This is an archive of past discussions with User:Timotab. 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.
I was just the admin who protected it :D but glad to see you canvassing further. I only got as far as the two users cited as contributors at the top of the talk page. SGGHspeak!23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! You're officially the "coolest editor on Wikipedia according to yours truly!" For being kind, funny, and generally awesome, Mr. T, you'll always have a fan over here. Now keep those sunglasses on! ;) Love, Phaedriel - 23:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I figured that I was missing something, so I was going to wait a bit to see if either he or some of the users who were in active discussion on her page at the moment did anything. I elected to revert the change in case it was malicious, but waited to see if I was reverted by someone more privy. I'll probably mention it to him after I'm done reading though the talk page of the template stardardization page. Which, as an unrelated side note, I dislike. isaid04:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey now, I'm a girl!! Didn't you ever hear her sing?. And what is this all about? I missed something, lol. (Okay, I just realized the "he" wasn't referring to me, lol. So odd, I guess I thought of Phgao as a girl's name, so I thought ... okay well, I just woke up so you can count it up to me just not being awake yet, lol.) Ariel♥Gold06:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay I see now, I'm 100% sure that was simply a mistake on Phgao's part, no worries. I'll add the comment back into the talk page, but i I am so thankful that you're keeping an eye on things when I'm getting my WikiSleep! ~*Hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold06:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for backing my prod - I think unless some decent sources present themselves, we discuss doing the same on the Anna Wilding with other edits and see what the consenus is? --Fredrick day15:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm well aware someone tried to add back the LotR stuff, and it's also evident from the way they did it that they cut and pasted it from an old revision of the page itself (rather than the wikicode). — TimotabTimothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, Fredrick, you are certainly one very very brave man! ~*Ariel runs the other way as fast as her feet can take her*~ This should be interesting... Ariel♥Gold16:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You do know that I know what you're referring to, (I replied on my talk page, y'know) and I'm not ignoring you about the issue. You do know that, right? Because truly, I'd hate to think that you really did feel that way. Ariel♥Gold18:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's any misunderstanding, lol. I think my sarcasm just fell flat. Either way, I sent an email to clear things up lol. Ariel♥Gold18:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Rofl I just replied to the email you sent about that, so I'll just tell you my reply: I think I'm scared to ask how a pirate talks... I've never met one, lol. Ariel♥Gold18:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hee hee, well, I've edited them all to make them auto-sign for you (and also fixed grammar in the first one). However, that being said, and as cute as I think they are... I wouldn't suggest you use the third one. I doubt everyone will understand, and it could come across rather... badly. lol. (Oh, and I removed the word "Piratey" from "Piratey ways of Wikipedia" because it sounded really really like "piracy", and lord forbid someone confuse the two, so it now just says "ways of Wikipedia". If you disagree, feel free to add it back in). Perhaps instead of saying you will be flogged, made to walk the plank, and keelhauled. in the third one, you could say something like "shown the lifeboat". That would be a bit less... violent, lol. Just some random thoughts from sleep-deprived Ariel. Feel free to ignore them or discount them as ramblings. Ariel♥Gold20:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Lol! Those are great. I love everything pirate-ish! Personally while I see Ariel's point, I think the "walk the plank" stuff is awsome, and to avoid confusion, perhaps the templates could have a note on the bottom explaining that "today is talk like a pirate day" linking to that wikipage (well, technically tomorrow but when you use them it will be "today"). Vandals who are vandals on purpose can go find Davy Jones' locker! :P --Naha|(talk)20:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Doh why didn't I think of that? lol, yes that would be more than sufficient, I'd think, to explain it. (Ariel doesn't admit she has no idea who Davy Jones is...) Hee hee Ariel♥Gold20:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Twinkle auto-signs them I guess. I think all templates should have that, but that's just me. Anyway you know how to put them in if you want them. And with that, Ariel is off to try to get her poor, tired brain some sleep. Night night dear! Ariel♥Gold20:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hee hee, thanks, I've never seen any of those movies, so no wonder I'm clueless, lol. And, Timothy, check this out for some interesting reading, lol. Ariel♥Gold20:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah ha! Excellent suggestion. It's sorta a shame, I don't know if you've noticed WP:RFCU/IP but there have been prolific vandals who have taken advantage of the username policy to create a ton of accounts with objectionable names. Oy. In terms of the WT:UAA discussion, yeah I was one of the users who was 'reprimanded' for both UAA and RFCN and let me tell you it was darn confusing! :P ~Eliz81(C)00:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tim. I acted in good faith when I made that edit to your Wikihug template. I made one minor change that at the time I didn't think was worth bothering you about. I'm sorry if I offended you in anyway by editing your template without your permission. Sebi[talk]05:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been watching Anna Wilding since its creation, and something makes me uncomfortable about it. The two user accounts that have been editing it have not edited anything else (except a small contribution to a related article). I've asked for citations repeatedly, and the {{fact}} tags keep getting removed. When I commented on the talk page to that effect, I was told that all the facts have been verified over and over, which rather misses the point of citing the references. Something feels fishy about the history of this article, and even though I'm trying to WP:AGF, it's getting harder, given the way the major contributors have acted. Suggestions on how to deal with this welcome.— TimotabTimothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)16:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is a long list of references at the bottom of the article, which is presumably what the other users are referring to, but it may be worth asking for input from more people on the situation. One possible course of action you could take at this point would be to open a request for comments on the article; follow the instructions on that page. The process will attract the attention of other users experienced in resolving disputes to the article. Hope that helps! --ais523 17:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tim, David, I apologize for the content I posted on this article. I was given misleading information, for the post, and I'd like to leave this article. PM please
Tonyx12323:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
In the future if you would mind not reverting edits I make on my own user page I would appreciate it. Despite what the edit that you reverted my page back too might say, I am not actually a "dirty pirate hooker." —Preceding unsigned comment added by BJ Humiston (talk • contribs) 03:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I could be missing something, and if I am, please forgive me ..but Timo's revert undid an edit from an unregistered user ...an IP address (unless it was you not logged in) and had nothing to do with pirates, or hookers ...dirty or clean ones! :P Please see his actual revert here. If this is some kind of joke due to International Talk Like a Pirate Day ..again, forgive me because it mostly went over my head ;) --Naha|(talk)03:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, looking at it further, it was actually this revert by User:Roastytoast (not User:Timotab), who reverted your user page back to include the "dirty pirate hooker" paragraph. That being said, please assume good faith as it was probably an accident on that user's part ;) In this case as well, however, Roastytoast was still not reverting your edits, but the edits of an unregistered user (again, unless you not were logged in and showed up as an anon IP). Cheers! --Naha|(talk)03:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The Prod on the movie was removed so I have AFD'd the article - usual attempts to turn it into a puff piece have been removed. --Fredrick day13:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: September 2007
Hello, sorry for the late response, I couldn't get around to it. With all due respect, you should mind your own business. It's not that big of a deal. I mean, it is even evident to others that he and I know each other, and that it was= only a joke. It's a user page, not an article.
P.S. That part about suggesting the sandbox at the end was a classic. I've been around here longer than you have, and have also made more constructive edits. Cheers, --Bolonium00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This is not needed. It was a routine vandalism edit, and the sandbox suggestion is part of a template. If you've been around here longer than Timothy, you should know have seen those exact words hundreds of times all over Wikipedia. The reversion wasn't even interesting, much less discussing it. And, Wikipedia is Timotab's business--that's what he's here for, as you are, as I am, as the page he reverted is. KP Botany00:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Header
Let me know if you like it. And seriously dear, your talk page is getting out of hand, lol. It is nearly 100kb, takes me forever to load, and you've got it archiving every 2 weeks, lol. So, I've changed it to 7 days, because you are obviously so popular that it is difficult to keep up with all the activity here! (And I'm lazy and hate to scroll, lol, but feel free if you really want it at 2 weeks, to change it back. It is just going to take me forever and ever to talk to you... ~*Sigh*~ ) Also, if you don't like the button thing, I can change it to just the box like on your userpage with text inside. I just thought the clicky button thing was sorta cool. (Yes I stole it from Phae!) Ariel♥Gold16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but I prefer just a text link that points to the "new edit" URL, like you have on your page. And then I want the same on my User page. And then I want my talk page all nice and backgroundy in a matching colourscheme/look to my userpage (feel free to move my TOC around). Thanks! — TimotabTimothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)16:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Okay I did add the color border to this page to match the one on your userpage, what else do you want to match it? And that's okay, I'll make it a box instead, also want me to change MiszaBot back to 2 weeks? ~*SIGH*~ ? Ariel♥Gold16:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If I really wanted to change MiszaBot back, I would have. I don't suppose there's anyway to automatically force alternate level 2 headings to be a different coloured box, like on my user page? No, didn't think so. Some subtle tinting of the inside of the main boxes both here and on the user page might be good (maybe light green to coordinate wth the green of the heading boxes), and tinting the TOC a light purple? — TimotabTimothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)16:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Headers can't be changed, nope, they're standardized. (Well, okay maybe if you customized a .css, but then only you would see them that