User talk:Mets501/Archive 9

Kilkis move

Thanks for the speedy move of the Greek battleship Kilkis article! --Kralizec! (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Major League Baseball All-Star Game Records

An article you prodded last week is now listed at AfD. The article's creator removed the prod tags (I had placed a prod2 right under your prod tag.) Just letting you know. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. But what the heck are you doing here with the game still going? :) | Mr. Darcy talk 02:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

AWB/Get a clue

Perhaps you ought to read the talk page of Wikiproject mathematics before claiming I'm the one objecting to Unicodifying mathematics articles. This has been discussed repeatedly, and always with a firm consensus opposing — which you should remember from your own participation. In fact, I tend to use a lot of Unicode in text I originate, and have even advertised my private page with a huge table of mathematics characters. Get a clue before you shoot from the hip. --KSmrq^T 04:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Userpage redesign

Hi - Guinnog recommended you! Any chance of a makeover? Bentley Banana 11:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer of help. I'm keen on a design in amber and black (tiger colours, essentially). Fonts and other settings can remain default, I think. Do you require a list of facts/interests etc? I'm really a novice on these things - require all possible guidance. Much obliged. Bentley Banana 21:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Facts - male, British (English), journalist, married, supporter of Hull City AFC, owner of Basset hounds, and with particular wikipedia interest in football, radio, crime and pop music. I use British English, have working knowledge of French, deploy Mozilla Firefox, have politically (UK) Conservative sympathies and drink Guinness. Hope this acts as a start! Bentley Banana 17:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks, really obliged! Bentley Banana 03:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ceres

I don't disagree that there wasn't consensus to move. But there was also consensus in the discussion to keep the vote open to Monday October 16th! Nfitz 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read that, but in general if it seems that a consensus is reached after 5 days then the debate is closed unless it is very close. In this case, discussion was really slowing down, and it didn't seem like the majority vote was going to be altered in any way with any new votes, nor was anyone going to change their vote, so closing the discussion was also functioning to save the time of the editors arguing. —Mets501 (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Though as consensus had been reached on when to close the poll, I think there should have been some discussion of changing this, or just waiting until Monday, given how contentious this has been in the last 2 months or so. Though now you've closed it, re-opening it would probably be a worse idea! Nfitz 19:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Line height

I don't know what was done to the global stylesheet but it needs to be fixed - having a hack in one skin file is Very Bad. ed g2s • talk 17:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Template Barnstar

		The Template Barnstar
		For the creation of the incredibly thoughtful {{dist}} -- ßottesiηi (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 42	16 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wikipedia partially unblocked in mainland China	$100 million copyright fund stems discussion
Floyd Landis adopts "the Wikipedia defense" as appeal strategy	News and notes: Logo votes begin, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Playstation → Playstation 1

Please follow the instructions at WP:RM to request a possibly controversial page move; I think that some people may object to that move (Playstation → Playstation 1). —Mets501 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

okay, sorry, I didn't know it would be controversial. --gatoatigrado 20:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

‎Bama bangs

Can you take a look at this article [[1]] and tell me if this is a legitimate article? Is a hairstyle, especially one that is a current fad, really notable enough for an article? I was going to tag it for deletion, but could not think of a legitimate category. I would appreciate your opinion. ---Charles 03:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will trust your judgment on this one, but this still seems borderline to me... ---Charles 17:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Melchoir

Hi there; User:Melchoir is away for a few days, but I am sure he will be delighted by the tag; I wish I had thought of it, as I nominated him.--Anthony.bradbury 14:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Metsbot and California

