User talk:ColdReactive

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 20:54, 6 May 2009

User:ColdReactive/nav User:ColdReactive/archiveTemp

If you wish to discuss something new on my talk page, please use the + button next to the edit button up there. Make sure to include a subject, and please don't create a new subject/discussion unless it's archived. You can see the archives on the right side of this page.

It is suggested you do this to not make a mess of the talk page. If you do not adhere to this, your talk will be edited to include a "dummy" section based on the topic discussed.

Re:Crosshair

Oh-kay? ._. – Pertmywert (Talk·Edits) 12:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage makes my arrow turn into a crosshair. give my arrow back! lol. ColdReactive

cleanup up unsigned posts

Hi, Just wanted to mention: When you clean up after people who failed to sign their posts, the timestamp should reflect when that person made their post, not the time at which you went in and added the signature for them, and the timestamp should be in UTC time. There is a template {{unsigned}} that is designed for this purpose. It's not really my place to insist that you use the template (but I think you should). If you don't use it, I'd still recommend adding the same unsigned link that it has, because that information is helpful should the person come back and see the message. --64.198.255.1 16:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information ColdReactive 16:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User Page Validity

This discussion was moved from User talk:Bad Bad Guy#User Page Validity

I suggest conforming to the XHTML Validator. Why am I saying this? Because people made me validate my signature. ColdReactive 14:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What specifically should I do to fix my page? I had trouble understanding that link. BBG 15:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

BBG: The errors that page is reporting all occur either in the HTML generated by the Table of Contents, or in the footer of the page. I'm not sure that either of those are caused by anything you put on your user page, but I can take a closer look at it. ColdReactive: There are several reasons why validating a web page is a good idea, but spite is not one of them. Most of the reasons are really for the benefit of the author, or to increase the likelihood of "forwards-compatibility". Endeavoring to bring the main content of the wiki up to standards is a good and worthwhile task, but unless a user's page is breaking the wiki's navigation etc, then (imo) it should be left up to the user. If you want to convince someone to spend their time fixing something that isn't apparently broken, you should explain why it's a good idea, or at least reference something to state your case for you.  Green Helmet 15:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know spite isn't a good idea, but I really don't like XHTML Validation at all. Now, if it was HTML 3 or 4.01 Transitional, it would be another story. ColdReactive 15:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This guy has 20 errors just so you know, and it's really getting on my nerves just looking at it. No, it doesn't break the navigashun but still. ColdReactive 04:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, this guy also, has 22 errors. ColdReactive 02:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you go tell them? BBG 02:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that most of the errors are coming from people's sigs that don't validate. Also, why is this conversation even talking place? and on someone's personal talk page of all places? — Defender1031*Talk 02:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want it to take place, then I suggest you get more people to conform to the rules of the XHTML 1.0 Transitional deal. It's on this talk page because it originated here. You are free to move it if you have permission, I do not care. ColdReactive 03:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Found 19 errors on The Chort's page. ColdReactive 20:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So what? The pages that we're most concerned about validating are pages in the article and project namespaces and any page that is transcluded on another page (like templates and signatures). While it would be nice if all user pages validated, it's really not important if they don't. — It's dot com 20:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I should've pushed more when homestar-winner validated my signature. I would've been able to use the font code freely if it hadn't been for that. ColdReactive 20:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please not that Dot com said signatures ARE one of the things we try to validate. — Defender1031*Talk 20:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'll leave it alone. ColdReactive 20:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)