way, like how you can change the color of your "new messages" bar from ugly yellow to something pretty). Okay, I re-did the top "talk to me" bar, and I gave you a custom Table of Contents with the other color, a light purple. Also, notice the now white background (instead of the light blue that's default) surrounded by the light green border all around your talk page. What do you think? Ariel♥Gold16:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay... but I'm warning you, what "seems" very faint as a border, can look really really bright as a background, lol. Let's take a peek... Okay yeah it is pretty dark... and that's the lightest green, too. The purple clashed, so I changed that to a dark green. If you liked the purple, it I'll change it back. Ariel♥Gold17:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me know if you like this, and want this on the userpage, I won't redo that until I know you don't hate it, as this is pretty dark. Ariel♥Gold17:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
wait wait wait! let's get this page finished first :) TOC... I still want it purple, but I don't like the expanda-box (especially as it looks really ugly when it's hidden), and the font is way too small. :) — TimotabTimothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)17:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Doh. Okay purple, but the default TOC can't be customized, so we have to figure out specifically what you want changed and do that. Ariel♥Gold17:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
And moving the archive down (to a more logical place, too) the TOC doesn't butt up against the message box. I see I can't even change the background of the TOC itself. ah well. Did all the changes get made to the User page that needed to be made? — TimotabTimothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)18:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
New section
Yep that's better with the archives down there. And yeah, the TOC is Wikimarkup stuff, I have never seen the actual inside of one be colored. If I ever run across one though, I'll look into how it was done. Or, we can always wait until Phaedriel shows up and she'll probably have the answer! I think the userpage changes were done, take a look at it and see if there's something you don't like? Ariel♥Gold18:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts on the matter, dear Timothy :) Case close and dismissed, and let me know if this gentleman ever bothers you again, k? Btw, I just came in for a moment, but I'll be back on later; so if you need a little help with the design or the TOC, as you were discussiong with Ariel above, let me know - but frankly, from my modest perspective, it looks great the way it is - very nice work, guys! Love, Phaedriel - 20:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
See! I knew mommy Phae would come see this and help out! (Timothy wants the very inside of the TOC a color, like where the words listed are, but I've never seen this done, so I'm not sure it is possible). Phaedriel to save the day! Hee hee. Ariel♥Gold20:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay actually, there's one thing that's bothering me. When the TOC is expanded, the word "Contents" and (hide) are centered. But if you collapse it, they become left-aligned. I think they should stay centered. Also, I'm really not sure if I worked the padding in that table right or not, so I'd guess it is probably borked somehow, because to get it not look odd I had to change the size parameters a bit. Anyway, the text moving from centered to left is annoying, lol. Ariel♥Gold20:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately, there's no way (that I know) to change the colors of the links in the TOC box, simply because "TOC" is a MediaWiki magic word that cannot be changed via Wiki markup or HTML (as a normal link would by using the "span" extension), so I'm truly sorry, Timothy - it has to remain in blue :( But hey, I like it pretty much the way it is now ;) Love, Phaedriel - 03:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Phaedriel, is there a way to make the background a custom color for the TOC? (I'm pretty sure there isn't, but worth asking I guess), like the white space behind the TOC links/list. Also, Timothy, in case you weren't aware of it, MiszaBot runs once a day, starting around 8:30am EST (12:30 GMT), so probably gets to you around 2pm GMT, or a bit before. Ariel♥Gold10:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Not that I know of, I'm afraid - again, AFAIK, the only customizable functions of TOC are left or right alignment, and text size via an external format function, but that's all. Between us, I just *hate* TOCs - they're like a visual stab over otherwise beautiful designs... :( Phaedriel - 11:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I figured out how to close it, screwed that up, had to go back and subst the templates. All in all, fairly embarrassing. Thanks for your help though, greatly appreciated. Into The FrayT/C20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
notability of recent events
You posted on my talk page about a comment I made at an AfD, about the encyclopedic notabiliy of events... Actually, I don't think Wikipedia should have had an article about 9/11 until at least a week after the event happened. I am not saying that 9/11 wasn't notable as soon as it happened... I am saying it wasn't notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia until we had time to assess its significance, impact on the world, etc. When dealing with current or recent events - even an event as notable as 9/11 (I will even say especially an event as notable as 9/11) - I feel we should wait before we create articles about them. The same goes for the Jacksonville Tazer thing. Blueboar23:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay I think I see what you were talking about, see this conversation for a recommendation that I think is a good idea (two issues are discussed, yours is down towards the bottom). If that's not what you were concerned about, holler at me, hee hee. Ariel♥Gold02:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
