titles=y.

That said, while I'm somewhere in the realm of happy-to-see someone doing this, I'm not sure it's the most high-value work to be doing. Izno (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to fix the ones I've already written to align with the conventions. Thanks for letting me know. Also, yes, I'll agree it's not really worth doing, but it was a decent way to pass the time. Nickps (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

If you need something to pass time, MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do#Infobox is a thing. :) Izno (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Jammu (1808)

Sorry, but I noticed that the article was missing the original sources that for some weird reason a user ImperialAficionado what looked like to me had vandalised, I've restored to the older version, but please don't stop editing to improve the article if you can. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Govvy Those edits weren't vandalism, they were done because ImperialAficionado considered the sources unreliable. Apparently it had something to do with WP:RAJ. You should probably discuss it with ImperialAficionado himself or someone from WikiProject India. I'm not qualified to tell you if the article should stay as is or not. In any case, thank you for at least trying to improve the article. Nickps (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

c'est la vie, don't know, I was wondering if the article was a hoax article or not now. Govvy (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Govvy I don't think it's a hoax, considering that google books comes up with some hits. However, that doesn't mean it should stay as is. I originally thought about sending it to AfD to request draftification but I decided against it, since it's more likely to get improved in mainspace. If you do think it might be a hoax however, AfD would be a good way to determine that. Just, please do a WP:BEFORE search first if you decide to go there. Nickps (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I struggled with this one before, that's why I left in the new page feed last time. And it sat in my watchlist since then. I thought the creator was a bit of a dodgy editor, that's why I put it too my watchlist. I might just leave it for others to deal with! I love history, but I was stumped by this one. Govvy (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Good 2405:3800:863:64A4:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's your ping

As requested. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Page wasn't moved, so I'll take no action. Nickps (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)