User talk:Ms2ger/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ms2ger. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π you changed several instances of inline mathematical notation to TeX. On Wikipedia, TeX works very well with "displayed" as opposed to inline mathematical notation. But when used in-line, it often gets misaligned or, on some browsers, looks comically gigantic. When TeX is used in the normal way rather than the way it is used on Wikipedia, I'd use it for inline things, but conditions are different here. Michael Hardy 21:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Skillsp2p.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -Panser Born- (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ms2ger - thanks for your edit to Eric Hutchinson. Please tell me, what is the technical difference between the "references/" tag and the Reflist tag? Thanks! -- Gekritzl 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi! {{Reflist}} incorporates the <references/> tag, but it also makes the font smaller, and it allows to divide the notes into columns by adding an extra parameter (e.g. {{Reflist|2}}), at least in browsers supporting this. Ms2ger 11:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool - thanks! -- Gekritzl 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Ms2ger 19:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Given I just undid a load of your edits, I feel I owe you an explanation. The problems with the style you applied were

1. The text was small - WP is for everyone, not just those with perfect visions
2. The {{Navbox generic}} provided a clear division of the template into sub-fields.
3. The colours were different in oprder to provide contrast when (inevitably) they get usedtogther (because some articles may well end up on both templates)

Hope that makes sens,e and you aren't too offended. Tompw (talk) (review) 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the notice :) Ms2ger 09:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ms2ger. You removed the footnotes scrollbox from article Belgium, though it was preceded with a line pointing out the unusual aspect of having such scrollbox. Your edit comment only mentioned "standardized". As far as I know, there is no explicit standard set that would allow being enforced. The line indicating the uncommon aspect (and also the recent edit history) should have led you to the talk page of the article, before removing this obviously deliberate deviation from what articles generally show. Wikipedia does not have a guideline that suggests eliminating innovations at sight, nor one that requires all articles to have an identical design. You did not leave any comment on the talk page and your edit comment does not indicate your having taken the discussion there into account.
You also eliminated the smaller font-size class of these references, although that is a very common aspect for footnotes and although the two following subsections show that smaller font-size as well. The latter has been corrected by The Storm Surfer, one of the opponents of the scrollbox. The result of your action is that you have been envolved in an apparent edit-war or that you restarted such: I would appreciate either your novel arguments on the talk page, or (rather) your undoing of your edit so as to allow reactions on the scrollbox by other readers and contributors during the coming week; these cannot occur if the scrollbox does not exist, and without such fresh input, a consensus will not be achieved. Of course, the best thing would be the combination of an interesting argumentation and the (temporary) restoring of the scrollbox. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 28 Jul2007 12:33–12:44 (UTC)

Thanks. Your not restoring towards "<div class=... ...>" with "<references />" but instead to {{reflist}} also took care of the smaller font-size class. I do wonder however, about two changes:
1) {{reflist|2}} did not retain the parameter for 2 columns. I don't use a browser that requires such, and the template talk page shows there have been problems with that recently. Your contributions history suggests you to be well aware of template techniques, possibly also on this particular columns issue. As it is not highly unusual for me to introduce footnote references in articles, I would be interested to know the currently prevailing pro and cons for "<div class=references-small><references /></div>", "{{reflist}}", and "{{reflist|2}}" (the template's talk page does not make me much wiser).
2) You did not restore the "padding:3px;border:1px solid #ababab;" style. Of course the padding is inappropriate unless the border is defined, but the latter served 2 purposes: As shorter explained on the talk page, readers usually look towards the start of the footnote lines and after glancing a few moments at some footnote, without a border may easily automatically grasp the main page scrollbar glider (which then annoyingly requires scrolling back to position the scrollbox before they can do the proper scrolling within the scrollbox). At least for slightly experienced surfers, the border (as seen at front of the footnotes) intuitively makes them realize they're in a scrollbox and grasp the proper glider. Its secondary purpose is preventing the counfounding appearance of only the top part of the last visible footnote (which cut-off cannot be prevented with the height for this scrollbox necessarily defined in other than font height (em) units): with a border that cut-off is not confounding and does not appear half as sloppy. Hence, I would like to reinsert that style aspect, but rather know your opinion before.
In case you would know someone with experience on printing issues in WP (in scrollboxes or otherwise), or perhaps with a technique that allows a style or HTML tag to depend on WP mode (left-of-article toolbox Print mode versus normal reading mode), please drop me a hint.
Sorry for taking up even more of your time. — SomeHuman 28 Jul2007 14:42–15:09 (UTC)

No problem :). {{Reflist}} without parameters gives <div class="references-small"><references /></div>. Adding an unnamed parameter, like {{Reflist|2}}, divides the list in the amount of columns specified – at least in Fx and Safari. So, basically, they're all the same.
About styles applying only on screen, that isn't possible for inline styles, so unless you can get an admin to add some rules to MediaWiki:Common.css, that'll remain the main problem of scrollboxes… Ms2ger 17:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I was afraid so :( — thanks again :) — SomeHuman 29 Jul2007 02:23 (UTC)

