User talk:Ed g2s/Archive5

Hi Ed, can you please figure out what's wrong with the way kits are coming up in Template:national football team and also in Template:Football club infobox. In Firefox browser, the two kits are left aligned, which looks bad if the width of the box stretches: see Zambia national football team and Clube de Regatas do Flamengo for examples. It does work fine in MSIE. I don't think any changes have been made to the templates themselves recently (I tried to fix it today, didn't work, so I reverted it). --Dryazan 13:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well done on spotting the items which have fallen through the cracks on WP:FPC. I remember the Gastrulation, I'm not sure why it got lost on the close of voting. On the other hand I suspect that Mouse-mechanism-cutaway never got added to FPC, but it looks like Jeremy intended to and it is certainly worthy. -- Solipsist 21:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I know that my question is of those rather silly ones. I saw your image of four dices (in PNG article). Could you reveal POVray source of this file? I'd be grateful. If so, please send it to ndr1980/at/o2/dot/pl. Thanks in advance. :) Lucas (Poland)

Unfortunately I lost the source file when my hard disc crashed. ed g2s • talk 11:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed - the MediaWiki upgrade meant that the football kit graphics in Template:Football kit were no longer displaying correctly on some browsers (all graphics were 1px x 1px) - I did a temporary fix - see here. Comments & advice welcome... Qwghlm June 28, 2005 10:37 (UTC)

You have repeatedly removed official statements from the 7 July 2005 London bombings entry under the guise of copyright violation. It seems to me quite clear that official statements issued to the press are there to be reproduced, but for further clarification;

This guidance describes how waiver of copyright applies to the reproduction of official press notices and releases.

...

Which material is covered?

6. The policy set out in this Guidance Note applies to official press notices and releases issued by government departments and agencies. This includes the complete text of government press notices, except in those cases where there is a statement contained in the press notice to the effect that the copyright in specific material is not held by the Crown. It also covers the copyright which subsists in the typographical arrangement of government press notices. For ease of reference, the term Material as used in this Guidance Note should be taken to mean Crown copyright protected text and typographical arrangement as featured in press notices issued by government.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copyright/copyright-guidance/reproduction-of-government-press-notices.htm

and secondly from http://www.direct.gov.uk/SiteInformationArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4004501&chk=T7f9a9

Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos and photography) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium, provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context.

DamienG July 7, 2005 17:35 (UTC)

Did you not even read that? This guidance describes how waiver of copyright applicies to the reproduction of official press notices and releases. They are waiving their copyrights on official press releases issued by government departments and agencies. Therefore how can it be incompatible?

DamienG July 8, 2005 11:56 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the above template, it is currently the subject of a revert war where both sides are at the 3RR limit. ~~~~ 13:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- just apologizing if I've been conflicting with your reverts -- just letting you know we're on the same team here. It seems like yo're on top of it, so I'll stay out of it for now so we don't conflict with each other. Thanks for helping fight the vandalism. --Arcadian 19:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your edits. These issues have already been much discussed, they have been listed on copyright problems and the KJV problem was found not to be an issue. There is already a survey underway on this issues at Wikipedia:Bible source text please vote there, or better yet join the discussion at Talk:Matthew 1. - SimonP 16:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted you. The verse articles are almost impossible to use without a textual guide. It is also wrong to rely on Wikisource. Almost none of our mirrors also copy wikisource, if Wikipedia ever is released on DVD it is unlikely Wikisource would be included, and the same goes for the projects installing Wikipedia on computers in Africa. The copyright issue does not matter. We cannot obey every copyright law in every country. We only need to follow U.S. and that is Wikipedia policy, consider the thousands of fairuse images that cannot be used in any country outside the United States. Also UK fair dealing law is quite liberal with commentaries, even more so than American fair use, so these articles should be fine even in the UK. - SimonP 16:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

You have reverted this template three times already today, do not do so again - if you revert more than three times in any 24 hour period you break the Wikipedia:Three revert rule (3RR). Thryduulf 13:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are amazing, wonderful, fantastic. Sorry you're not here - Wikimania is proving to be fun, if a bit tiring.

James F. (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to let you know I've listed Image:McLaren F1 logo.png for deletion as it has been superceded by Image:Team McLaren Mercedes logo.GIF. Mark83 23:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the format issue, I've uploaded the new logo as a PNG file and listed the GIF file for deletion and informed the uploader.

