User talk:2012Olympian/Archives/2009/February

Scripts

Hey, in case you were wondering why your edit summaries didn't come out as expected on List of UFC champions; that was my script's fault. Should be fixed now, but you might need to CTRL-F5 for it to update ;) --aktsu ^(t / c) 09:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time

You recently made a comment on my talk page telling me to "quit breaking dozens of incoming links" or some non-sense. Now before you write on my god damn talk page do your damn research. I had nothing to do with that last revision. Stop wasting your time and mine telling me not to do something when I clearly had nothing to do with it. 207.246.181.26 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User

some one changed it back DCsniper207 (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

?

how come when i sign my name it still says DCsniper then DCsniper207 (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It did work

The change did work. He re-registered under the same name, as you can see from this link. I have blocked the name indefinitely. Andre (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Determining what the consensus is

I think you forgot to sign the section named "Determining what the consensus is" that you created at the NFL project talk page. --Gman124 ^talk 21:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

My 2¢ as requested has been posted. Chris Nelson is pretty unhappy with me. Oh well...thank you for the warm welcome and the tips. --Cshashaty (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

List of UFC events

While I understand that overlinking can become annoying and such, in the case of this particular article the reduction of links actually serves to make the article less useful. This article really provides very little in the way of information and servers more as a linking point to get to other articles. In this situation the more links the better.

An example would be that if I were scrolled down the list around the position of UFC 33 and I noticed it was in Las Vegas, Nevada, and I thought to myself "Gee, I sure would like to know more about Las Vegas.", it sure would be handy to actually have that be a link. Instead the only Las Vegas link is way up the page at UFC 100.

I understand policy and whatnot, but this reduces functionality in this particular case. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering how you interpret the purpose of the page, perhaps it would be more appropriate to remove all linking for cities, states, countries, and venues. This would leave only links for the events. At least when it was a sea of blue it had a uniform appearance. Removing all of the linking sans events would also provide a uniform appearance which is more pleasing to the eye than the current hodgepodge. It would also preserve the purity of the article as a jump point for articles on UFC events and not places and things. Thoughts?

--Drr-darkomen (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Please see the above arbitration case where you have been named in a proposal in the workshop. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Could we get some feedback on the third version? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 Humanitarian Bowl FAC

Hi, I removed the comment cap because they don't like the use of hidden templates for some reason. Anyway, when you get a chance, would you mind striking out the issues that you had capped? Thanks. Strikehold (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that cap templates are clearly allowed, but didn't feel like arguing about it. Strikehold (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, do you mind bolding your support and moving it to the beginning of your comments so that the FAC director can find it easily? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed that. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on the barnstars.

You're a great editor. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

FfD to delete Time cover image

Hi. As you were involved in some of the recent discussion and debate about the images in the article on Intelligent design, I thought you might like to know a separate proceeding was brought to remove the Time image by outright deletion from the wiki . It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_12#Time_evolution_wars.jpg . If you are at all interested in the issue, it would be reasonable to post a "keep" or a "delete" at that page. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Game

I also note that it has gone to mediation. Nice try though. Consensus has obviously not been reached. --Izno (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I see that you are making edits on The Game (Harvard-Yale) without gathering consensus. I have unprotected the article, as I thought that the issue has been resolved - but it clearly hasn't. I would rather not re-protect the article, but suggest that you gather consensus on the talk page, before you make edits. The consensus needs to be definitive and clearly agreed between the editors, not a 'mention' for the consensus. The RFC maybe about non-free images, but if editors are disagreeing with your edits - then edit wars will start. Therefore, you must gather consensus before making any more edits to the page. I have reverted your edits to the page. Please note that if you don't gather consensus, then you maybe temporarily blocked, or the page protected for a further period of time.

Regards,

The Helpful One 12:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, this RfC is about something altogether different. Using some free images is strictly a preference and there is no contention on this matter in the RfC or elsewhere. Since it is a matter of preference, the consensus should simply be should these free images be used in this article as a lead image or not. There should be no debate regarding their use with regards to WP:NFCC since this doesn't apply. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

BJ Penn page, thanks

Thanks for all the help with BJ penn page. between you, me, and aktsu I think we can get it to good article status! If I get some more time in the next couple of weeks i'll dig up sources for some stuff on the article page and stuff that I haven't posted yet. Floodo1 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ultimatefighter7.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Ultimatefighter7.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Tuf2Finale.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Tuf2Finale.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinion in Rfc

I fixed it. Sorry for the misstake, lol. Crash Underride 17:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC on NFL active infobox

The debate is not about what color to use. The question is whether the colors used should follow WP:COLOR and be at a contrast level that permits the colorblind to read the information. All that would have to be done is to change the text to either black or white, depending on the background color. Look at the example given, can you read the light green text easily? Could someone who is colorblind?--2008Olympian^chitchat 17:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification. I removed my comments on Template talk:Infobox NFLactive#RfCIkip (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)