Could metsbot cruise through Category:California adding {{WikiProject California}} to the talk pages? Please let me know. --evrik 18:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a minor quibble, not specifically about your bot, but about bots in general. They always seem to add their project tags above the ones that are already there, I suppose because they always add tags to the top of the page, where such things belong. When I add project tags manually, I usually add them below the other ones so as not to attempt to upstage anybody's project, if that makes sense. So here are some of our modest little {{WikiProject Oregon}} pages minding their own business, and along comes this huge {{WikiProject California}} tag! Yeah, being an Oregonian, I have issues with California I need to work out, but besides that, I don't suppose there is any way to get a bot to recognize that there are other project tags already on the page? Katr67 20:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My minor quibble is that I enjoy being able to glance at the "discussion" tab at the top of a page, and if it's red, knowing that I don't need to bother clicking on it. But the bots rampant in WP add banners to every Talk page, and soon there won't be any more red "discussion" tabs. Oh well. I guess they really should have two separate tabs, one for true discussions and one for Projects This Page Belongs To. - Lawrence King 09:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC), who just got this project banner on several of his pages (and who is not from Oregon, no offense!)

I now have some more serious objections, which I have stated at User:MetsBot/Requests#WikiProject California. (I'm not sure if this page, or the other page, is the proper place for MetsBot gripes.) - Lawrence King 05:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• I thnink there should be a template developed that allows for more than one wikiproject to be listed in the same template. In that way, there is no conflicts at the toip of a page. --evrik 18:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Breitenbush River in wikiproject California?

Your bot tagged [2] Breitenbush River for wikiproject California. Is this correct? — EncMstr 22:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It just tagged [3] Crater Lake, another well-inside-Oregon location. — EncMstr 22:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Both of those were tagged because Category:Cascade_Range is under Category:Mountain ranges of California. --evrik 18:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit regarding Metsbot

Hi, I reverted a Wikiproject California tag on Talk:Crater Lake. Crater Lake is not part of California; it is part of Oregon. Thanks. bibliomaniac15 23:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for Talk:Cougar Mountain, which is in Washington State. Art LaPella 16:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad

As much as I would like to think H&SJ made it to California, it never left the state of Missouri (the only possible reason I can think that it would pop into the California Metsbot was that it carried mail EAST from St. Joseph from the Pony Express. If you think that's strong enough criteria, you can put it back. Otherwise, I've deleted it. Americasroof 00:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Category:Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad falls under Category:Burlington Northern Railroad which is underCategory:California railroads. --evrik 18:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

MetsBot

You might want to check on your bot. It just added a WikiProject California tag to the talk page of Lawrence, Kansas (see this diff [4] ). I reverted it, but thought you could use a heads-up. RedRollerskate 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That article was in Category:California Trail. I've removed {{WikiProject California}} from other articles in that category that shouldn't have the template. Mike Dillon 21:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. RedRollerskate 21:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

California's Flora

I think that MetsBot should limit itself to applying the WikiProject California tag to plants that are either endemic to California or endemic to the California Floristic Province. Or there could be a tag that simply says the plant is a member of the California Flora. But tagging plants that have large distributions outside of California, or worse yet, plants that have a large cultural significance outside of California could mislead the casual browser of Wikipedia who strays to a talk page and sees the tag.

Sorry, I don't know how to make mine a subheading instead of heading level tag.

KP Botany 18:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Thanks for the greetings, I spent a bit of time here, though rather inactively; your welcome is appreciated, even if from a Metropolitans fan. A question re: airports but really about images in general. So many of the airports images, and indeed most any of these types of articles will not have "common" images to take from, I take it that those images found on websites are in questionable waters as far as copyright is concerned, what is the compromise? I would think that otherwise the majority of our images would be ruled out?Internazionale 15:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Common.css

Re [5]: Where has this been discussed? Which delete links do you refer to? I would propose to not use display:none gimmiks (see Wikipedia:hiddenStructure for some reasoning why). --Ligulem 18:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the delete link you added on MediaWiki:Linkshere. This is completely unneeded and confusing. I've also reverted your change to Common.css, which is now unneeded as well. --Ligulem 22:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Move at Heroes III.

Hi. You were the one who closed down the debate at Heroes of Might and Magic III rather than resubmit it for more votes (what I was expecting to happen). I disagree with this decision, and was wondering if there would be a problem with reopening the debate and resubmitting Heroes III to Requested Moves.