Please do not modify the layout of the Mtnbox templates without first discussing your proposed changes on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/General. RedWolf 18:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Please revert your reverts. I wish to take this issue to the mediation committee. Your changes have broken dozens of infoboxes. RedWolf 03:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain why you changed the Template:Infobox Province of Cameroon style? I think I prefer the way it looked before, but if you can point me to some policy or consensus about infoboxes . . . . BrianSmithson 19:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no written policy yet, but consensus is to skin table elements to match the rest of the site, e.g. image boxes. ed g2s • talk 19:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to where this consensus was reached? Thanks. BrianSmithson 22:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to image boxes, there was a big vote on meta a while ago, not sure where. The point is by using a stylesheet class, the appearance is tied to the skin, so it can be edited by the user, or change with different skin settings, as opposed to using whatever the user agent sets as the default. For an example look at all the box elements at the bottom of this page. ed g2s • talk 00:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to go with the new look, but I would like to add one tweak: There should be a horizontal line going between the textual information and the map image. I can't figure out how to do this, though. Can you help me out? Thanks again. BrianSmithson 00:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A horizontal rule under the image (----) should do the trick. ed g2s • talk 01:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, but it didn't work. Then again, I have little idea what I'm doing. Could you give it a look when you get a chance? Thanks again. BrianSmithson 02:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on User Talk:Sperling#Float right, just posting this here because I don't know if you're watching that page. --K. Sperling 14:42, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed. As it seems you're the resident expert on infobox's, I was wondering if you would take a look at the ones I've created for the year/decade/century/millenia pages as part of the Years Wikiproject.

You can find them at {{yearbox}}, {{decadebox}}, {{centurybox}}, {{millenniabox}}, and {{C21YearInTopic}}.

As it stands, on 2004 for example, to have both yearbox and C21YearinTopic look like they are attached (and cleaner) I had to leave yearbox open (no "|}" at the end of it) and have no opening to C21 (no class= etc...). This works fine if both templates are used on a page, but if they aren't (like on 1602 then I have to type the "|}" on the years page to close it out. And if I code them to be two complete infoboxes then they appear side by side, or, with enough hard returns put in the page, lined up on top of each other but looking quite ugly. If there is a way I would like to be able to put any combination of boxes up and have them connect and stay the same width.

Any help, suggestions, referrals to help pages or others in the know would be much appreciated.

- Trevor macinnis 23:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like you to reconsider all the edits you've done to many of the "infoboxes". Many of which you've made unnecissarily more difficult to read. If you would please help making reverts to the boxes, it'd be appreciated. Or if there is a good explanation, that'd be nice too. Oh, I've just noticed that I'm not the first one to critique your template edits :P , for the record this is in reference to the templates about mountains and hills. --Aaron Einstein 00:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

They're more difficult to read because the code doesn't separate the different sections and doesn't look as good. Heck, it doesn't even have ":"s. And what default skin are you refering to, and where does it say it has to comply with it.--Aaron Einstein 00:14, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

There are no rules saying you can't have it that way¹, seeing that it's not necesary to be changed. Obviously the many people who had edited the template before had no problem with it. It really does look better the other way too :P . --Aaron Einstein 00:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm starting to see what you're getting at now. I understand now, sorry for being such a nuisance. --Aaron Einstein 01:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I reverted your last edit to this template because it screwed up the layout of the pages it is on (at least, it screwed up Hungary, as viewed with Firefox, to look like this). I can see you changed a lot of things and much of it is probably OK, so please reinsert any non-invasive changes. KissL 09:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I cleared the cache, restarted Firefox, cleared the cache once again to make sure, loaded the page, reloaded bypassing the proxy, and it still looks the same :( However, it does work with IE. My useragent is:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT 4.0; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040803 Firefox/0.9.3

Maybe it's time to get a more up-to-date version? KissL 11:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I loaded the CSS, but it didn't help. Actually, when I tried previously, I checked LiveHTTPHeaders, and all the CSS files seemed to be downloaded (I always got a 200 OK response with a sensible Content-Length instead of 304 Not Modified, which I would expect with a cache or proxy problem). KissL 12:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All of a sudden, it started to work today, about half an hour ago. I have no idea why it didn't work before. Anyway, thanks for your help & sorry about the confusion! KissL 11:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... though, instead of toccolors, why not use infobox? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

leave the texas template alone. 192.138.194.178 17:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stop messing with it and reverting. we texans know what is best. 192.138.194.178 17:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a response for the two messages you left on my talk page.

Your message... "Seeing as you're pretty much the only editor of this page, and the anonymous IP traces back to Houston, I suggest you stop making these reverts before you get yourself blocked."

My response... Getting blocked for what? Is this a threat? Are you threatening me because I do not appreciate that.

