User talk:Misza13

Archives

Archive Map Special RfA-thanks Year 2005 Year 2006 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2007 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2008 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2009 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2010 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2011 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2012 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2013 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2014 I IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI Year 2015 I II III IV VI VII VIII IX XI XII

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:TaoRen.PNG

I do not believe I was ever contacted about this image. Next time, please contact the authors of the image before you delete. That way, the author can solve the problem.

An anon removed the image from an article, and I was unaware of what was happening, as I do not regularly check the page. WhisperToMe 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not contact me regarding image rasols-small.jpg prior to deleting it. I indicated I was the author and (believed) I had appropriately tagged it. I certainly hadn't violated anyone else's copyright. Now I'm away for a week and don't have access to the original to re-upload and my user page simply looks inept. Please restore if possible. Thanks! —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, I am not at all obliged to inform uploaders of deletions. For the other, I have restored the image - please apply an appropriate tag as soon as possible - all images must be tagged properly or deleted. Миша13 17:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding a little laughter into all of the recent drama, Misza; it certainly makes things a bit more tolerable! Cheers, Iamunknown 21:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

zomgwtfbbq – Gurch 02:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see the spoiler tag go. I thought it was helpful. The reason there were never any complaints about spoilers is because the tag was present to warn people about them. I didn't catch wind of the debate over the use of spoiler tags until much too late in the game, so I didn't bother weighing in. Anyway, when removing the "redundant template", I guess the end spoiler tag should also be removed? After consulting the new guideline, I wasn't sure, but went ahead and did so anyway on 13 Beloved. Best of luck as you go through the numbers and into the alphabet. — WiseKwai 11:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out - I missed {{spoiler-end}} as being an alternative to {{endspoiler}} and thus my regex didn't catch that. Anyway, such tags in sections clearly labelled as ==Plot== are truly redundant as the heading already gives suggestions as to its contents. Cheers, Миша13 11:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. And I appreciate your efforts. Take care — WiseKwai 14:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning on removing all of them by hand? —METS501 (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If needed, yes. But thanks to good tools I have managed to cut down the time spent on each article to only few seconds. Миша13 13:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

zOMG unauthorized bot ROUGE ADMIN DESYSOP DESYOP DESYOP – Gurch 14:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's one guy who's running a robot to tag all the pages with trivia questions. You should do likewise with the "spoiler" tag. It is clear from its definition that it can never be used. It shouldn't even be an option. Baseball Bugs 16:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I surely could run a bot on full-auto and remove them within a day. It is not, however that simple - in many cases the templates can be replaced by cleaning up the article a bit - but that requires human intervention. Hence, it's not exactly a job for a bot - several seconds of human's brain are required. Миша13 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are removing spoiler tags? On the two Upstairs, Downstairs episodes pages there are there because plot details are given away. Isn't that what they are therefore? --UpDown 17:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the new "screw-the-reader" world defined by some very aggressive editors recently. They say that the reader shoudl go to Plot Synopsis "expecting" to find everything about the plot, including giving away the ending and other key info, and if they didn't expect that, then it's somehow their own fault for being "stupid" (not my word, but that of another editor with whom I argued in vain recently). Baseball Bugs 17:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're missing the whole point of writing an encyclopedia here. Encyclopedia is supposed to be comprehensive, and this one specifically aims at being the "sum total of human knowledge". This means that by looking up a article, you seek knowledge, not diversion. This ain't a movie/book/comic review magazine, you know... We actually respect our readers this way. Миша13 17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have so far removed the tags from hundreds of articles, you could be more specific and name the diffs precisely. Whatever it be however, I have most probably removed them from under a section named "plot", "summary" or something similar - such sections sufficiently warn of their potentially spoilerific content, so the addition of this highly unencyclopedic template is not welcome at all (if not insulting to the average reader of this, after all, encyclopedia). Миша13 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the logic (both articles have "Plot" sections). But lets be honest, wherevery "spoiler" tags are, I would have thought it obvious that plot details are going to be given away. Either we have them in all "Plot" sections, or not have them at all. --UpDown 17:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why in many cases (where there are no headers) I do edits like this - should be pretty self-explanatory and fit the have them in all "Plot" sections scheme, too. Миша13 17:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem that I kept complaining about.. that the editors who want to remove it are imposing their own judgment on how they think the readers "should" be using wikipedia, on what "should be obvious", rather than giving the readers the choice in the matter. So at this point, the notion of having any "spoiler" tags in wikipedia is obsolete. Those editors' justification is another double-think notion, that they are somehow "POV-pushing". If so, then all of them are POV-pushing, and they should all be removed. Baseball Bugs 17:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you removing all spoiler warnings in the encyclopedia indiscriminately? I've seen you remove them with your automated script with articles where they weren't on plot summaries at all, and your speed makes it impossible for you to view the context in any detail. --Kizor 18:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he's not, he should be. All spoiler tags are inherently POV-pushing. You can't say it's OK for them to be in one section and not another. You can't make assumptions about the reader's intentions in one place and not another. Either you keep all of them, or you remove all of them. Baseball Bugs 19:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(3rd edit conflict on my own talkpage today!)