See, this article was at the longer title for most of its life. Occasionally Frecklefoot has moved it to Heroes III (like recently), and myself and at least two other people who have been against such a move. Those two other people who have argued against moving the article, though, simply haven't logged on (at least according to their contributions) since then. There was already a debate above the main one on the talk page where Frecklefoot was basically being outvoted, in case you didn't notice. My point is that I can see why such a debate might be closed due to lack of interest if there was a "status quo" to return to and not enough impetus to make a move (the 60/40 rule and all). The problem is that this status quo was my proposed move- I was trying to reset Frecklefoot's recent change. The page title was in contention for some time, so there basically was no impartial status quo.

The 60/40 rule in this case creates a perverse incentive to not submit a move request to RM and to move-war instead. You have effectively punished me for "doing the right thing" and submitting the request to RM, as I feel that Frecklefoot should have submitted what he knew to be a contentious move to RM first. Suppose that I had uniltarally moved it back, and then FF had been the one to make the request to RM, and that the vote was 1-1 again. Would you have "kept" it at the longer title? That would be every bit as flawed a process, because whoever submits it to RM for actual debate loses. (Edit: For an example of a admin who apparently agrees this can be a problem, see Talk:Arabic numerals#Result- despite 56% in favor of a "keep," since it was only a keep after someone had moved the page and had it contested, he in effect decided 60% was required to "keep" the page, since it was really a move that should have gone to RM.)

Yes, it sucks when practically no one is responding, but when the vote is 1-1, and there is no "neutral" page to simply remain at, I don't think that the request can be closed, and should be relisted for more votes. SnowFire 20:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... as I stated at the talk page, no, I don't agree. Obviously it's hardly a critical issue, but I for one would prefer the subtitle to be there, as it is on other games. As I pointed out several times at the talk page, Heroes IV and Heroes V don't actually have an official subtitle, so they're already at their complete name. If the debate had decicively closed in favor of "no subtitle," then maybe I might agree, but I still believe that you closed the debate early and we haven't finished figuring out where Heroes III should go yet.

As a style-and-form thing, why didn't you say what you just said on my talk page over at the RM page? It would have added to the debate and we might have gotten more responses, and I could have responded to it before the debate closed. I still disagree with you closing it, at least without more explanation- if you had said AfD style that "I agree with Frecklefoot hahaha we win," that would be better, but if you have an opinion on an issue and it isn't resolved yet, just go ahead and post your thoughts. Somebody else can close the debate.

Anyway. As for consistency and Heroes II, I think this should be taken up over at the CVG Project page or the like for input or the possible creation of guidelines on when subtitles should be used, because there needs to be more input and things are currently inconsistent everywhere. A quick random check shows that both styles are used- Warcraft II (no Tides of Darkness), Ogre Battle: March of the Black Queen (subtitle used), and Xenosaga Episode II: Jenseits von Gut und Böse (both subtitles used). SnowFire 01:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

Please see MediaWiki talk:Linkshere for a recent reversion of one of your updates. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge Management

Hi, I've dropped the Wikiproject California tag from the Knowledge management article - I just cannot see any connection to the state, explicit or implicit. Please let me know if there was some logic behind this; I'm assuming it just slipped in. Kuru ^talk 14:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs I Believe I Can Fly Saxe-Altenburg Aerocar International Neumarkt-Egna Sexten-Sesto DJ Jazzy Jeff Deutschnofen-Nova Ponente Saxe-Gotha Elections in Japan Ladin Saxe-Coburg Albert Town, New Zealand David LaChapelle Lana, Italy E-40 Ernst II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Imperial Highness Sterzing-Vipiteno Kaltern-Caldaro

Cleanup Kissing cousins László Buday Phases of the Holocaust Merge EM64T Skull-kid John Fitch Add Sources Nas Nuclear arms race Busta Rhymes Wikify Christine Cavanaugh Starshaped Moshe Teitelbaum (the First) Expand D-Link East Coast hip hop Curvilinear coordinates

