This is an archive of past discussions about User:Qxz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Regarding your comments, I never meant that I was the owner of the page, merely that it's very much a work in progress and I was asking that it not be marked for deletion, style, quality, or content until I am able to finish it
Hi and sorry for this. I did not notice that you had reverted before I did.
In any case, that IP belongs to a notorious vandal User:Bonaparte, and the insults he introduces and has introduced in edit summaries and talk pages probably make the fact that he also vandalizes less relevant. I will contact an admin to get him blocked. Thanks for your vigilance, btw. Dahn12:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You're a great wikipedian, and now I got somethnig to try and beat. You've stopped a lot of edits and I've been trying to beat you, but failing miserably so far. Great fast work and stuff.
Thanks! Feel free to use them on your own pages if you wish (follow the instructions at User:Qxz/Ads), or suggest your own, and I'll see what I can do – Qxz17:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This non-barnstar entity is awarded to Qxz for fighting vandalism with a smile. Well, maybe not, but it sounds catchy. This award does not give you license to bite newcomers, and is ineligible for exchange with any other award.
It does not grant you permission to climb the Reichstag. Please contact the now-baleeted Barnstar Brigade for more details and disclaimers. Important: this award is not intended for use in the bathroom. All refunds will be in part; please see a representative for a form. GracenotesT § 05:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Very nice. The image names are a bit misleading, now that you've made two of them... anyway, interesting ad. I'll add it to the template, and I guess I'd better change the credits to "Qxz/AzaToth", too. To be quite honest, I don't want my articles to look like *either* of those things :) – Qxz17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
lol, Qxz, I'm amazed that whatever page I go to, I notice that you've made some kind of reversion. You're everywhere! ~ Rollo4422:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll do one about assuming good faith or reverting vandalism at the same time, per your earlier suggestion – Qxz21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This any good? I've added it to the rotation; it'll come up one time in seven on any page with {{User:Qxz/ad.css}}. I guess you can use it on its own elsewhere if you need to – Qxz04:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I like it! I put a notice on the community noticeboard in order for people to comment upon whether or not the banner ads should be distributed throughout Wikipedia. Cheers! Real9620:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Ads
Awesome adds, I'm glad that someone who is not a participant in WP:WPUS is that gifted in computer coding, especially in Cascading Style Sheets (I have seen a total of 2 Wikipedians who appear gifted in .css and are not participants in the aforementioned project). ~Steptrip23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not that good with CSS, and I know pretty much nothing about JavaScript, which is what the WPUS people tend to me most skilled with. I imagine the people who created and maintain MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Monobook.css know a thing or two – Qxz10:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I came up with the idea; so far AzaToth has made Image:Qxz-ad2.gif and Image:Qxz-ad10.gif and I've made the others. I don't know if he has any others planned; I plan to do them on request unless I think of something else specific – Qxz11:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Re:Ads
Hi, I notice you're using the ads I've made. It might be better if you transclude {{User:Qxz/ad.css}} directly, rather than copying it into a separate page. The reason for this is that I'm adding (and possibly removing) ads all the time, and so while my copy is updated, yours will get out-of-date. As it's a .css page, nobody can edit it except me (and administrators), so you don't have to worry about it being vandalised. Thanks – Qxz17:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to have just the ad without the links down the bottom. I wanted to customise it so that's why I did what I did. Harryboyles01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, if you use {{User:Qxz/ad.css|nolinks=yes}}, it will hide the links. I'd appreciate it if you could credit me and AzaToth and provide a link to User:Qxz/Ads, but other than that it's up to you what you put there. Thanks – Qxz10:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Qxz: thanks for leaving a note on my talk page. My I suggest that you do an XML-type thing? That is, having content on one page. Having the format on another default page, whereas another format page can be changed by a user. See User:Gracenotes/Quotes source, User:Gracenotes/Quotes, and User:Gracenotes for an example. Of course, that set up is more complicated than your needs to be. GracenotesT § 12:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The ad template intentionally comes without a border and background so that users can add their own, I've mentioned this on the description page. I'm trying to force display of the links underneath so that I and AzaToth are credited and so that there are links to the image description pages and User:Qxz/Ads visible – partly for copyright reasons (not all the images are public domain) and partly to try to avoid the sort of thing that has just happened – people passing this work off as their own and making patently inappropriate suggestions as to its use. Thanks – Qxz12:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! (Computerman45)
