Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mmyers1976 (talk | contribs) at 17:23, 10 March 2009 (→You were out of line today on Nottingham Forest AfD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Your Edits on Eggdrop

Great job! --BarkerJr (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Denied/January 2009#Tothwolf. SoxBot X (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback and Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton 14:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

template:IRC clients edit

Hi,

Can you provide a test case for the problem you were trying to fix here? Navbox templates shouldn't need blank lines (or comments) to fix formatting errors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I had the same problem with all the IRC nav footer type templates. I also put all the templates into the Internet Relay Chat templates category so you can see all 4 of the nav templates there. The problem that kept popping up is the nav templates would have no whitespace below the last section 's text and the top of the navbox. If you included two newlines in the article, it would display with whitespace between the section text and infobox. Wikibots kept eating the extra whitespace and replacing the two newlines with a single newline. The workaround had been to include a comment between the two empty lines in the article. Adding an empty comment to the top of the navigational templates and removing the extra newline from the article body accomplished the exact same thing. I'm currently still working on these and plan to do some major cleanups and merge the IRC footer type templates, so if there is a better way to work around this display bug let me know so I can merge it into the templates. Tothwolf (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

...and I see you've removed the comment that I added that fixed the problem. Look at mIRC and look at XChat. I'll wait on putting the comment back and removing the extra newline from XChat until after you've looked at these. I'll finish cleaning up the formatting on the other articles in the meantime though. Tothwolf (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge this is by design; adding newlines to the template itself causes whitespace when navboxen are stacked on top of each other. If you'd personally prefer a bigger top margin on {{navbox}} then you could add something to your skin preferences which would tweak that; however, "fixing" this on a case-by-case basis is obviously suboptimal. Let me know if you ahve any questions / suggestions. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

When I tested this case it didn't cause problems for stacked infoboxes. I'm well aware of how templates work and what unintentional whitespace will do to stacked infoboxs. I fixed a number of those last week. In this case, empty comments are stripped, it works around the problem quite nicely. I wish I could claim credit for the idea but I can't. Try it for yourself: {{IRC clients}} {{IRC footer}} Tothwolf (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. This definitely isn't right. At any rate, it needs to be fixed centrally in {{navbox}} rather than once per template. I'll try pinging someone who might be able to help. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So you see how it "fixes" it? There is definitely a problem in a template somewhere. Tons of navboxs use the comment workaround exactly how I did in these. I'll leave comments in the IRC navboxes for now since they fix the problem and don't hurt anything else. When I go to unify the IRC navboxes I'll probably keep a comment at the top of the template for other purposes anyway. Tothwolf (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've pinged the main contributors to the {{navbox}} base logic. While I can't argue that "tons" of navboxen don't use this workaround, it's far more practical to get this fixed centrally. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(←) The reason the comment line seems to fix the problem is simply because it adds an extra white line in addition to the whiteline in the article; and two whitelines force a <P> into the code (while one whiteline is ignored). That is indeed by design and not a bug in navbox. We could put the witheline in navbox itself, but that would potentially break stacking in derivative templates that already have such a comment, either intentional or not.

Ultimately, the best fix would be to add a whiteline in only the top navbox, but there is no way to tell wether a navbox is on top. It could be done in javascript, adding a margin in only the top navbox. But such a change needs consensus in WP:VPT or Mediawiki talk:common.js and I'm not a bog fan of adding javascript for such a trivial problem. — Edokter • Talk • 14:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it better to let templates which have pre-compensated for this by adding their own newlines "break" while fixing the core problem? I imagine the vast majority of navboxen do not currently attempt to work around this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like most navbox templates don't work around it actually. I've been going over some that I thought did and it turned out they were transcluded after other templates used in the External links section in articles. Those other templates must have included one newline, which combined with the newline in the body of the article then forced the <P>. Tothwolf (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to msg.

Thanks for letting me know. It wasn't really important; I just needed to take out some trivial/biased info (which I easily redid).  :) SKS2K6 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick notice

Sorry for editing. Ribeka&Presario —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribeka&Presario (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you help?

Hi there. I think I've seen your name pop up in AfD's and/or COI discussions. If you have a second can you please give me a hand with an active incident involving multiple Gliese IT SPAs? -- samj _in 15:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure what I could do. I noticed the photo changes myself last night but wasn't really sure if I could be objective in determining if they were COI/Spam or not. I saw that Gliese IT had been edited by a number of users, including one brand new user, so it didn't seem too unusual that those editors might be trying to link that article into more of the existing articles. It looked like people were actively trying to build a new article (which with the way things seem to work now, is very difficult). I decided I'd see what others did with the photos and if no one changed them back I was thinking about changing the acer one back later this afternoon. The new photo just didn't seem to do as good of a job showing a netbook because of the camera angle. The acer photo shows the keyboard so you can get more of a feel for how small the laptop really is. Tothwolf (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, never mind - I'm dealing with it. Cheers. -- samj _in 16:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You were out of line today on Nottingham Forest AfD

My nomination of the article for AfD first of all did not do anything to disrupt Misplaced Pages, nor was it an attempt to disrupt Misplaced Pages, nor was it an attempt to prove a point. There was sound rationale for my nomination, as plenty of other editors noted - specifically see JohnCD's reference to precedent. Yes, I have had a negative opinion of Misplaced Pages, but I blanked my thoughts on that because my opinion , while not completely changed, is changing, and I have continued to make constructive edits, what's more I have demonstrated collaborate spirit even in dissent (see the log for Poe Elementary School, Houston as well as my interaction with Whisper to Me) and have cheerfully accepted and learned from others' comments (see my response to Post Oak on the Nottingham Forest Talk page). Your comment referring me to WP:POINT was not only not relevent, it was uncalled-for, and dredging up an old deleted comment of mine from my own User Page is a biased attempt to discredit me and smacks of wikistalking. I respectfully but firmly request that you edit your comments to make them more neutral. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, because of the incivility issues, I have opened a Civility Complaint at WP:WQA, thanks. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)