I reverted the edits you made to this template as they resulted in totaly screwing up the template and any articles using it, in future please use the sandbox to test things first.--padraig 16:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We actually have interlinks to the /doc pages that are on some of the s- templates you edited today. I reverted the s-roy template back to the "/" option and request that they not be converted to the template documentation header quite yet. We may use them in the future, but currently we are trying to standardize them across all the pages and that is proving hard enough. Thank you!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Articles with broken citations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Articles with broken citation templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Melsaran 13:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I passed it to User:RossPatterson, who proposed the category. –Ms2ger 14:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You edited most of the references in Postage stamps of Ireland and in doing so removed all the en dashes in numeraql ranges that I was informed were required to be inserted according to the MOS during the FAC. I don't think the MOS has changed so do you think you could correct those removed en dashes. I am presuming all the rest of the formatting is correctly done. Cheers ww2censor 14:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they're still the same. I just changed the code from – to –, using wikEd. Ms2ger 16:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Skillsp2p.PNG. 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. BetacommandBot 00:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits to {{Infobox Settlement}}, as they were causing the transclusions to loose formating. The geography class in {{Infobox Settlement}} is not related to the geo microformat, it is just wikipedia css and defines the style of the infobox (font, alignament, etc). Cheers. --Qyd 16:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI - you may want to mention that the previous template is deprecated in your edit summaries. I've caught a few of your updates being reverted because other users aren't aware of this little fact. Thanks! JPG-GR 05:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The non-awareness doesn't seem to be the reason for reverting, as Neutralhomer reverted even your edits ;) But still, thanks for the pointer, I'll try to mention it. Ms2ger 17:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you removed the flag. Is there some rule about no flags on templates? Hanfresco 07:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really, but the flag was kinda useless there IMO –Ms2ger 07:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I undid your succession box changes. You can see on his page that almost all templates are collapsed. In addition, it is becoming common for elite athletes with an abundance of succession boxes to compress the succession boxes. For example, look at succession boxes for some of Tiger's peers such as Michael Jordan or Barry Bonds. If this is a problem let me know and we can hash it out on his talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit that collapsed this template, and undid the nowrapping. The nowrap feature is helpful so that each page can be seen clearly and in an uncluttered fashion. The uncollapsing feature is needed because this is a navigational template, not a template describing achievements. Supertigerman 18:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Googlewatch ss.png. 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. BetacommandBot 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Would you mind taking a look at {{Yale}} for a moment and see if you can get the layout back to something approximating what it was before you converted it? Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Would the current version be any better? Ms2ger 16:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's quite a bit better. Is it possible to get them image to appear at the left as before, though? --Dynaflow babble 05:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As noted here, it isn't, but if you'd want to bring it up there, it might be made possible. Ms2ger 15:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you have edited {{Michigan Wolverines Football}}, I thought you might consider supporting Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I undid your edit to the Adult Swim to move the expert-subject into the article issues box. Normally, I'd agree with the combination, however the article issues box is not properly putting television articles marked for needing expert attention into Category:Television articles needing expert attention. I've left a note on the template's talk page to see if they can fix this, as some of the other expert subject's do seem to be working right. When its fixed, I'll gladly redo the combination, but for now please let them stay separate so the Television project can see that it needs attention. Collectonian (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And I undid yours, as I changed {{Articleissues}} to fix the category ;) —Ms2ger (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Grin, thanks! Much appreciated. :) Collectonian (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :) —Ms2ger (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to the template has unfortunately effected the look of the articles adversely, where captions of pics are longer. See Manasa, Parvati, Ganesha. The box is looking too big. Can you reduce the size of the infobox, so as it as the size it was before?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the message(s). —Ms2ger (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Country geography}} - could You edit out the cell borders, they make the box look ugly? Otherwise good work on it. feydey (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope it looks better now. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Super. feydey (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

They were perfectly fine as they were, with conference divisions and everything! Why did you have to change them? (And don't give a one-word answer like "standardize") I reverted them to a better look. Tom Danson (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tell me where you reverted, as you claim? I only see you converted one of them to the generic, project-wide {{Navbox}} template, where I used the basketball standardization, as explained on {{using bb}}. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You may have an opinion on this one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Wilcher.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the table. You may not be aware that a discussion of this article is under way at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Walter Byers Scholars. Feel free to comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't regard this matter as of earth-shattering importance, so I won't change your edit to Maurice Princet, but I should point out that WP:GTL explicitly allows "See also" to come before or after Notes and/or References. My own view is that the further an appendix is from the subject matter, the closer it should go to the end. In most cases, "External links" is the furthest removed, so it should go at the end, and "See also" is the next furthest removed, so it should be immediately above "External links", or at the end if there is no EL section. Regards,
--NSH001 (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember that being there… Thanks for the message :) —Ms2ger (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, as a monitor of {{User infobox}}, why you would create an entirely new one and then ask to have the well established template disposed of in favour of yours? I would strongly suggest you go to Template talk:User infobox and make a case for such a merge, since just tossing up a merge notice is considered "hit and run" and is rather irregular. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 14:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I didn't create {{Infobox user}} and I definitely didn't ask to dispose either infobox, only to merge them, to avoid redundancy. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, I blame temporary insanity, honest. Okay, let me rephrase this: I suggest it would be prudent to merge the newly created one, {{Infobox user}}, into the vastly more established {{User infobox}}, rather than the other way around. Again, my apologies. :/ — Huntster (t • @ • c) 17:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted :). I made it clearer that {{Infobox user}} should be merged into {{User infobox}}. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've just tried to rehabilitate this template, but, not being an HTML expert, I'm not sure if it can work. My suspicion is (sadly) not. Can you advise, please? Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it wouldn't work if it's transcluded, but it seems to do the right thing when subst'd, so it might be useful as a typing-aid template (for people who have the ¡ symbol on their keyboard). —Ms2ger (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought this might be the case, so, since it was intended merely as a copy'n'paste space-saver (I imagine only Spanishy keyboards would include a "¡" key!) I've requested its speedy deletion. Thanks for the confirmation. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, your edit which converted the depricated navframe to navbox completely changed the template. I've reverted it for now, and I'll see if I can switch it over, but in the future, please be more careful. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed it mainly because the previous version is almost unusable on smeller screen. If you have concerns about my edit apart from the template looking different than before, please tell me. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to discuss this on the talk page? We've been working on this for a while. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Please reconsider your reversion of this template, for this reason: Don't you find the description it can carry a little less than obvious to the eye when you first see it on a page? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to make the description stand out more, could you have a look at it? Thanks in advance. —Ms2ger (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