You caught the vandalism just before I did. I wasn't expecting the user to vandalise my page, but I guess the person had a right to be angy. You undid it just a second quicker than I did. Thanks again! Computerman4516:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not try to push the use of my work in such an inappropriate context. I would be very much against using the images anywhere outside of userspace, and certainly not above articles. The negative responses your suggestion has recieved will likely reflect badly on me, despite being outside of my control. Thanks – Qxz11:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you received negative responses. My idea was not ready to be formulated into a suggestion since I do not believe that it had been discussed by those responsible for the fund raising ad. Also, without some initial discussion, it had not even risen to the level of a good idea that should be pursued further. Although I originated the idea for investigation, I did not originate any suggestion. Here is how things came about. Real96 posted your ad on my talk page. I already was aware of the use of ads made during the fund raiser and wrote the Virgin Unite article. I put these items together and came up with the noted idea. I thought Real96 was involved in the User:Qxz/Ads ad banner in some way so I made a post on Real96s board. The next I heard about the matter was when I received the above post from you. Prompted by your post, I just looked at Real96's talk page. Apparently, Real96 then posted something that brought the responses mentioned (though events largely outside of my control). My plan was that after Real96 and I figured out whether this ad technologically could be posted like the fund raiser ad, we would have approached you next to see whether you thought it was a good idea. If so, then I would have brought in a few more select people to the discussion to see whether we could some up with a consensus on the idea, work out some of the issues, and determine the best way to go about getting a larger consensus. I wasn't aware that Real96 had skipped all these necessary steps and presented the idea to the community at large. I just looked at your contributions and see the extensive damage control that you have engaged in. I am truly sorry for all of this and if there is anyway I can help repair things, please let me know. I truly regret the approach I took to investigate this idea. Again, I'm sorry. -- Jreferee16:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Qxz, sorry for presenting the idea to the community without your permission. I thought it would be great for the community's imput, but eh, I should have asked you first. Real9620:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is a wiki; you can pretty much do anything you like, so I'm not that annoyed. However, advertising (as in, commercial, paid-for ads on article pages) has been and still is a very uncomfortable issue for the community. There are many who would not accept such advertising in any form (myself included; I would leave without a moment's hesitation if this happened). There are many others who would accept it, but only as a last resort to raise funds after all other options had been exhausted. While I'm always open to new ideas, I really don't want to get involved in the wrong side of this kind of issue; while you were making the suggestion, my name is on the ads and their template, and I do not want people getting the impression that my intention is to try to do anything other than a stricly optional, userspace-only template with content done entirely by community request. Thanks – Qxz21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't the question... you are now behaving in a similar way to Mr. Bush himself, skirting around the question you can't answer to find another comeback --WelshDoctor14:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Qxz! I think your ads are a great idea to promote wikiprojects and other such things. I was wondering if you could make one for Concordia. I would have made the animation, but unfortunately my computer doesn't have the neccisary program (whatever it may be). Again, thanks for the ads! RyGuy15:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your suggestion. I was under the impression, though, that the Concordia project is now inactive – that seems to be the impression given by Wikipedia:Concordia. Am I missing something? – Qxz15:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Youch! Why must so many things happen while I am away?(and only for the weekend too) Well, how about an ad for The Wikipedia Typo Team? I have an idea for it. Have the words: Help make Wikipedia Perfecvt! . Then have the typing cursor appear, and erase the v. Then have it fade out and say: Join The Typo Team! . Then have this appear in smaller text below that: Click here to find out more! . Of course, have it link to WP:TYPO. I hope WP:TYPO isn't de-activated too! RyGuy15:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The page as it was presented non-Christian groups as if they are Christians. I was clarifing the difference. Cis200216:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
your talk page
Would it be possible for you to reply on your talk page instead of others talk page, it makes it rather difficult to follow discussions. →AzaToth16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm, fair point. On the other hand, many people (myself included) prefer seeing the "new messages" bar the moment we get a reply, rather than checking our watchlists / the other person's talk page every five minutes looking for an answer. Tell you what, I'll reply in both places. More work for me, but less for you :) – Qxz17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I erased the article on Philip Morath because it is about me. I do not want that information on the web. I have contacted Wikipedia a few times with no response. I realize the history is still there, but at least it won't be accessed as easily. – 71.61.28.154, 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Ad request
We need a few more people at WP:PR and WP:FAC. Something that could help is something like this:
Your opinion counts! Help us improve articles!