Your message... Stop reverting this template (anonymously or otherwise). There are 49 other templates that this has to conform with. ed g2s • talk 15:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My response... Those certainly are not my IPs since my IP starts with 63.xx.xxx. etc.

First, why are you threatening to block me? You're the one who keeps on changing the content and style of that template. I am not the one vandalizing (American English spelling) it.

Second, there is no right or wrong style or standardization (American English spelling) of templates.

Third, there is no rule on what color or colors (American English spelling) should or shouldn't be used on templates.

Please discuss on the Template:Texas talk page on why you want to change the colors and style that has been there.

I do not not appreciate you (not being from Texas and especially not from the States) keep on changing the content of other people's work that is not really relate to where you live at all. What interest do you have changing to what you think is best for us? Please leave that template alone. I have spent a lot of time figuring out the style and colors. You have no legitimate rationale for keeping on changing it to your style.

You changed some of the tags at first and I kept it, the only thing I changed back were the colors. So, some of your edits to that template were kept.

Also, every time you revert back the template, you leave off a region. You are the one vandalizing that template by leaving off a region each time and not explaining why you want to remove the images and colors. What interest does this have for you? You don't see me going around messing with articles or templates regarding to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, do you? I mind my own business and where I live. You shouldn't dictate what the Texas template should or should not look like, unless you explain why it is so important to revert to your plain style. The last time I look, Template:California was just like template Texas. What I am trying to say is that the Texas template is not the only one that is colorful (American English spelling).

Please take your legitimate to the talk page for Template:Texas

Also, please leave that template alone.

– UH Collegian 19:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually got the idea from the Template:California. There are some other states that have colorful templates and with that style. The Texas template wasn't the only one. The colors I chose for Texas was not a personal preference. The colors of Texas are Red, White, and Blue. Therefore, I used red, white, and blue for the template. – UH Collegian 19:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains/General#Multiple_issues.

I hope this will at least resolve part of the dispute. JesseW 05:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you changed the CSS on the WP:FPC infobox - but it no longer floats on the right, leaving a very large blank space on the top of the FPC page. I've tried fiddling with the style attribute, but I can't seem to get it right. Could you have a look at it again please? Thanks. Enochlau 13:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ed, for creating this! Shall we publicize it widely to start the discussion? Would you like to start with describing your proposed infobox class?

Thanks again! -- hike395 06:03, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not modify the taxobox formatting without getting concensus on WP:TOL. You've been asked before. Edit it again without getting concensus and I will be forced to start proceedings against you. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to say I that I liked the change you made to Template:UK constituency infobox :) -- Joolz 22:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC) (PS: your talk and user pages are messed up, at least on Safari)[reply]

Can you present your info-box-styling example at your policy-proposal? So everybody gets an idea of what they look like.--Fenice 12:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ed, could you check out my latest edits (since reverted) to the football_club_infobox and football_kit templates? Are those the correct edits to add the possibility of modifying the shorts to incorporate patterns? Also, every club that links to football_club_infobox would first need to be updated to include "pattern_sh1=" and "pattern_sh2=" in their infobox in order to ensure that those pages won't be messed up when the two templates are changed, right? Thanks! - Pal 17:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it's not really worth it based on the amount of work versus what it actually adds. Just looking quickly it looks like were pushing 1,000 teams using the infobox! Thanks for the response. - Pal 22:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to ask why "Capacity" has a Link?? It doesn't seem good, I think. Thanks - molosztash 09:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC) Ok Ok, I got my answer, sorry for disturbing molosztash 09:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, surely the c-uploaded template should remain until the image is deleted by an admin (as I have now done). Why did you revert? ed g2s • talk 20:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't comfortable with deleting images that weren't really uploaded for the MainPage. That pic of the America's Cup was already in English Wikipedia when I put on the Mprotection. I don't want to mess up the upload history and other attributions. You're an admin at the Commons. Please fix as necessary. I have to defer this to someone like you 'coz I don't want to mess things up. I have found other images moved to the WCommons without the upload history and I don't think this is right. -- PFHLai 20:28, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Just a quick one, where did you get the crystal palace logo from. I ask more out of interest than anything else. Greg321 13:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably http://www.brandsoftheworld.com. ed g2s • talk 11:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, the London Underground line colour templates were already as per the TfL corporate identity standards for web-safe versions of the colours concerned. I'm not sure of the value of tweaking them to the RGB spec values - after all, there may still be people out there with palletteised displays. IMO, they were quite happy the way they were. --Mpk 12:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Considering 99% of users will have enough colour depth to see the RGB values, it seems a bit pointless down-grading the accuracy of the colours for the few that have low-colour displays. ed g2s • talk 12:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]