Archives

Current talk page Feb 2010 – Jun 2010 Jun 2010 – Oct 2010 Oct 2010 – Dec 2010 Dec 2010 – Feb 2011 Feb 2011 – May 2011 May 2011 – Aug 2011

Hello, Gyrobo

I'm here to apologize for my misunderstanding and to notify you of an offer. You'll find details in WebP talk page. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WebP. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

A case regarding to you is now open in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Fleet Command (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Gyrobo

Fleet Command here, the guy who can keep cool head in discussions! (:LOL:) Here is the issue: Template:HTML editors does not list source highlighters as HTML editors. There are a lot of them, including Smultron, skEdit, TED Notepad, TextMate, TextPad, TextWrangler, TopStyle, NetBeans IDE, NoteTab, PSPad, etc. We don't have any of them in that template. We don't have Notepad++ there either! So, why Scintilla only?

Cheers, lucky.

I believe you are incorrect in your application of the BRD cycle. You have boldly made a change, I have reverted it. The onus is now on you to begin a discussion to achieve consensus for your change. Please see Template talk:HTML editors#Text HTML editors.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

First thing first: We seem to have consensus.

Second: BRD is not really based on who did first; BOLD of BRD is about deviation from consensus or how dramatic the edit is. It is BRD (BOLD, revert, discuss) not ERD (Edit, revert, discuss). In the end, it really doesn't make any difference who notices who: Both must discuss and the one who reverted first won't necessarily get has any extra privilege in the discussion. (I thought your recent EW-case must have thought you that much; after all, you did revert my R of BRD in WebP and it was in effect for 4 days.) This is true about this case too: We seem to have consensus and when you are committing your change, mine is automatically undone.

But never mind all these: What I learned in Wikipedia is that there is no such thing as big bad evil [User:Flirt Comrade] or vice versa. We sometimes get sentimental; that's all. Then, we apologize, reach consensus and go ahead and accomplish big projects together; only some of us are too unforgiving to ourselves to realize that friendship is so free of charge in Wikipedia.

Fleet Command (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Our consensus was all of them not just Scintilla-based. "The bare minimum for something to be considered an HTML editor is syntax highlighting", remember? Since you didn't add them all, I took the liberty of doing so. You don't mind, do you? Fleet Command (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, Gyrobo

You have changed my invitation to talk notice in Internet Explorer article into a please do what I like notice. Will you be kind and reach a consensus first in talk page? Fleet Command (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response on Talk:Internet Explorer#Screenshot of Internet Explorer.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw your reasons. I have a piece of advice: Don't talk unless you must! Because right now, per WP:SILENCE, everything is in your favor! Fleet Command (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:HTML5#Further reading section

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on HTML5. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Fleet Command (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be violating your own words. You have established it that long lists may use ISO date style and that the article that predominantly uses one date format must keep using it. Well, you seem to have violated it again! The article is predominantly using MDY date format in prose. And the Further Reading section is not long list. (Four items only!) And you can't say Further Reading section is part of the References section. (Because there is a clear section heading that reads: "Further Reading"). Even if I grant you that Further Reading section has some resemblances to citations, I think you cannot deny that it is not a long list and that WP:MOSDATES only sanctions YMD for long lists "for conciseness". (After all, these are what you were depend upon it on Talk:WebP.)

Now please state your reason. Fleet Command (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, isn't it a strange coincidence that wherever I ago, you also come? Fleet Command (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, you changed all the dates in citations of Internet Explorer and you didn't state it in your edit summary.

Would you kindly explain yourself? Fleet Command (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You placed a {{citation style}} tag on the article, so I moved all references which weren't referred to inline to the Further reading section, and, per WP:DATERET, set all dates in the references to a consistent format. That's why I thought you added that tag.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, no; but your explanation is good enough for me to assume good faith in your edit.

But just for the record (and without any intention of criticism), as Macwhiz kindly mentioned, date style does not necessarily have anything to do with citation style. I put {{citation style}} tag because that article used both external linking and inline citations. I wanted someone familiar with the ins and outs of the article to convert those external linking references to inline citations. (If I wanted to convert them to Further Reading, I could do it myself.)

Still, please write better edit summaries.

Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Here you go:^[1]

Feel free to ask for anything else, I am always in need of a distraction and a break from what I'm doing to keep my sanity. :) Camelbinky (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

THANK you!
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Gyrobo

Just wanted to drop you a note: Any table of "wikitable sortable" class must have no merged cells. Do you know why? Because the sort functionality does not work in these tables. Such is the case with the table in Internet Explorer 9. Just click on the sorting gadget and see the messy result for yourself.

The solution is to either have no merged cells, i.e. split the merged cells and repeat their contents or remove the table from "sortable" class, i.e. replace 'class = "wikitable sortable"' with 'class = "wikitable"'.