Please join and help us peer review articles to featured status.
Hi, thanks for your suggestion. I'll see what I can do. Not sure the image would really fit into the banner-ad shape, but I can certainly make one for WP:PR – Qxz06:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was thinking something along the lines of that, mostly to serve as a recruiting tool, and that is the iconic image for recruiting... perhaps a slight fade/zoom would work? Or perhaps Image:Kitchener-Britons.jpg... same pose, different subject. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)06:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Or at least to a page that points the Free Content images to commons. Wikipedia:Fromowner is a start ... it still points at en:wp. I'd hope this doesn't have to wait until Single User Logon - David Gerard10:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Your comment that non-Wikpedia stuff is likley to be rejected,
but would it be possible for you to consider if an advert
for the Wikiversity project is possible?
An 'ad' for WikiCast would also be appreciated longer term,
but as you know WikiCast is not 'foundation' approved at
the moment, so I doubt it falls within your criteria...
Hi, thank you for your suggestion. I suppose cross-project advertising would probably be OK. Though I'm erring on the side of caution here; I'm trying to maintain as narrow a scope as possible because much of the community (myself included) is strongly opposed to commercial advertising on Wikipedia and I want it to be clear that what I am doing is nothing of the sort. Hence promoting things outside of the "official" Wikimedia projects is something of a slippery slope – once it starts, it's only a matter of time before things completely unrelated to Wikimedia are being promoted. People are likely to spot this, and the last thing I want is an MfD of User:Qxz/ad.css. Hence all the big, strongly-worded notices. I'll consider Wikiversity, though they're already linked from the bottom of the Main Page, which is a lot more visible than these ads will ever be. Thanks – Qxz16:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Dude
This is the anonymous vandal of the Nami page. I didn't get your message immeadiatley but have fixed the stuff I have edited since. I didn't know the rules here. Just wanted to say sorry. – 71.77.78.19321:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I want to say sorryfor the vandalism again and ask if you could tell sir_james_paul for me I don't know how to talk to him.
i did leave other stuff on there I shouldn't have but fixed it all and am really sorry I didn't know the rules. I actually thought it would just show it on this computer. once again I'm sorry, it won't happen again and please don't ban be I didn't know – 71.77.78.19321:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
question
How do you get the you have knew message thing to go away? I read them and it is still there.
p.s. please don't ban me
Don't worry, I'm not an administrator, so I can't ban you. The 'new messages' bar should disappear once you've clicked on it and read the messages, but I think it sometimes behaves strangely with users who aren't logged in. The easiest way to fix that is to create an account – this has many benefits, it only takes a moment, and you don't have to provide an email address or any details like that, just a username and password. Thanks – Qxz22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you possibly make something up for WP:WPSPAM. We can always use new volenteers to help deal with spam and advertising links. Enjoy the irony, and thanks ;) Eagle 10100:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your suggestions; I'll see what I can do. I'll do one for talk page signing, however I'm not sure about this "counter vandalism unit" because I haven't quite figured out what it is. It just seems to be a page telling you how to revert vandalism (which is redundant to the information on the official policy page and the Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism help page), and giving you a userbox with a nice logo to put on your page; I've dealt with a lot of vandalism without even having heard of this page before, so I'm curious as to what there is to advertise. Thanks – Qxz02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest a change where it asks "Have you edited for six months?" because it makes it sound like that is the required amount. It may put users who are perfectly capable off requesting, when users like myself, Husond, Arjun01, Ryanpostlethwaite and Yandman had less than that amount (recent examples) and passed. Also not too sure about the featured article thing either, or the clean block log; it just seems like these are just set standards being advertised and people may take them seriously. Majorly(o rly?)02:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your feedback. I have scanned through a number of adminship requests and found that many users will oppose a user with less than six months' experience; the fact that some users get through with less doesn't affect the fact that six months is the point at which one can feel certain they will not be opposed solely for length of time with the project. Your argument that it's better not to make the standards look higher than they are is a good point; however, I think it is better to do that than to make the standards appear lower than they are and risk misleading users. In