...and I've tinkered with it further; see edit summary. (I reckon the category description, which changes from category to category, should draw the most attention.) Okay now? Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost :). I think it makes more sense to display the border above the help parameter, even if there is no description, and I tweaked the code a bit. I'm not sure about the 100% width, but I've left it in. Thanks for the work! —Ms2ger (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Interested in this? Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 27#Template:Navigation Peru. Cheers. - Darwinek (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. It's time we get rid of this template… —Ms2ger (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ms2ger. Thanks for taking time to work on Template:Georgia College Football Venues. It is nice to see the bordering match other templates of this type when in a row. However, I have a few questions:

• After your work on the ga template, it now produces leading whitespace in front of it (see:Georgia Dome). What is the fix for that?
• In the conversion process, you removed the alternating background colors from the third column. Was there a stylistic reason for that?
• Are you going to convert the other states in this set at Category:American college football venue navigational boxes by state so they are all consistent?

Thanks, again, for your efforts. They are appreciated. Gwguffey (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope this answers your questions:

• That's part of the general navbox styles, which are overridden in the {{navbox}} template. I removed it from this template too.
• No, just a technical reason. They will reappear when the relevant code is added to Common.css, which should happen in the near future.
• That wasn't on my to-do list yet, but I have added it now ;)

Thanks for your comments —Ms2ger (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, again, Ms2ger. I have done some tweaking to this template to get the fonts and alignments of the navigation bar to match templates that use the navcore template. However, when this template is viewed via Internet Explorer the border/padding/something isn't working correctly in the collapsed state. Could you take a look and see what's up with it? Gwguffey (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish I knew. I think the same problem has been mentioned at Template talk:Navbox, but I don't think a solution was found. Damn you, IE! —Ms2ger (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Gwguffey (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you strike me as the kind of guy that understands templates, perhaps you could take a look at my proposal here and let me know if you could help us with this idea, or at least point me in the direction of someone who could. The basic plan is to merge the source code for Argentinos_Juniors#Current_Squad and {{Argentinos Juniors squad}} into a Template:Argentinos Juniors current squad which can display as both (using my favourite club as an example). Some specific reasons for doing this are in the proposal, I'm sure you could think of more reasons for combining these two functions into one template, considering the increasing number of football club articles featuring current squads, player biographies featuring squad navboxes. Cheers English peasant 02:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi -- I reverted the change you made to the Verdi opera template. I'm not sure exactly what all the things were that were changed, but at least one of them made the vertical box be the one and only thing on the page, with all content below it -- almost as if there were a <BR CLEAR="ALL"> after the template. So, I reverted rather than trying to figure out exactly what you were trying to do, since it looked like there were quite a number of different changes to the template. FWIW, I use Firefox on a mac; I didn't test it on other browser/OS combinations, but mine is not an unusual configuration.

Anyway, I wanted to let you know so you could re-fix whatever you had been trying to fix, but to be careful about the placement of the template.

Cheers,

Lquilter (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It worked when I made the change. I've noticed similar things recently, so I suppose something strange must have happened in Fx 2.0.0.13. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If "Headings *must* use heading syntax for accessibility reasons," then what is the point of these templates. They were created so they wouldn't show up in the TOC and if what you say is indeed the case, shouldn't they be deleted? --Ulf17 (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that would be the best idea, but they aren't really harmful, so I don't mind them being there. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Something happened with this edit that is causing trouble at Chetwynd, British Columbia#Government and politics. (See Talk:Chetwynd, British Columbia#Tables --maclean 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe I fixed it. Thanks for the message. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Was your objection because of the code tags or because it is a different font? I used the code tags as a quick and dirty means of getting a contrasting font to mke the layout interesting. If I were to use span tags and an appropriate html parameter would you find that acceptable? SpinningSpark 18:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The code tags, because the text in the side box obviously isn't a code snippet. Adding a style="font-family:monospace;" (←Look! code! ;)) wouldn't bother me. —Ms2ger (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATemplate_category&diff=206920344&oldid=206874457

I'm wondering if your edit summary means you might've misunderstood the purpose of the "By default..." message; it doesn't mean that subcategories are also all navbox categories as well. (Hence "...the pages in this category...") Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That isn't my point. I just do not see why you think a template category would be navbox category by default. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the majority of templates are navboxes? Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, but I still don't think that's reason enough to make them the default. Also, from the text you added, I understand that you think other template categories, e.g. for infoboxes, should be subcategories of the category used for navboxes. I don't think that makes sense, because IMO, a page in a category should fit in any of the parent categories. —Ms2ger (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, how about this: Without navbox as the default template type, I figure every template category will require at least two levels, i.e. "X templates" with subcategory "X navbox templates", rather than many template categories needing only one: "X templates" with default type navbox. The latter seems more user-friendly to me (one click rather than two to reach the majority if not all templates on a topic) and easier to maintain.