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete link

Here's what I did for the JS. It doesn't create the link, but it does the DHTML portion:

function addDeleteLink() {
    var targetSpan = document.getElementById('specialDeleteTarget');
    var linkSpan = document.getElementById('specialDeleteLink');
    if (targetSpan == null || linkSpan == null) return;

    var targetLink = targetSpan.getElementsByTagName("A")[0];
    if (targetLink == null) return;

    linkSpan.appendChild(document.createTextNode(" Delete: " + targetLink.childNodes[0].data));
}
addOnloadHook(addDeleteLink);

I used it on the structure at User:Mike Dillon/Linkshere. Mike Dillon 18:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This could probably be better generalized using classes instead ids. Something link this:

<span class="specialDeleteLink">'''<span class="specialDeleteTarget">[[:Article to link]]</span>'''<span class="specialDeleteHook"></span></span>

It gets a little trickier in that case since you have to iterate through node lists to check classes, unlike using getElementById, but the DOM part stays the same Mike Dillon 18:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your reply on my talk page. Mike Dillon 18:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yoghurt move

I'm not sure moving it to yogurt is a good idea. I know I've been a crusader for that, but interpreting people's votes based on their justifications isn't a common activity - plus, people who cited the MoS incorrectly may have been motivated by other reasons they were not proud to admit, based on the fact that none of them ever changed their votes. The basis of my arguments for the move have been that keeping the peace on Wikipedia is best accomplished by having a truly neutral policy. However, this move, done without apparent consensus, will anger the folks who voted against the move quite a bit. It would have been safer to start the voting over again, notifying people, I think. --Yath 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that discussions on requested moves are just that: discussions. They are not votes, nor does the side with the most votes always win. Interpreting people's votes and reading their justification is in fact quite a bit more common than you may think. For example, in an AfD discussion, if 6 people vote to keep the article and then someone notices that it's a full copyright violation it will be deleted. Conversely, if 6 people vote to delete the article and the two people at the end come along and say they found references that clearly meet the criteria for inclusion, the article will be kept. I went to read the entire debate with no anticipation whatsoever as to which side I would be swayed towards, and I found the reasons for moving the article much stronger than the reasons for keeping it where it was, so I moved it. —Mets501 (talk)

I commend your decision; I would have done the exact same thing had I had the ability to do so. Score one for the discussion team. -- tariqabjotu 04:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Your move has been reverted. It's back at Yoghurt now. --Serge 04:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved it back to Yogurt, but wouldn't be surprised to see it moved again, and again and again... --Serge 04:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for move protecting Yogurt. However, it has been unprotected and moved to Yoghurt again. I'll try to move revert that again. --Serge 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yoghurt Revisited

I would like to say what you did was still a score for the discussion team, but at the same time, I feel there is a part of consensus that needs to be followed here. It was commendable that you discounted a couple contradictory comments that mentioned the MoS – that I certainly agree with – but I'm beginning to think you missed a couple comments, especially because they were located in a different section (I don't think they should have been placed there, but they're okay). I do agree that some of the points couldn't exactly hold a mountain, but at the same time I feel that the strength of a statement can only go so far. Take, for example, the recent move request for Los Angeles. I did not find many of the oppose comments compelling but I most certainly would not have performed the move (not that I had the ability to do so; that's why I opted to participate in the request) because that would have required a great number of comments to be discounted (rather unnecessarily I must say). The comments you discounted on the Yogurt move request were discounted for good reason, in my opinion, as they were essentially based on misinformation. However, given the evidence noted by Guettarda, you would need to discount several more oppose comments to maintain the approximate sixty percent threshold; frankly, there are no more oppose comments, in my opinion, that are based on misinformation and thus no more oppose comments to be discounted. All in all, perhaps you should change your decision to no consensus (moving back to Yoghurt) or relist the move request. Alternatively, you could ask me (or someone else) to do it if you do not want to that yourself. -- tariqabjotu 22:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My bot userpage

Thanks for checking my bot userpage :). I've put a link to the bot approval page on the bot's userpage. You can find all data required by the bot policy following said link. I hope this resolves your concern. Best regards, --Ligulem 21:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Pagemovedtext

