User talk:Szyslak/Archive 6

Archive This page is an archive. To leave a message, see User talk:Szyslak.

My signature

But I like orange!  Tcrow777  talk 06:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your using a higher screen resolution, because on my screen the boxes are small.  Tcrow777  talk 18:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Three lines:  Tcrow777  talk

I will think-over changing my signature. It will take time for me to come up with a new one.  Tcrow777  talk 21:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think  Tcrow777  talk 00:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this?  Tcrow777 (talk)  02:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheerness‎ FAC

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Sheerness‎ article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 17:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

TfD nomination of Template:Blpdispute

Template:Blpdispute has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Tom Harrison Talk 00:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Edit

Happy Early First Edit Day, Szyslak/Archive 6, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!
  • FROM YOUR FRIEND:

 ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:52, 09 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

Sorry - yes I'm aware what rvv stands for - I must've let my finger drag - as I intended to write "rv". My mistake--danielfolsom 21:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again

Sorry for accidentally reverting you on the articleissues temp - I was going back through the diffs to see what edits happened while I was gone - and I must have clicked edit this page when I saw the edit I was trying to remove - which caused me to edit an old version. Ironic, because I was actually really glad that someone had gone through and change all those "This article"s to "It"s. Again, sorry.--danielfolsom 20:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ambox formatting

Hm. I wasn't aware that talk page templates were immune— and most were already converted. Are you certain? — Coren (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Misunderstanding on my part, then... although the Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup page looked much better before your reverts.  :-) Shouldn't boldness prevail, though, and see if the change sticks? I'd expect editors would not be surprised (or object more than for article space) to seeing templates on the talk page visually match those on the article space. — Coren (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that it would clash— I was unaware of the previous talk space template standardization effort, though. Personally, I'd want to revisit it now that ambox is deploying... but that's indeed not the way to do it. — Coren (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I saw your comments on WT:AMB and thought you might be interested in WP:DOT. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that User:Madman generated a list of unused templates for me is it available here, here, here, here, and here. Cheers. --MZMcBride 10:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Unreliable

Hi. I saw on the above's talk page that you redirected the template to {{refimprove}} (which I think is great, because I too agree that it's misleading). However, it's still listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Verifiability_and_sources , which is how I found it. I'm not a particularly proficient Wikipedia editor, so I wonder whether it should remain listed there, or if it should be deleted, both, or what. Just looking to a more experienced editor for guidance. Thanks for your time dfg 23:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Badedit speedy delete

That template was an experiment but I tagged it for speedy since I really don't see a way to improve it and three other editor agree it should be deleted. VoL†ro/\/Force 23:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject: University of California

Hey Szyslak,

Sorry I took off suddenly last time while we were talking about this. (Too much stress, on and off-line, as it were.) I hope everything is going well with you. Anyway, I posted the UC Wikiproject proposal to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities‎, and Talk:University of California. The project page is still currently your sub-page, I hope this will be fine until we seem to generate interest and participants. Best, Ameriquedialectics 03:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went bold and moved the project page to Wikipedia:WikiProject University of California, so as to not need to create too many redirects in the future. Hope all is well. Best, Ameriquedialectics 15:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry. I was lazy also. (But mainly annoyed with Wikipedia at the time; I was getting too caught up in it.) Anyway, no huge rush on this, I don't think. Best, Ameriquedialectics 19:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Platinum Editions

I just read the article again and there is no specific discussion of those covers. The article mentions the packaging, but you don't need the image for that, it doesn't really show it anyway. One cover might perhaps be practical, but when they are all in a discography list these images fail WP:NFCC. Garion96 (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the rationale's were good. The images just didn't fullfil the other criteria of WP:NFCC. Garion96 (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm image use rights

How come you can't have a full-sized image of something copyrighted on your userpage, but you can have a smaller version in a userbox, such as the Beatles' Abbey Road cover, the Netscape Logo, or a picture of a Playstation 3?--AMFilmsInc (and, action!) 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Okay that's cool thanks for the information. --AMFilmsInc (and, action!) 21:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Talk Reverts

Sorry, nonsense, find me a regulation that supports you. Even if you were right, sometimes such wide-ranging discussions need summarization, and there is no limit on talk pages, if no one want's to answer it they don't have to. Focus your energies. grendelsmother 00:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Ivy category

Good catch: category deleted and (joint effort here) category removed. If you see it again, let me know and I'll add some salt. Regards, BencherliteTalk 23:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, AWB usually crashes on me, so you were lucky it worked tonight. Fingers crossed... Cheers, BencherliteTalk 23:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WLA

Wikiproject:WikiProject_Los_Angeles The sender of this Userbox wants you to join WikiProject Los Angeles.

(♠Taifarious1♠) 02:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh

Thanks for fixing the icon.[1] EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday

  • FROM YOUR FRIEND:

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, Szyslak/Archive 6!

 Idontknow610  (WANNA TALK??)

ArbCom vote

For what it's worth, that "cooldown block" was a single foolish mistake I made shortly after getting the tools. I haven't performed any since then. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there.
The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 17:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]