I don't see a problem with infobox/inline/etc template categories being subcategories of a category that takes navbox template pages as a default. Also, a word like "navbox" doesn't/wouldn't appear in the category's name ("X templates") and give the idea that the category is only meant to carry navbox pages and subcategories. Hope you can see what I'm getting at. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

...Have reinstated a milder form of the default note. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ms2ger. I hope you have been well since our paths last crossed. I see that back in December you converted {{San Francisco 49ers}} into the Navbox format. Did you get any negative feedback about doing that? I'm starting to wonder why these the majority of nfl team templates are using the fb format instead of the more vertical space friendly Navbox. Would appreciate your thoughts before I dive into converting one of these. --Gwguffey (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You may want to do something about this. Relates to this. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay quit trying to redirect or delete TNA PPV templates. At this following page there are templates that aren't used and aren't up for deletion that look just like TNA ppv templates, here. The reason to keep these is to improve the TNA section in the Professional wrestling project.--WillC 08:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If I didn't then they would be deleted when they shouldn't. Also you should open section on either the WP:PW talk page or on the Deletion page to see if it should be deleted first. Mainly the WP:WP talk page. If the WWE templates aren't up for deletion then these shouldn't. Also I know I'm not suppose to remove the sticker but on the Lockdown template it was deleted with in a hour on the reason of a discussion made in October of last year before the PPV expansion.--WillC 09:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay then if you place a template saying for it to be deleted then place one on each of the WWE ppv templates because there is no link to either of them besides going to the category WWE Navigational templates. I feel you should keep the {{TNAPPV}} the way it is. There will soon be many more single paged TNA ppv articles. There is No reason to change it since WWE ppv template is the same as TNA's right now. Also you said 7 days. Then the template should stay there for seven day. Not seven minutes then get deleted. I feel this is unjust that you have, in my opinion, been trying to delete the TNA ppv templates and not said one word or went to the WWE ppv templates when they are no different and a Administrator made them. I copied off of his work when I made TNA pemplates. Also I feel before you place a template on any of the templates, place a section on the WP:PW talk page about them being deleted as well as the WWE templates. Then on the deletion list talk page. So to be sure there is a reason to delete them first.--WillC 09:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I was told by User:LAX that there is now no reason to delete any of the TNA PPV templates since each article under TNA braner is getting expanded. I've been expanding Destination X (2008), Lockdown (2008) (In my sandbox), Slammiversary (2008), Victory Road (2008), and Sacrifice (2008) (In my other Sandbox). He has been expanding Slammiversary (2007) and Bound for Glory (2006) in his sandbox. Also that there was no reason to delete the Lockdown template because every one of the Lockdown events has their own article. Now if you still would like to place a speedy deletion tag on them then go right yeah. I won't remove but I will contest it. Also the reason I brung up the WWE templates is I felt that TNA shouldn't have been deleted if they aren't. It was a argument against deletion, nothing more nothing less. Just to show the unfairness.--WillC 20:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see you have. Though I've already contested to it.--WillC 20:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Looks like this template should be named "Template:Americas topic"; what do you think? Also, {{Countries of South America}} appears to be missing the Dutch territories of Aruba and Netherlands Antilles; compare {{South America topic}}. Shall I add them? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "Template:Americas topic" would make more sense, I've nominated the fork that lives there for deletion. Personally I'd just redirect {{Countries of South America}} to {{South America topic}}, but if that isn't possible, just add them. —Ms2ger (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Meanwhile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASpanish_royal_sites&diff=227988467&oldid=226123923

Why? Here, the lists now look like one continuous whole! Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, they don't, but if you think it's a problem, it should be changed for all navboxes. —Ms2ger (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but when I've suggested this (most recently, I think, at Template talk:Navbox), nothing happens. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that means there's no consensus for it. (Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy.) —Ms2ger (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's okay. Ironically, I'd say the dearth of opinion suggests consensus by near-total WP:SILENCE. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Update: I've simply converted {{Countries of the Americas}} from "Americas topic" to straightforward navbox code. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for the update, I suppose that makes sense. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Maybe I'm just being dumb, but can you explain how I'm "misreading" this? AKAICT from the mbox docs, the demospace parameter is exclusively so that on the template:skiptotoctalk page the template uses some other styling than templatespace. If this isn't the case, can you explain what this parameter does, and why it's necessary to expose it? Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

By hardcoding "talk" into the parameter, you basically made the template into a {{tmbox}}, while it is also used in the Wikipedia namespace. The demospace parameter should be usable on the documentation page and on pages like Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. Of course, that makes it usable on other pages too, but we'll have to assume it doesn't get abused. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't mbox have namespace detection built in? If so, why is a parameter needed at all? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It does, but this parameter is for demos, that is, to show how it would look in another namespace. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What did you change. ViperSnake151 17:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

See diff. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten that I created this. I will begin using it again, so I removed the housekeeping tag. Thank you!-RunningOnBrains 17:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have converted it to use {{Tmbox}}, as that's the new standard for these boxes. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Wikinews-inline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And also {{Wikispecies-inline}} OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you're doing with articlehistory, you've now populated Category:ArticleHistory error with the new page. I don't have time to track down and fix the error; that's why I usually leave adjustments on that page to Gimmetrow. Can you please solve this? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You (don't know how you fixed it, but glad I don't have to take the time to check :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I've removed the ones that caused the error. —Ms2ger (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the status here? Can you make a version which just has the new classes and formatting the template code without changing the behaviour? Gimmetrow 05:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Response at ArticleHistory, thanks for reminding me. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, I'm sorry...just wondering...what was that minor edit you did to the navbar? I just don't understand it. 67.246.11.71 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Whoops, I'm not logged in. User:Gnorthup.

