Hello, Nero the second, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
On October 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New federal states, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I see you have a third party resolving your issues. Keep calm and remember there are 3 million other articles. Try and resolve it at the talk page, but maybe do it slowly? ... to allow everyone time to think Victuallers (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC) - Admins can't delete articles completely, (s)he can't either. Your article will always be there for when this is resolved. Patience. Victuallers (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:KARTEneu 2008.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. +Angr09:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PAGENAME
Please don't use {{PAGENAME}}, since it will change if the page is move (due to disambiguation). Instead, you can use {{subst:PAGENAME}} which will add the current page name. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk)04:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, I had the template automatically include a source for the population figures in every article, so you could say it was my fault :P--Nero the second (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing templates on Japanese prefecture articles
You can now use all the fields of the old template as well as add new informations without having to update the template beforehand, and the template remains visually very similar to the old one. I hope this is enough to answer your question...! Cheers, Nero the second (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please use "safesubst:" before substituting templates, see here. This will expand all the #switch, #if, and formatnum statements, and make for a much cleaner substitution. It is annoying to have to go back and clean up after these messy substitutions. Thank you. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure it is a script doing this, not the actual user, as it appears they are just searching for the info boxes and replacing them no matter what page they are actually on. [1]. -asad (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again. I didn't use either and I had enough time to move population references / emblems / coordinates to the right field where they were misplaced.--Nero the second (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whats going on is several of us have these articles (and the template) watchlisted and saw your edits. You have not really responded to my question, instead you gave a vague non-answer about this one is better. Could you explain for me what about this new template can be improved on in ways the original cannot? If not, I will be reverting the changes to both the article and the template. Additionally, I dont see why you have modified the template at all, as you are now using {{Infobox settlement}} instead of {{Infobox Palestinian Authority muni}}. That being the case, why the changes to the actual template? nableezy - 23:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent the better part of yesterday to change this template because obviously I believed it would be an improvement over the previous version, revert my changes if you feel that you must, but of course if you choose do to that that you would make all my efforts pointless.--Nero the second (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you felt that way, and you may be right. But I dont see how that is the case, and you havent told me why you feel that way. I dont doubt your good faith, which is why I have not (yet) reverted your changes. Id like to understand why you made them. Are you willing to tell me why? What specifically is better about the standard infobox, and why did you even edit the Palestinian muni template if you werent even going to use it? nableezy - 23:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of work has been done to standardise location infoboxes on {{Infobox settlement}}. If you have corners about that work, or proposals for improvement, please share them on that template's talk page, rather than simply orphaning the wrappers which call it. Your contribution will be welcome, but it's best if we all work together. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits21:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the discussion where it was decided to orphan this template? If there is no consensus for this, then please stop right now. It took me a full day to clean up after you orphaned the Palestinian box. A better idea is to convert it to use infobox settlement, then debate whether or not it is a useful wrapper. Thank you. Plastikspork―Œ(talk)17:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like you only orphaned it on two pages, probably due to problems with the population field. I will see if I can sort that out. However, please don't orphan it without taking it to TFD first. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk)18:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the recent change you made to template:Infobox Belgium Municipality seems to (as best as I can tell) be the cause of reflist errors being thrown on about 100 Belgian Municipality articles (viewable at Category:Pages with missing references list). Templates this complex are beyond my ability to fix from the perspective of a reflist-checker, especially when I'm not familiar with them. Would you mind reviewing that template and figuring out where and how it needs a reflist added to avoid massive quantities of page errors? The kludge-y fix would be to add reflists to each of the 100-odd articles, but that doesn't solve the problem of the template being transcluded to future pages which might not have reflists. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have changed the infobox. We have had several discussions about colour (and picture, and logos) over the years. The general consensus have been to keep a green frame, in order to match the {Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War} at the bottom of the page. Also: green is a colour which is associated with Islam, and almost all of these villages were mainly Muslim. So, could you please change it back to green? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also: the area goes completely wrong if there are refs there: I edited Kirad al-Ghannama a couple of days ago; then it was fine, now it is messed up. I am changing the whole thing back, until you have worked it out. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nero, I see you've made a number of changes to articles about former municipalities in Switzerland. The Infobox Swiss town template already has a field that is used to indicate whether a municipality has become a former municipality. There's no reason to create an entirely new template. If you want to add a banner (like you have with the Infobox Swiss town former), then edit the Infobox Swiss town sandbox to create the banner when | municipality_type = former. Please don't just create a new template and apply it in a bot like manner. Thanks Tobyc75 (talk) 08:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion about turning {{Infobox Swiss town}} in a wrapper for Infobox settlement, you might have missed it. Considering the important changes that such a transition will entail, it is better to separate these two groups of municipalities. There is a number of important differences between the handling of current and former municipalities, which I tried to briefly explain in the documentation. The resulting {{Infobox Swiss town former}} is a neater and more easily manageable template compared to Swiss town, which is weighted down and made slower by too many levels of avoidable automations (which in the case of former municipalities failed consistently). So as you can see, the purpose was never to just 'add a banner', it was meant to improve the overall experience for all readers and editors, and I did just that.--Nero the second (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of the discussion about creating a wrapper for infobox settlement. I was firmly against it because the wrapper was at least as complex as the current infobox and shouldn't be replaced unless there was a clear benefit beyond "I like it better". By splitting it into 2 templates you're making things more complex for absolutely no benefit. The discussion to delete infobox Swiss Town was inconclusive and unless the WikiProject wants to make a change to Infobox Template, you should not be trying to back door us and make this change. Tobyc75 (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's too bad that you're firmly against it, I can only see benefits from the move to a wrapper-based template. You should not be afraid of change, even the old template was new at some point. How are things more complex for you, when you use the new 'former town' template? Let me know and I will improve it. By the way, I'm not trying to 'backdoor' anyone, and I strongly resent your accusation. I didn't even vote in the deletion discussion, using a different template simply makes sense, since there will be important changes soon.--Nero the second (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with this wrapper based template is that it is change simply for the sake of change. The wrapper is basically as complex as the current template. Then you stack that on top of another template and you now have 2 different templates doing the job of one. It won't simplify anything, in fact, it makes it much more complex. Any changes to either template may interact with the other one in unexpected ways, a problem that we do not have now. By creating a third template, your former town template, we now have an additional template that must be kept up and maintained. Basically what we have now is 1 template that can updated and problems are easy to detect. If a municipality becomes a former municipality, it is easily changed in the current infobox. If you'd like to add the "Former municipality" banner, which I think looks quite nice, that could be easily added to the current template. If that can't be done under Infobox Settlement, that would be another argument to not be forced into a Wrapper+Infobox Settlement. Under your proposal, we'd have a global template and several wrappers, all of which would have to be updated and which would make catching problems much more difficult. This is an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist with more layers and more complexity. As for you resenting my comment, I apologize if you were offended, but based on what I see here on the talk page and the large scale, unilateral changes that you seem to make, I suspected that was what was going on. Tobyc75 (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens if not hundreds of wrappers based on IS, and there was never an issue with any of them. Just the fact that no one ever considers going back to hundreds of separate templates for every country is telling. From looking the history of the Swiss town template, I see that it's largely your creation and as such I understand that you feel a degree of attachment to it, but again, change is not a danger or a cause of complications. Also, don't assume things from reading one-sided comments on other people's talk pages, some of those who accused me were later blocked for their disruptive editing. Have a nice day Tobyc75, Nero the second (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I will. I see you are opposing my changes that I'm trying to make to the template, just because the changes make the template YOU created obsolete, so glass houses and rocks and all that. It took me about half an hour to change the template to do what you think requires an extra template. I think my change simplifies things (one template to maintain vs two). I think you'd have to agree that simpler is better than more complex, right?Tobyc75 (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not change the old template to include a 'former' banner and all the other changes because I don't think that's a good idea, not because I feel a childish sense of ownership towards the template. Anyway, discussing the creation of a new template beforehand is not required, but discussing its deletion is, so I hope that you don't plan to sneakily change it back to your pet version without taking the new template to TfD (which is ironic since you accused me of trying to backdoor you, glass houses, stones and whatnot :).--Nero the second (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I resent your claims that I'm trying to sneakily change it back to my pet version. I think I've been very clear about what I'm wanting to do and what I intend. I see your "pet version" as redundant and unnecessary (points I've made above). With a wrapper and a template, your version is larger and more unwieldy. I suggested that you add the banner to the infobox (again mentioned above) to avoid having two templates which will diverge over time. Since there was no interest on your end in compromise, I added the banner to the current template. Which you then Opposed as redundant in what I feel was a disingenuous claim that it was redundant. I agree that we should take this to the community, since it is clear that discussing this here is pretty much pointless.Tobyc75 (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