Fleet Command (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, the table should not be sortable. All data within the table is already basically sorted (i.e., increasing dates correspond to increasing version numbers and Acid3 scores). On a side note, the Acid3 column already contained a combined row before I combined the date rows.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Gyrobo. You have new messages at Mabdul's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Today I will update the LMB article with the ideas of the GA. I'm really sorry that the article was failed imediatly instead of set the article on hold... mabdul 15:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, the article is very well written and informative. I'm sure it will be a GA eventually.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you think? The arguments are really weak and I'm really pissed off that he failed the article immediately instead of setting it on hold. GAR? mabdul 13:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There were some issues, but they were minor and I don't think the article should have been immediately failed. Since you nominated it at WP:GAN, you should probably be the one to list it at WP:GAR.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I will do tomorrow. Don't have time for that today. Malleus Fatuorum responded a few minutes ago. mhh, I'm really unhappy with his review. If you look in the article - talkpage history you will see that he removed the GA review without giving me (or somebody else) a possibility to respond directly to his concern. mabdul 16:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Although nobody else is answering in GAR process, I started a new project named tkWWW. Can you help me and have a short look at the talk page? thx mabdul 19:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now a few books from our library and will try the next week to expand and correct the Line Mode Browser again and retry to get it to GA. Maybe with these old books I am able to get the reviewers marcy... mabdul 18:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Scott Murphy sworn in.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Gyrobo, and thanks for your GA review of Mount Hope Estate. This is the first time I've felt like a GA review actually helped the article,—usually I feel like they leave articles worse than when they started—so I hope you'll continue to do GA reviews! Thanks, cmadler (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It was my first review, and I look forward to doing others in the future.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:HVRT-WVRT proposed link.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've had another look through and I like what you've done with this article. There's still one point outstanding though, the expansion of the lead to say something about the commemorative coin. Malleus Fatuorum 13:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your concerns at Talk:Wolf Point, Chicago/GA2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, you are suppose to add {{good article}} to the bottom of the article when you pass it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was under the impression that the GA bot did that kind of thing.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Just found your comment on my talk regarding Poestenkill from Oct 29. The creek, Poesten Kill is in fact two words. I think the town should be the main page, not the CDP. Not sure what that discussion you were a part of decided. If our thoughts align, I believe it appropriate to make Poestenkill, New York a redirect to Poestenkill (town), New York and place this hatnote on the top of the town article:

{{About|the town|the census-designated place|Poestenkill (CDP), New York|the creek for which the town is named|Poesten Kill}}

Just my 2¢. upstateNYer 21:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good. I was just using it as an example, but if it makes it better, I've inadvertently succeeded.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Did Plattekill, though all you had to do was make it a redirect. See my talk for response about the other article you had inquired about. upstateNYer 23:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice article. I won't pass it now because of stiff wording in the lead. clear that up and I will pass it.--intelati^talk 01:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, the lead is referenced. Most of the info was repeated in the main body, so you can remove those references.--intelati^talk 01:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work, the lead is clear and sums up the whole article well... Passes the Criteria for the GA easily.--intelati^talk 01:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! As soon as the bot finishes, I'm going to go to the relevant WikiProjects and request an A-class review.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You JUST beat me to it. --intelati^talk 03:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I have closed the PR per your request. I thought it was over all nicely done, and am glad my comments are helpful. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

They really were, and I intend to address all the points you raised. Thanks for your thorough review.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a note to say there's only one outstanding point at my FAC review now; I'm not sure if you agree with it, but once we resolve that one way or another I'll be glad to support. Mike Christie (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm on it! --Gyrobo (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Just saw the timestamp. I can't believe I missed your comment yesterday, sorry about that. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've switched to support; it's a good article and I hope it gets promoted. By the way, I noticed something about the way you are indenting at the FAC and thought I'd mention it, in case you're not aware. To indent from a previous comment, the standard method is to repeat exactly the indentation used by the previous poster, and then add either a colon or an asterisk, depending on whether you want a bullet or not. I saw on a couple of occasions you added a colon to the front, which causes Wikipedia to assume you're starting a new indentation (which looks different). Apologies if you already knew this, but I thought it might be useful. Good luck with the FAC! Mike Christie (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a specific order, and I'm glad you told me. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, man. Keep up the good work. Fleet Command (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I mean, you're welcome! --Gyrobo (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Helderberg Escarpment, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Helderberg Escarpment#Geology. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The tag was removed, as it refers to a deleted article. I'm trying to rewrite said article.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you'll be getting an FA star real soon. When that's done, would you be interested in helping me with the rewrite of New York I'm working on? It's located at User:UpstateNYer/New York. I'm currently working on the history; the state symbols section is done; and the geology/geography section is near complete. Let me know what you think. upstateNYer 03:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it as soon as I'm done with a GA in working on. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The article has been placed on hold pending your actions. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll work on those issues right away. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We are very close. I have left my reply. Racepacket (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Jim Tedisco with Michael Steele.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted per CSD G6. Daniel Case (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Gyrobo (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, reducing the size of File:Jim Tedisco with Michael Steele.jpg would not help. The size was not the sole concern; if there is no text in the article about the contents of the photograph that cannot be clearly explained with text, then the use of the photograph would fail WP:NFCC #1 and #8. Jappalang (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not an administrator anywhere, so I cannot help to directly delete the images. You can request for deletion via the {{nsd}} in this case as I have done, although it will only happen if the template is not removed (or the source and information were supplied) before 7 days.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jappalang (talk • contribs)

Moved to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Park (season 13)/archive2