I added an id. This makes it possible to add extra styles via my monobook.css. —Ms2ger (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a question on the archive box talkpage, and was directed to see if you could answer the question. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the note. —Ms2ger (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you recently converted this template to tmbox. However, I have a few aesthetic issues with it now. Is there any way to center the text or make the box bigger? Thanks. -- RattleMan 05:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Centering the text is easy, just add a |style=text-align:center; parameter. If by bigger, you mean wider—I would advise against that, as that would defeat the main goal of standardization, styling all message boxes the same. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

An "mini war" ensued over your edits. Pls comment here: Template_talk:RfarOpenTasks on which set is better, especially from a technical perspective. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See more comments there. Pls keep inputting, and no, changes don't need arb approval, that's where NCM was misleading. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I will come back to the discussion when I find time for it, at last over the weekend. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes here: Template_talk:ArbComOpenTasks#Unauthorised_changes — Rlevse • Talk • 21:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't really feel like putting time in this at the moment, I might come back to it later though. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my question in:

• Template talk:WikiProject Energy#Problem with some categories in recent revision to the template

Thanks. --Teratornis (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Your edit, described as a "cleanup" in your edit summary on Marseille, resulted in pictures becoming detached from the sections they illustrated. If you used an automatic bot, please take care in future to make sure you do not produce this kind of result, which would be quite confusing for the reader. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. Could you please point out which ones were problematic? I suspect it has more to do with screen size than my actual edits. Thanks for the note. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ms2ger! I reverted all of your edits to the archive templates for WP:PLANTS. Unless there's some larger reason (accessibility, layout unseemly on different monitors, etc.), I don't see any reason why the changes were necessary. In fact, some of my objections to it would be the background color and the text size. I admit I'm not the best at designing tables and templates, but I think what we have worked. Thoughts? (I'll also make a reply to the carnivorous plant project template at that talk page.) --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the code being quite a mess and relying on deprecated code, taking (IMO) more space than necessary, not even being close to conforming to the relevant standardisation and the links not being accessible to anyone who doesn't have JavaScript, not really. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, see, you have me convinced on three of the points above! Now it's clear the templates need to be updated. An edit summary with those links would have been better than "cleanup" in my opinion. Even better, you might have noticed that I'm the only one who has edited those archives and you could have dropped me a note like what you've written above (sans sarcasm), letting me know about the deprecated code and standardization. Your objection to the size - do you mean width? Was it creating a problem with the overall layout? I personally prefer a larger width so that when fully expanded the length doesn't become too cumbersome. I'll look in to altering the template to a more neutral background color and smaller font. I meant to also ask you for your opinion on the long term outlook on archiving. Eventually the expandable list will get too large. What are the main opinions out there on this? I was leaning toward a separate subpage directory that would list each link and the major discussion in those archives, allowing for easy access to past relevant discussions. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 17:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't noticed you were the only editor—I probably should have, though—and that's why I didn't notice you. You've got a point on the edit summary too, it's just that I'm not really used to people watching those page close enough to care about it. About the size, I did mean the width. I usually like to keep those boxes well out of my way, so I can focus on the actual content (which is also why I prefer them all looking the same)—but it's not really something I mind much, I just changed it because I was already redoing the design. I believe the current practice would be to create an /Archive index subpage, which would probably be the better solution on the long term. Thanks for taking time to discuss! —Ms2ger (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the cleaning up of Template:WikiProject Psychology! It was much needed since the previous version caused problems. /skagedal^talk 22:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! As you were the one to suggest adding classes to the importance-scale templates {{Top-importance}} etc, I thought I should inform you that I have proposed that they be renamed to use lowercase. Hopefully being so new, no one will have had the change to get to use them, so they can be renamed without any difficulty; and I think it will make our lives much easier if we do so. Apologies if this causes you any inconvenience. Happy‑melon 17:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all, go for it. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wish you whould have told us about that. Crash Underride 18:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought WP:BOLD still applied. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the need to clean up Seven-day week! but thank you for the lesson, I have taken note and I'll do better in future! --Pnb73 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No need—that's what Wikipedia is about. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For tireless dedication in deploying the new WikiProject banner nesting code. Happy‑melon 00:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you too! I bet the most transclusions are on your name, though :) —Ms2ger (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well WPBiography has over half a million on its own, so you're probably right. Besides, I cheated :D. Happy‑melon 19:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as your cheating works out, what's the problem? —Ms2ger (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You said that the parameters in my requested change didn't work, but I have tested them and they do. I believe I was not clear enough in my original request in that the page I linked was a demo page and not the example template itself. I have cleared this up on the talk page, but if you have noticed some specific problem with the template, I'd like to hear from you. Thanks. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 21:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have replied there. Please don't misunderstand me, I do appreciate the work you're doing. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know that, and I appreciate the help; I just didn't see the problem. I guess I was too tired to be coding last night. :P Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 17:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That happens to the best… Thanks for your work, too. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