Hi Mets. I really liked having a deletion link on that message page. Have you removed it altogether or can I change one of my config files to see it? --kingboyk 14:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 43	23 October 2006	About the Signpost

Report from the Finnish Wikipedia	News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"polar coordinates" - your wording change

Beginning a sentence with "due to" rather than "because of" is a sometimes controversial usage. I won't suggest changing it back, but you may get a suggestion to do so someday from the featured article reviewers. :) Newyorkbrad 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yogurt/yoghurt redux

" Please go fix all of the double redirects! - that's what i'm doing! Jooler 22:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been a Wikipedia contributor for 5 years - so please don't talk to me about "get involved with something that you know nothing about" - I know all about the insidious attempts to move that page thank you very much. Jooler 23:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I was about to weigh in when you blocked him. I think you did the right thing, although I state no opinion on the merits of which spelling the article should be at. But these things need to be done properly. --Guinnog 23:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Abuse

Your block of Jooler is against policy and arbcomm precident. Please unblock him/her immediately and stop your persistent abuse of your admin privileges. Guettarda 23:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your actions are unacceptable. Blocking for warning removal is not permitted. Figure out what is permitted before you use your admin privilege. It isn't unacceptable to misrepresent votes when you close an RM, it isn't acceptable to move-protect a page for no reason except to support your incorrect close (it isn't acceptable to just ignore votes, simply because you disagree with them), it isn't acceptable to threaten a user for removing warnings (let alone the bogus warnings that you were sending based on your page move against consensus) and it is not acceptable for your to block in violation of the blocking policy. So please unblock Jooler.

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_for_removing_warnings Guettarda 00:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack, it's a reflection on your abuse of admin privileges and your general unsuitability for adminship. Your inflexible attitude is a serious problem. Saying "[p]lease do not come to my user talk page with long monologues; I will not change my opinion if you write to me" is unacceptable in a collaborative project. That level of contempt for your fellow editors really isn't something we can afford in admins here. Blocking in violation of policy is bad enough - maybe you didn't know better, but the onus is on you to figure this out before you block. But the real problem is your response to being corrected - when I informed you of your mistake, you refused to budge. If you make a mistake and someone corrects you, the normal thing to do is apologise and correct the mistake. To grudgingly correct your mistake, or even say "go ahead and unblock" reflects poorly on a person, but it's human nature. No one likes to be told they are wrong, but eventually most people learn to accept it. But you did neither. You, in effect said, "nope, I'm not going to be swayed". What sort of reaction is that? It's most definitely not an attitude we can afford in a Wikipedia admin. Today you refuse to budge when your mistakes are pointed out - what are we to look forward to tomorrow? It's not a personal attack - it's identification of a clear liability to the project. Guettarda 01:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"No matter which version I chose, I knew I would be under heavy fire from both sides of the debate." - that's a gem. You chose to ignore a large number of votes in order to get your desired result, and

"and I had made my decision based on the discussion that had already occurred. - no, that is false. If that was the case, why did you ignore 4 opinions and mischaracterise two of them? You explained why you rejected a number of opinions, but you continue to refuse to explain why you simply ignored many of the other opinions.

"I would only change it if everyone in the debate wrote to me on my talk page, which, as you know, is impossible" - in other words, exactly what I said - imperious contempt for your fellow editors.

"If I perform an action that you think is a mistake, that does not mean that everyone thinks that it is a mistake" - under what possible scenario is it not a mistake to ignore four votes and mischaracterise two of them? The only way it could not be a mistake is if you intentionally moved the page against consensus.

"If you make a decision that I disagree with, should you change it or risk being called inflexible?" - straw man argument. If I violated policy and abused admin privileges and someone pointed it out to me, I would obviously undo it immediately; even if I was unsure about it I would undo first, and then verify whether it was correct or not.