other words, if someone meets the standards specified they will almost certainly pass an RfA, rather than just having a chance depending on circumstances. Furthermore, I think some of the latter frames in the animation should make it clear beyond reasonable doubt that these are not set standards. Thanks – Qxz02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've reworded some of the sections in a way that is hopefully agreeable to all. I've also extended the disclaimer at the end. Is this to your satisfaction? – Qxz03:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for bringing this issue to my attention; it has now been resolved. The issue you encountered was most likely caused by vandalism – intentionally unconstructive edits to the article. If in future you wish to fix such problems yourself, you can 'revert' the article to an earlier version that hasn't been tampered with. See Help:Reverting#How_to_revert. Thanks – Qxz02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw this page in recent edits and got curious, so I clicked it. Do you mind if I use any of those images? I don't want to use them without your permission. Bsroiaadn02:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your query. They are intended to be displayed in a userpage template I have made; you can add this to your own userpage using {{User:Qxz/ad.css}}. I have set up an information page at User:Qxz/Ads; see that for details. You are free to use the individual images as you wish, provided you comply with the license terms for those images which have a license (as far as internal use within Wikipedia is concerned, you can do anything you want). Thanks – Qxz02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
ad4
I'm not sure that linking to from owner is a good idea since it only offers one lisence option and most wikipedians want more.Geni03:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
See David Gerard's comment above. Ideally it would link to Special:Upload on Commons, but for most users that would just give a "you are not logged in" error page. Do you have a better suggestion, or shall I just change it back to Special:Upload? (and subsequently be asked to change it back, ad infinitum...) – Qxz03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
would not be a major problem to set up a fromadvert system. Would need to find some sucker to look after it to a degree.Geni03:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably not worth the effort, this is only a small thing. I'll change it back to Special:Upload, then, if people want multiple licenses. Once single user login comes along it should be possibly to point it to Commons. Thanks – Qxz03:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi - you wrote: I'd appreciate it if you could actually read nominations before commenting on them. Please look carefully at the name: this page is an article, not a template, which is why I brought it to AfD. ... As it's technically an article, and I'm arguing for its deletion based on its inappropriateness as an article, not its inappropriateness as a template, AfD is surely the preferred venue. I've now been told to take it to TfD (by another person who I suspect didn't read the nomination) and I won't be at all surprised if it gets referred back to AfD. Please don't just read the word "template" and trot out that same old quip about which door to try. Thanks
I'd appreciate it if you also read the nomination which - even though you wrote it, it seems you did not do. Its title makes it clear that it is not technically an article, and you made it clear that the creator intended it to be a template. As such, TfD or MfD are the only possible places for it - not AfD. Given the creator's original intention, TfD is a likely place to take it, but if you'd prefer,take it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Whichever of the two you prefer, it certainly does not belong at AfD. As to your last line, please don't let "that same old quip" be a cause of you forgetting your civility. Grutness...wha?05:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Template:User Blade Runner
While I adore your formal style, I think what you are proposing is over-reaction. There are plenty of other templates, and I cannot see the reason why this one (Blade Runner) is not suitable, and if it is, why others are not to be deleted? Besides, I don't want to offend you, but you couldn't be more vague than in comment on my talk page...Broken soul14:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry if I was a bit vague. What I mean is that you accidentally created two pages. Unfortunately I misspelt the name of the second page myself, so that was probably a little difficult to see. Anyway, you created these pages:
As you can see, the page names have the colon in a different place. What this means is that while the first one is a template, the second is an article and won't actually work as a template, because it doesn't start with "Template:". If there was only the misnamed page, I'd move it to the correct name, but since an identical template already exists at the correct name, the misnamed copy isn't a lot of use. Named as it is, it's technically an article rather than a template – which makes it subject to the usual article content policies, which as a userbox it obviously doesn't meet. Hence why I proposed it for deletion. The deletion won't affect users of the template in any way, because everyone (including you) is using the correctly-named version. Hope this clears things up – Qxz16:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now it is clear. I actually assumed that I made two templates and thought that you had in mind this mispelled one, but I was uncertain at that time. Ok, so the redundant one is ready for deletion. No problem, thanks. Have a nice day :) Broken soul11:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey Qxz, I'm concerned that Conservapedia has been added to "Related projects and forks" in this template. To be honest, I'm not sure how it's related to Wikipedia at all (except for their baseless assertions of bias, but that's irrelevant). I think that including Conservapedia in this list (and I haven't checked the other members) could imply that it is, in fact, "related" to Wikipedia in an official way, which isn't at all accurate. Could you clarify your reasons for adding it? Thanks! —bbatsell¿?✍19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's "related" because it's a wiki-based Internet encyclopedia that makes repeated references to Wikipedia in its principles – in fact, it almost defines itself by pointing out issues with Wikipedia which it wants to avoid. I think that counts as "related". If you can suggest a different wording that you think doesn't make it sound official, go ahead and change it; however, I given some of the existing items on there (Wikitruth, for example), I don't think anyone's going to mistake it for a list of related projects – and I would argue Conservapedia deserves to be on there at least as much as Wikitruth does. Thanks – Qxz19:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I wasn't speaking to the other items, but I agree, and would argue that Wikitruth should also not be included. :) Forks I don't have a problem with including, but from what I can tell, there are only 2 listed that could possibly be called forks. I guess my problem is with what the definition of "related" is — who determines whether a project is related to Wikipedia? I guess I should move this to the talk page of the template. Headed there now. —bbatsell¿?✍20:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you think Citizendium should be there as a fork of Wikipedia? I added it, feel free to rv it out if you don't think so. Also, how can I get your ads centered on my user page? I can't seem to get the code right to have it center-aligned... - Denny20:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Citizendium isn't actually a fork of Wikipedia (it originally was but they decided to delete all the Wikipedia articles and start again), but I think it definitely qualifies as a related project because it compares itself to Wikipedia and is generally regarded as an attempt to re-invent Wikipedia with different policies in order to eliminate percieved flaws – Qxz20:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please 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. NSR7723:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear. Please accept my humblest apologies. I was running through Recent Changes with VP rather quickly and saw the deletion which was made to a Disambiguation page, without actually check what the edit was. Once again, I am deeply sorry for an incontinence I may have caused, and with your permission, will remove my previous message!! NSR77(Talk|Contribs)
That's quite all right. I suppose it's my fault for not leaving a more detailed summary, like "removing excessive redlinks from disambiguation page in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) this is not vandalism please do not revert it" rather than "format". I'm assuming the word "incontinence" in your previous message is a typo? Rest assured I have not suffered from that as a result of your edit. All the best – Qxz00:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no, it was intended be "inconvenience". Word must have picked it up as a different spelling. Nonetheless, I apologize once again and thank you for being so understanding. Regards, NSR77(Talk|Contribs) 00:08 March 15, 2007 (UTC)
I guess so... it's just I still don't really understand what the 'counter-vandalism unit' is. Is it just a group of people who do RC Patrol a lot? Is there a separate WikiProject page somewhere that lists members or something? The page you link just seems to be an information page, and I wouldn't do an ad just for an information page, though I'll happily do an ad for the concept of RC Patrol in general – Qxz00:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
{{permprot}}
What's with the {{permprot}} rollout? Has this been discussed? Are you going to follow up by protecting these? Or is someone else? Or should I? Hesperian03:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The corresponding templates are all protected and tagged with {{protected template}} already – I'm just tagging the talk pages with {{permprot}} in cases where it hasn't been done. I'm not going to protect or unprotect anything – apart from anything else I'm not an administrator, so I can't. Thanks – Qxz03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see. I looked up at the top of the page and noticed it wasn't protected... but that was the talk page not the template itself. Sorry to waste your time. Hesperian03:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please 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. NSR77 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)