You recently tagged this template as having accessibility problems (presumably due to its encouragement of using single fields to hold multiple data points separated by line breaks). This was flagged a few months ago, and {{infobox Football biography 2}} was created. It's pretty stable now, but we still need to wait for full roll-out across all affected articles, which will need to be bot-assisted. Any pointers? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox Football biography 2}} is indeed better, but that doesn't mean that the problems with {{Infobox Football biography}} are suddenly gone, so I'd prefer to keep it tagged until 2 is rolled out. —Ms2ger (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You recently used wpbs as an edit summary. Suspecting keyboard-bashing type vandalism I double checked the edit but I still don't know what "wpbs" was supposed to indicate. Rmhermen (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Banners. Ah well, it's better than no edit summary, I guess. —Ms2ger (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit at Template:Interwikitmp-grp seems to have broken the interwiki group box at Template:Lx. Probably has something to do with line breaks. --- RockMFR 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd looked for pages where the template was actually used, but I didn't find any. It's fixed now. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take care with edits like this, where you wrongly changed the name of a publisher in a reference from icNewcastle to Newcastle. MickMacNee (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I thought it was a typo. —Ms2ger (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

np. I thought it would be given the subject. MickMacNee (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the deprecated tag from this template for now, as is is still being used on two pages via the {{HistSci}} banner. I see you have also tagged {{WP X}}, so you might want to have a look at these associated templates: {{Featured-Class}}, {{Good-Class}}, {{WikiProject-Type}}, {{List-Type}}, {{Category-Type}}, {{Portal-Type}}, {{Disambig-Type}}, {{Image-Type}}, {{Needed-Type}}, {{NA-Type}}, {{Article-Type}}, {{Template-Type}} and {{-Type}}. Regards. PC78 (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC

Thanks for the note. I thought those templates where only used by {{WikiProject New Orleans}}, and I'll have a look at these links. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you did to Template:Indiana government caused it not to display right on other pages. I reverted your edit and the problem when away. Overpush (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the problem. —Ms2ger (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ms2ger. You have new messages at Dank55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

More info - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've partially undone your edit to Template:WPBannerMeta/warnings. Can you take a look at my edit summary and let me know if you have any concerns. I need to fully protect it before implementing this. Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The message box definitely doesn't have anything to do with deletion of a page, so I stand by my opinion. I'm okay with the styles H-m added, though. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw your edit to {{Templaterefsection}}. Since I'm the one who originally wrote it, I keep an interest in what happens to it. And generally I like to learn all the time. I'm not a programmer though. What does {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|...}} do?

I'd say it tells the template to do whatever it does only if the namespace in which the ttemplate is used is equal to something. But I don't see that something. I've seen this construction before, but never understood what it does. I'd be gratefull if you would explain. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|…}} means "execute … if {{NAMESPACE}} is not empty", which is, basically, outside the main space. I did this because the reflist was actually being transcluded into articles, such as Argon (see Template:Infobox argon). HTH. —Ms2ger (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That was because of that second </noinclude> tag I forgot to remove, I see. So you added this as a precaution, I understand? Thank you. Debresser (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; not at all. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What is "not at all"? Debresser (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A reply to your "Thank you", though that indeed isn't clear from what I wrote. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw what you did with Help:Cite errors/Testcases2 (you didn't try it withHelp:Cite errors/Testcases). But on Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references it is still at "C". By the way, the previous editor of this and other pages like it used {{DEFAULTSORT:!}}. I don't mind the method, but I do think it's a good idea to keep all of them at "!". Debresser (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to bring all of them to "!", but the 2 help pages mentioned above defy all my efforts. From their history you can see that I've tried everything. Somethings failed unexpectedly, but in retrospect I could understand why that had happened, while the last attempt should have succeeded anyways. But didn't. Do you have a solution? Debresser (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding the category with a line at the bottom of the page like this

[[Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting|!]]

didn't help because the errors on the pages cause all information below them to be discarded. So I put that same line at the top of the page. That didn't help either. Then I understood that that was to be expected, because the actual error, which occurs later in the page, "overwrites" the previous category. So I tried it with

{{DEFAULTSORT:!}}

on top of the page. That should have helped, but it didn't.

A few experiments have led me to a very interesting conclusion: if (and only if) there is a real incorrect ref on the page, neither of the above solutions will work, nor on the top of the page nor on the bottom (even in such cases where the error doesn't cause all following text to be discarded). So what do we do now? Debresser (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I found the solution! Remove the word |{{PAGENAME}} from MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references and MediaWiki:Cite error group refs without references. There is nothing to be gained from it, and as we see, there is what to lose from it.

Now I also understand the answer to a question I asked before, which was not answered to my satisfaction. I asked, why part of the templates was listed under the "T" of "Template:Name" while part was listed under the letter of its proper name (e.g. "N" in the case of "Template:Name"). The reason is that those templates that had been added before the changes made on April 14 and 16 to those two MediaWiki pages, were all listed under the "T" which is the first letter of their full name, while those that had been added after the changes were listed under the respective letters of their proper name. Debresser (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Although in general it is considered preferable to add "PAGENAME", in this case it would be convenient to have all templates in one place. Debresser (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello mate.