"We are technically on the same level in this Wiki: there is really no real power structure here" - good of you to point that out. NO LISTEN TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID and stop treating others with contempt. That said, there are obviously many hundreds of people here who are far more familiar with Wikipedia policy than you are. If you aren't aware of the appropriate policy or guideline, don't use your admin privileges. Don't make threats. Don't treat other editors with contempt. Don't move pages against consensus. Don't block users with whom you are in conflict. Don't move-protect pages to support your illegitimate move. STOP VIOLATING WIKIPEDIA POLICY. Simple enough. Guettarda 12:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My "claims" that you are violating policy? Did you miss all the comments on WP:AN/I? Did you bother to read the links I provided? Guettarda 00:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Before we lose either or both of you, Mets, please just admit your errors and apologise, and Guet, please stop chasing the matter. Let it drop, both of you. – Chacor 01:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Chacor. This needs to stop quickly. Incidentally, I've just checked Mets501's admin block log. The total number of users he's blocked in 3 1/2 months since he became an admin in early August - other than for vandalism, bad username, banned user sockpuppets, etc. - can be counted on one hand. He's a dedicated admin doing good work (I think lately he's patrolled the requested moves page and fixed mainpage errors, among other things). Granted, he's not perfect; who is?

I do urge that in the future Mets501 consider consulting with other admins or post to ANI before throwing any potentially controversial blocks. I will refer him to the recent lengthy discussion on whether "users removing warnings" should really be considered a serious problem worthy of blocking (or block-extension) or not. (Addendum: please see here.)

Further, I urge that to avoid controversy in the future, Mets501 should publicly commit to abstain for one year from using his admin privileges in any yogurt-related matters. :) But the idea that any mistakes he made yesterday suggest that he's some sort of dangerous out-of-control sysop or a "clear liability to the project" is preposterous. Newyorkbrad 01:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of table background

I think you'll find that horizontal rules and other ugly stuff will now visibly run into tables in Monobook, rather than stopping at their borders as before. I suggest, instead of removing the background entirely,

table { background-color: #F8FCFF; }
.ns-0 * table { background-color: white; }

as is currently done for various other things like border color, etc. up at the top of the stylesheet. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I've changed it. —Mets501 (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

re:Colour

Hmm... Daniel's problem with seeing my text was his computers settings were a little darker than normal. Can you see if you are able to see them under different settings before I have to change it. :) semper fi — Moe 02:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I prefer black text, so I think I'll change the tone of the purple. semper fi — Moe 02:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

How about now? semper fi — Moe 02:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

All colors are changed. Thanks :) semper fi — Moe 04:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Stress

Even if you never thought you'd be on the stress alerts page, that's what it's there for, and we're glad you put yourself on there so we can hopefully relax a bit! Sorry that you're feeling so stressed out, I know you will find a way to relax, but good luck! And if things are really getting to you, just stepping back from Wikipedia for a moment can help. -- Natalya 06:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Your message

I appreciate your message. All I really wanted of you was to check policy when you are unsure, and if someone says that you have made a mistake, give them the benefit of the doubt. Thank you for your message, and I hope that your future in Wikipedia is bright and stress-free. Guettarda 13:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. I apologise for the harshness of what I said and the stress I caused you. A lot of it was unnecessary and excessive. This in the national flower of my home country. Thank you for the way you concluded this unfortunate matter. Guettarda 13:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I was impressed too and have awarded you a Barnstar. Well done, to both of you. --Guinnog 21:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Wow, thanks Mets! That's really nice of you. I hope that my words helped a bit. :) -- Natalya 14:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Mets501, Thanks for your help with effecting the move of the old Pathological skepticism article to the more appropriate Pseudoskepticism location. I just couldn't figure out how to do it. That link was already occupied by a redirect, so my attempt was unsuccesful. It's nice to have a good admin do the job! Much appreciated.

