User talk:IdLoveOne~enwiktionary/Template:archaic
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Please do not alter major Wiktionary templates without discussing these changes first. All of our context templates are synchronized to look and function the same way. Changing just one (and without discussion) affects the uniform look of Wiktionary, and also clogs up the job queue for the server. --EncycloPetey 02:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, fair enough. I think you should put it back in the superscript version. Did you see the edit summary I posted when I altered it? Did the superscript tag have an adverse affect on how the template works? We can discuss this in greater detail at the discussion page. --IdLoveOne 13:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, I should not. That template is part of a community agreed-upon style used across all of Wiktionary. If our norms and style are to be changed the discussion should happen first in one of the community fora. The Beer Parlour would be an appropriate place for you to propose such a change. An edit summary while making the change is not a good place to propose a change. Making that change did adversely affect our servers, since it is used on many, many pages and backlogs the job queue with every page on which the template is used. Please do not unilaterally make such changes to templates again or you will be blocked. --EncycloPetey 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Kindly observe Wiki policy Assume Good Faith. Before this goes any further I'm requesting mediator/arbitrary assistance. It was harsh of you to hit me with a threat ban and it was rude of you to assume I did what I did as an act of vandalism. I made a mistake, I learned from it, I apologized. An unwarranted threat like that is a common act of internet bullying and I believe that I deserve an apology for it. --IdLoveOne 00:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please re-read what I wrote. You will notice the following: (1) No mention of a ban was made, except by you. (2) This is not Wikipedia; our policies and procedures are different. Please read our version of WT:AGF, including the advice to newcomers. (3) I did not assume that what you did was vandalism, and did not even mention that word at any time in what I wrote. (4) You did not apologize, unless you consider "Fine, fair enough" to be an apology (I certainly don't see it that way). (5) You did not learn from the mistake, or you would not have asked me to restore your edit. In the second posting above, I provided additional rationale explaining to you (a newcomer) why the change was a problem. (6) No "threat" was made; you were informed of the likely consequences should another admin find you again editing project-wide templates without discussion. Other editors have ben blocked for making such changes, and not by me. It would be a disservice not to inform you of our policies and practices. --EncycloPetey 03:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, then, if 'fair enough' isn't apology enough then I'M SORRY. I'm sorry for making the edit without discussion, not for making the edit, period. I still think it's a good idea and will definitely be adding the idea to the discussion page/beer parlour when I regain some energy from having to clarify this whole thing. AGAIN, I won't be making "major" changes again without discussion, but still think mine was a good idea, as perhaps some of the future ones I'll have will be and the others won't. That I didn't just ignore you and go on and revert your reversion and tried to in a civil manner, learn how I might've harmed Wiktionary isn't proof enough that I'd learned my lesson? Second, the angry way you replied followed by the 'you will be blocked' would be construed by anyone as a threat and believed bad intention, I'm sure you would think you were threatened and held in bad faith too if you were on the receiving end of that comment; of which you mentioned nothing of 'someone else will block you,' just 'you will be blocked' which sounded a lot like you were readying yourself to do it. Lastly, be as literal as you like, but 'ban' and 'block' are pretty much the same thing, or at least imply the same thing, I don't know much about your 'blocking' and 'banning' policies -- yet.
- Please re-read what I wrote. You will notice the following: (1) No mention of a ban was made, except by you. (2) This is not Wikipedia; our policies and procedures are different. Please read our version of WT:AGF, including the advice to newcomers. (3) I did not assume that what you did was vandalism, and did not even mention that word at any time in what I wrote. (4) You did not apologize, unless you consider "Fine, fair enough" to be an apology (I certainly don't see it that way). (5) You did not learn from the mistake, or you would not have asked me to restore your edit. In the second posting above, I provided additional rationale explaining to you (a newcomer) why the change was a problem. (6) No "threat" was made; you were informed of the likely consequences should another admin find you again editing project-wide templates without discussion. Other editors have ben blocked for making such changes, and not by me. It would be a disservice not to inform you of our policies and practices. --EncycloPetey 03:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Kindly observe Wiki policy Assume Good Faith. Before this goes any further I'm requesting mediator/arbitrary assistance. It was harsh of you to hit me with a threat ban and it was rude of you to assume I did what I did as an act of vandalism. I made a mistake, I learned from it, I apologized. An unwarranted threat like that is a common act of internet bullying and I believe that I deserve an apology for it. --IdLoveOne 00:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, I should not. That template is part of a community agreed-upon style used across all of Wiktionary. If our norms and style are to be changed the discussion should happen first in one of the community fora. The Beer Parlour would be an appropriate place for you to propose such a change. An edit summary while making the change is not a good place to propose a change. Making that change did adversely affect our servers, since it is used on many, many pages and backlogs the job queue with every page on which the template is used. Please do not unilaterally make such changes to templates again or you will be blocked. --EncycloPetey 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- As the issue is long since over, let's just call the whole thing off, shall we? --IdLoveOne 04:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also note that the context templates are set up so that you can customize the appearance in a wide variety of ways. Putting superscript (or whatever) in the template breaks the customization. The attributes that are used (italics) are set in CSS, not in the template(s), and can thus be modified by individual users to suit their own preferences. Robert Ullmann 16:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, Robert Ullmann. --IdLoveOne 04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)