I have just reverted one of your edits because it made Template:Family tree of Nguyễn Lords break (some box couldn't be closed).

I am not a master in Wiki-templates so I don't know what its bug is. Therefore, I'm writing this message to inform you. Would you mind fixing it please?--Amore Mio (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I don't see a solution immediately, so I'll leave the template as it stands for now. I might look into it later on. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain your recent edits - they seem to have caused club names etc. to wrap within the box rather than the box expanding to accommodate them. As a result the box now looks too thin and tall. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed a difference but I didn't quite see what caused it. I think it should be fixed now, could you please have a look? —Ms2ger (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop editing this template - I don't what you're trying to do, but whatever it is, it makes the template look terrible. Regards, GiantSnowman 17:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The changes here and here removed the image staggering suggested by WP:MOS#Images, removed the quote boxes, and removed the image sizing of the lead image, again recommended by the MOS. Please be more careful in the future - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And your deletion/redirect of Template:Imagequote2 has caused some serious problems on Boydell_Shakespeare_Gallery#Reaction (and probably other pages too. They were not the same template. In the future, at the very least, put a note on the talk page first and ask if people would mind if you made the change! Thank you. (I appreciate your desire to help consolidate things that appear to be redundant, but please be careful.) Scartol • Tok 22:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making these changes again - I explained to you the problems with them. Let's discuss it here, please. Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of WP:MOS. I see "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left" (emphasis mine). That doesn't seem to be such a strong suggestion to me. The image sizing of the lead image, also, isn't recommended by the MOS: "As a rule, images should not be set to another size (that is, one that overrides the default). … Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include: … Lead images" (emphasis mine). Your revert actually restored some images to a non-MOS-compliant state, see for example "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading". The quote boxes are still there, just not big and unnecessarily attention-drawing. If you want them to stand out more, you can easily do that by adding

.pull-quote { background:#c6dbf7; color:black; }

to Special:Mypage/monobook.css.

Secondly, my redirect of Template:Imagequote2 didn't cause any problems at the time of my edit, because I made sure that it was not actually being used. My problem with this template is that it solves a problem that doesn't even have to exist (I solved it by moving some images to the default place on the right in the edits mentioned above), badly. A table element (or a dl, for that matter) must never be used to mark up a quote, as they have a very different meaning. WP:WAI states "Avoid using tables for layout purposes only."

Thirdly, many other parts of my edits were required by WP:WAI, for example to obey the rule "Note also that the image should be inside the section it belongs to (after the header and after any links to other articles), and not just before the header".

Finally, please accept my apologies for reverting you—I only noticed User:Scartol's message, and tried to fix this by removing calls to the template before replying. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Staggering is encouraged by the MOS and you are reverting layouts that are the consensus of editors and are part of FA articles. It is best to discuss such drastic changes to the layout.
• Again, since the MOS suggests that it may be appropriate to size the lead image, changing the sizing should be a discussion, not something that happens automatically as part of a bot. All of the settings and layouts at the articles you "cleaned up" had been chosen very deliberately.
• If you want to move the images below section headers, please do so, but in such a wash of de-formatting, I am not going to pick out that one edit.
• I'm not sure why you are changing quote boxes, but, again, everything in these articles was carefully chosen. I don't really see a reason to redo what is already perfectly fine. Awadewit (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a serious problem. The Manual of Style is flexible on these points for good reason. If your bot continues to run this way it will damage the placement and layout of numerous articles and images, including featured files. Please alter its parameters or suspend operation until the problem is resolved. Durova^Charge! 20:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(I will reply in about two weeks. —Ms2ger (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Hi, would you add links to the specific talk pages where this template and its use was discussed? You recently created and added an updated notice to the template [1]. -- User:Docu

I didn't, I just centralised the documentation on one page. I suggest you ask User:Sherurcij. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You had created a custom class page, but it's missing several of the important categories. Since the project hasn't used the "needed" or "redirect" categories or even created them, maybe the custom classes could be deleted, and just use the regular quality scale parameter in WPBM? Thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I also created the FL and List classes, as they're included in the WP 1.0 assessment scale. Thanks for the note. —Ms2ger (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

TYVM! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Back in March you moved the {{template}} to {{WikiProject Philately}}. I see that the old template is creating some issues when applying update to the template on talk pages where the older template already exists. I use a version of User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js script User:BrownHairedGirl/metadatatest.js adapted by User:BrownHairedGirl for applying and/or updating but the script only recognises the new template and not the old one. Is there a bot to replace the name "Philately" with "WikiProject Philately" to update all older templates?

No idea about the script, but I suspect it wouldn't be too hard to find someone to fix the redirects at Wikipedia:Bot requests.