On another note, I see that you offer your help with designing user pages. I'd love to have your help with mine. Just make it look like yours and I can take it from there. Thanks again. -- Fyslee 11:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the stylish user page design. It looks great! Now I know where to come for expert help on coding issues....;-) Regards, Fyslee 14:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Line-heights causing issues with printable version

This change is no longer necessary, since I reverted my line-height changes to Monobook long ago. But it's messing up the printable version by increasing its line-height from 1.2em to 1.5em: see Mediazilla:7748. So you might want to undo the changes (I won't recommit the line-height fixes until they're working right, promise ;) ). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving pages

Hey, I just wanted to ask you for some help. I requested a move on Mark Calaway to The Undertaker. I requested it on October 24, and it has been five days. The majority is Support 6 to Oppose 1. Now, how do I go about moving the page Since The Undertaker is a re-direct page? If you could please reply on my talk page I would appreciate it. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  19:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  19:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks exactly the same. How is it any different? I'd be glad to chagne it but it doesn't look any different. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, is this better? --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter Burnett page move

Thanks for doing this. I'm still about confused about the logistics, but it all worked out. :)–Outriggr § 04:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

MetsBot malfunction ?

• Mets501,

I don't mean to trouble you, however it seems edits made by User:MetsBot, in which it has been correcting .pdf links, now only displays an internal link to PDF without an external link. I'm not sure weither this is a problem with the bot itself or a problem with the pdf template itself, however I thought you might want to look into it. Thans for your time. MadMax 08:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 44	30 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wales resigns chair position as reorganization underway	Hypothetical valuation of Wikipedia scrutinized
Work underway to purge plagiarized text from articles	Librarian creates video course about Wikipedia
Report from the Japanese Wikipedia	News and notes: Commemorative mosaic started, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Southern California WikiProject

It is interesting that one of the side-effects of MetsBot's tagging of all the California articles with the {{WikiProject California}} template has been an increase in membership in the California WikiProject.

I was wondering if you could do the same thing for the Southern California WikiProject. It'd be a little more complicated than just tagging every article that has a category that has category:California as a parent. The only way that I can see doing it would be to go to Category:California counties, and go to each of the subcategories for the counties in Southern California (which are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California#Scope).

Question: Is MetsBot intelligent enough to copy over any of the imporatance ratings in any existing California Wikiproject template with ratings (e.g. {{WikiProject California|class=B|importance=High}}) to the {{WikiProject Southern California}} template? ^BlankVerse 11:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Shoot on Sight

Thanks much, I'm glad I'm on the right track. How the heck did you make it dissapear so fast though? A "Speedy" tag doesn't do that...--Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one: Cartooncartoon. I don't mean to be harrassing you with all this, but you stuck your neck out and answered me :) Seriously, if you can tell me how to Delete this, I'd love to...or does one need a mop-and-bucket to do things like that? If so, would you please nuke it yourself? Thanks for your time, I really appreciate it! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: It's gone; nothing left but a smoking crater...you Admins are really on the ball :) Thanks anyway and happy editing. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

UserPage

Hey Mets. I think you have a great UserPage. I copied and modified the page to make it my own, I hope you don't mind. I also gave you credit at the bottom of my page. Mkdw 19:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's addictive adding new things. Mkdw^talk 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

VandalSniper

Thanks for applying to use VandalSniper! You have been approved. If have not already done so, you may find instructions to install VS on the project page.

As some of the libraries VandalSniper runs on are currently in transition, there have been a few issues reported with setup. At the moment, Linux is the most compatible platform for VS. If you have questions or problems, you may find help on the project page or its talk page. Please also feel free to contact me for help and I will do my best to assist you.

Thanks for becoming a part of one of Wikipedia's best new software tools! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

MetsBot

I didn't follow up because I thought MetsBot was out of the category-tagging business. If it's willing to give it another try, I'll send you some details this weekend. Thanks for thinking of me! Newyorkbrad 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

yog[h]urt

In yogurt, when you %s/yogurt/yoghurt/g'ed, you whacked the spelling section which was supposed to contain all the variants. Be a little more wary of such global replaces next time, 'kay? :) --moof 09:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

re: User:Linas

Look at his talk page: he answered your comments there. He's also started arguing at Template talk:Cite web. Circeus 16:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)