1. No, I'm not removing them indiscriminately, although almost all of them must ultimately go away (some will require more effort than I'm putting now - these I skip for later)
2. Can you give examples where the removal wasn't obvious? I'll try to explain.f
3. As of speed, you're wrong - my script requires me to approve every edit manually (by pressing [y]/[n] and [Enter]). There's alot of automation, but it does display the templates within a context and gives me all the time I need to decide on the edit (which is 2-5 seconds on the average).

Regards, Миша13 19:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you be considerate and polite when I'm pounding on the keyboard over my inability to stop your trail of destruction? --Kizor 19:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's perfect. >:) Baseball Bugs 19:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Misza instead of this you delete the template. :) --SkyWalker 15:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, that would create a lot of ugly red links all over the site. :) That might give an impulse to remove them more hastily, but that's not the point (in many cases I'm doing a cleanup together with the removal). And blanking has been tried already. ;-) —Миша13 15:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry about screwing up that Example thing with your bot; it's not like your instructions weren't clear, I was just careless and forgot to change it. It was nice of you to fix it for me. Sorry. Madeleine 14:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For being cool, and making me laugh all the time, especially through all the "ZOMG drama!"s. -Pilotguy hold short 22:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why do you think that the {{spoiler}} template is redundant?
2. Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Per Wikipedia:Spoiler: "Spoiler warnings are redundant when used in ==Plot== or other sections that are clearly going to discuss the plot. Use such a header instead."
2. This was a minor cleanup edit.

I could also point that using standard "warning" templates like {{minor}}, which you did, towards established editors is likewise considered poor etiquette (as is the use of admin rollback on edits that are not vandalism. Regards, Миша13 13:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion reviewofImage:Northern ireland national football team logo.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Kwekubo 13:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found that you have some knowledge of codes. I have learned from Ryulong of how to add a scroll to my userboxes, but now, I would like to keep my Babel box separated from my userboxes. Do you know how to add a scroll to my Babel box? I want my Babel box to look like the original one, but just an additional of a scroll. I know I have to create MY OWN VERSION of Babel box first. Can you please help? Thank you very much! --Edmundkh 15:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Misza13, first excuse my bad English please. I am de:User:Kuhlo from the German Wikipedia and i want to use your Status Change Script. It sounds good and helpfull. But I tried it and failed. Could you say what i did wrong? Related pages:

• de:User:Kuhlo Mainpage with {{Benutzer:Kuhlo/Status}} on it
• de:User:Kuhlo/Status Status Page like you explained
• de:User:Kuhlo/StatusTemplate Template Site
• de:User:Kuhlo/statusChanger.js Script Site with Changes in var linkprefix to fit German Wikipedia URL
• de:User:Kuhlo/monobook.js Site with my Monobook-Skin, it´s already based on some Scripts, but I think there must be the failure.

I would thank you if you could help me. Greetings --80.140.182.252 12:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC) de:User:Kuhlo[reply]

Hello, your bot hasn't archived the section "Infoboxes" on my talkpage. Could it please do that? - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 12:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]