I found a bot that might be able to help and have asked for help there for now. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling we would like to add assessment ability so that we can use the Popular pages request but it requires the assessment code and we only have a plain project template. Can you help us with this or advise us of someone else to help? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I updated the template and created the categories. You can now start assessing the 2600 unassessed articles. Enjoy! —Ms2ger (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Do we also need more code to get the other usual project parameters, such as, importance, image-needed, infobox-needed, listas, etc? ww2censor (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Listas should work. This is for the others; add what you need.

 |importance={{{importance|}}}

|infobox={{{needs-infobox|}}}

<!-- Ripped from WikiProject Ireland -->
|note 1={{{image-needed|}}}
 |NOTE_1_IMAGE       = Image-request.svg
 |NOTE_1_TEXT        = An image is [[Wikipedia:Requested pictures|requested]] for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the <code>image-needed</code> parameter once the image is added.
 |NOTE_1_CAT         = Motorcycling articles needing images (or whatever you want)

There's always more information at {{WPBM}} or other banners, too. HTH. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page to your concerns regarding inline links on the comparison pages. Please stop reverting. --137.140.124.30 (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your edits to Template:Referendum. The code was so messy and had so much unnecessary junk in it. It's much easier to read now. – Zntrip 19:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to help. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Ms2ger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Sincerely, Ryan 10:20, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hiya, could you fill me in on the background to that edit? I could not see any references to cite id on the citation/core talk page. I was not aware there was a problem with cite id; it has the advantage over the present formatting that the reference jumped to is highlighted in blue. --JN466 20:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is with the cite element: it isn't appropriate for the purposes it was used for. There was discussion to move away from it at Template talk:Citation/core. I agree that my first version wasn't optimal, though. I have changed the article to use <span class="citation"> instead, which keeps the highlighting intact. Nice work on the article, by the way. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for sorting it out; I'll use that method in future. User:ChrisO wrote the article; I helped him organise the references.

Btw, Google Chrome does not handle jumps to the 2nd (or 3rd ...) column of references correctly. It places the blue highlight around the correct ref, but scrolls too far down. In Mozilla it is perfect: the reference highlighted in blue is the top line on the screen, even if it is in the right-hand ref column. --JN466 11:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I would've sworn you were ChrisO, for some reason. (I have to say it was one of the better formatted references section I've seen, though.)

I thought we didn't give WebKit columns anymore for precisely that reason, seems like I was wrong. Do you know if a bug was filed on WebKit already? —Ms2ger (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Arts, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:WikiProject Arts and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:WikiProject Arts during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kleinzach 08:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, I agree that it should be deleted. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

for this! I'm useless in template space and so I rarely venture into it, but I thought we should have a new template for a new decade! Cheers, HJMitchell You rang? 18:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I reverted some of your cleanup. You can blame IE, but it's not formatting well in my browser [2]. Also I've got lots of such templates, and making more and have no interest in avoiding the BR approach to formatting which seems fine to me. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, that's even weirder than I'd expect from IE. Thanks for the note. —Ms2ger (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I just read the long thread at:

• MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 9#Header color in wikitables

I've stumbled into this issue during the last few days, having worked on maybe 20 filmographies attempting to clean-up poor markup and styling.

I think the time has come to sort the issue of non-standard styling in the name of a wikiproject. The whole initiative originating there reeks of article ownership, wikiprojects as "governing" bodies, and impeding site accessibility in the name of meretricious appearance.

I think the appropriate outcome is filmographies either implemented as bog-standard wikitables, or a suite of templates/css that allow central control of the styling (i.e. to site-wide conventions).

The current point of discussion is at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography

I hope to see you there.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• The thread above has rolled well-along and I've a request at WP:AN#Stuck RfC @ WT:ACTOR#Filmography asking that it be reviewed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Ms2ger. You have new messages at WT:ACTOR.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello! This [3] was a clear abuse of minor edit mark. Your removal of referenced information will be discussed separately but, in any case, never use m for such edits! You may consider this as a formal warning. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Maidstone United F.C. has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jameboy (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:SJFA football league system has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Good riddance. —Ms2ger (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and such work is always appreciated! —Ms2ger (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 22:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I'm not particularly interested in Volleyball myself. —Ms2ger (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This message was delivered to request that you join the September 2010 Wikification Drive. Our goals entail clearing down to 20,000 and removing 2008 from the backlog. This is a large and good-sized chunk, and we will need extensive help to clear it. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors. Thank you! Sign up here. We would appreciate you inviting more users, as we need as many editors as we can get.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiCopter at 04:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC).

Maybe I will. Good luck in any case! —Ms2ger (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ms2ger. May I suggest {{db-g7}} for Template:Mprotected2/sandbox? --Bsherr (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for it! —Ms2ger (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Please weigh in on Template talk:Treehouse of Horror#Inclusion of episode segments, so we can generate a consensus. Thanks, Fixblor (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No opinion. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mhiji 02:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Pull quote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain me, why did you remove in September the webTV and Web Explorer tags/attributes? They were not so common than the IE or Netscape "features" but they existed! mabdul 21:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

They may have existed, but never really gained adoption and are barely notable, if at all. I believe it is more helpful for our readers not to mention them. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 2009 (changes) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Template:LDSproject. This invitation is being extended because you have previously edited this template, which indicates you may have some level of interest in it. 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Category:Hockey navigational boxes, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just to inform you, a few of the political parties meta data templates you created are being nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Zangar (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. —Ms2ger (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to attend the Mozilla Editathon, where, among the like minded people, we will look at improving the Mozilla related articles on Wikipedia. For more information visit http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Editathon

Thanks! Daria Cybulska (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Mozilla has finally been created! We hope you will help out in the development of all the necessary WikiProject pages. Thank you so much for your support, and we look forward to seeing you at the WikiProject! WP:WikiProject Mozilla ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 01:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

^[1]== Nomination for merging of Template:Online source == Template:Online source has been nominated for merging with Template:Press. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ^[2]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Files for discussion/2016 March 5, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)