User:ColdReactive/archive1
From Homestar Runner Wiki
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.
Contents |
Canned welcomes
Just letting you know, we don't do canned welcome messages here. Welcome messages to new users should be more personalised to the user, not just copy/pasted or substed from a template. Have a look here for some suggestions. phlip TC 22:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- k, not noted.
ColdReactive 23:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- In other words no? Phlip wasn't suggesting that you not use a canned message; he was informing you that we decided as a wiki a while back not to use them and that decision is still current. If you continue to paste canned welcomes, they'll just be removed. Instead of that, why not welcome new users using personalized messages as outlined in the links above. — It's dot com 00:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Canned Welcomes are far more efficient than making personalized messages to be honest. I just won't welcome anyone then. ColdReactive 00:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Far more efficient, but I'm afraid that's actually the problem. We already have an automated "Welcome, here are some links" message. It's redundant to have a mechanical "Welcome to the Wiki" response on top of that. Something more personalized helps people to feel more welcome. Would you send a form letter to your relative thanking him/her for the Christmas present s/he sent? --Jay (Gobble) 01:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also, waiting to welcome someone until they've done something cuts down on the times that we welcome spammers. — It's dot com 02:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would send a form letter to my relative if I wanted to send a letter. All I'd fill out would be to write down what they sent me, and sign my name. ColdReactive 13:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Far more efficient, but I'm afraid that's actually the problem. We already have an automated "Welcome, here are some links" message. It's redundant to have a mechanical "Welcome to the Wiki" response on top of that. Something more personalized helps people to feel more welcome. Would you send a form letter to your relative thanking him/her for the Christmas present s/he sent? --Jay (Gobble) 01:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Canned Welcomes are far more efficient than making personalized messages to be honest. I just won't welcome anyone then.
- In other words no? Phlip wasn't suggesting that you not use a canned message; he was informing you that we decided as a wiki a while back not to use them and that decision is still current. If you continue to paste canned welcomes, they'll just be removed. Instead of that, why not welcome new users using personalized messages as outlined in the links above. — It's dot com 00:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Editing other people's userpages
Hey there, ColdReactive. I've noticed you tend to go around and look at the recent changes and fix others' userboxes and other minor technical stuff. While I appreciate your effort in making everything work, there are better ways. You know the saying "Give a man a fish... teach a man how to fish..."? Well, today you had to edit Awcyendocal's page three times for the same mistake. The problem with this is that he not even notice. He won't get any notification that you helped him. For all he knows, it was a bot doing it automatically, unless he either check his page history or the recent changes. The better way to go about this is to write something on his talk page, explaining how to do it himself.
It is OK to edit a other people's userpage once in a while for small fixes. I've looked at your contribs and you edited 5 different users' userpages since August. That's a lot. Please try to use the talk pages more often. Keep up the good work, — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 06:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
A question
Hey, how do you get that userpage nav bar? cash money tc 20:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Check out the codebox below, and make your own, then link to it as follows: {{template_page}} on all the pages you want it on. Note: You can't put it on your contribs page. ColdReactive 22:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
<div class="usermessage" style="color:darkred;font-weight:normal;word-spacing:50px;background:#EFEBDE;border-color:#7B6542;text-align:center">[[User:ColdReactive|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Space</span>]] <span style="word-spacing:0px">[[User talk:ColdReactive|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Talk</span>]] (Archives: [[User:ColdReactive/archive1|<span style="color:#FF0000">1</span>]])</span> [[Special:Contributions/ColdReactive|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Contribs</span>]] [[User:ColdReactive/sig|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Sig</span>]] [[User:ColdReactive/sandbox|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Sandbox</span>]]</div>
Wallpaper image format
While you probably already know this, I'd like to recommend that you would upload the Compé wallpapers in a PNG format, as the JPEG format is normally used for DVD screenshots and other exceptions. By the way, looks like you found Flash decompiler for Linux, congrats! We need more people with decompilers like you! Unrelated request: Do you mind if I borrow your "Ubuntu" userbox, and modify the msg a little bit? —Soiled Bargains (talk|ctrb) 21:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate that the compe wallpapers that are in JPG Format really are in JPG Format. Anyway, you can use the Ubuntu box if you wish. ColdReactive 00:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not unfortunate. That's the format used inside the flash file, then that's what we upload. No problem. The PNG rule is for shots of the flash objects that we turn into images, not for flash objects that are images themselves that we're uploading verbatim. That's just silly. — Defender1031*Talk 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal images
Hey there, ColdReactive. I wanted to point out our policy on personal images. Note that the limit is 2 personal images with 1 small image for your signature. You currently have 7 personal images: (File:ArchLogo.png, File:Checkmark.png, File:Gnomelogo.png, File:KDE_logo.png, File:Openlogo-debian.png, File:PuppyLinuxLogo.png, File: ubuntu.png) and 3 signature images (File:Ambox_globe.png, File:InLovingMemory.png, File:flip-CupAJoe.png). Please tag 5 of the first group and 2 of the second group with {{delete}} so that a sysop can remove them. Thanks for understanding. Heimstern Läufer 
19:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, the CupAJoe is used in Minor Drinks, so only 3 sig images. free 20:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Might as well also count all my userboxes as personal images as well. ColdReactive 20:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Images are personal images if they're not in use by the project, i.e., used in an article or project-space page. That's why the images I listed are PIs. Heimstern Läufer
20:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Done, I think. Also, Checkmark is being used on User:That'sBupkis, not just me. ColdReactive 21:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Done, I think. Also, Checkmark is being used on User:That'sBupkis, not just me.
- Images are personal images if they're not in use by the project, i.e., used in an article or project-space page. That's why the images I listed are PIs. Heimstern Läufer
- Might as well also count all my userboxes as personal images as well.
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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- Shouldn't you go tell them?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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)
Re:Crosshair
Oh-kay? ._. – Pertmywert (Talk·Edits) 12:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
How dare you?!
While i agree with the revert, this edit summary is extremely disgusting, and goes against our entire philosophy as a community. It is every person's right to edit the wiki in good faith, regardless of whether they have an account or not, and anonymous users are no less "real" than anyone else. This manner of thought is reprehensible, and just because an edit is made by an anonny does not make it any less credible. And for you to state that you believe such is an arrogant and biased slight on all of the good users (like myself) who originally began without making an account. Please understand for the future that anonymous users may have just as much to contribute as real users do, and please treat them with the respect that they deserve. Thank you. — Defender1031*Talk 13:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I know they do, believe me. I would have worded it better, but I'm not one to like anonymous users, I'm sorry. But isn't E.L Cool a sysop though? He was the one who undid the revision in the first place. ColdReactive
- Okay, this is a common problem in the mentality of the wiki users. I don't understand this bias against unregistered or new users, and towards sysops and experienced users. Dot com has said it also, in functions of management, a sysop has authority, but in functions of the wiki community, sysops' opinions should not count for anything more than non-sysops, or even new users, provided that the quality of the arguments is good. True that people build up a reputation over time, and therefore credibility, but i believe in credible until proven damaging, not the other way around. remember, always assume good faith, and don't judge people's opinions based on their wiki age or status, judge them on the opinions themselves. That's all. — Defender1031*Talk 14:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey there [ColdReactive]. How's it going. I see that I'm mentioned in this conversation, so I had to reply. What Defender said is true. Over arguments, a sysop's, admin, power user, normal user, new user and IP share the same level of voice. Before reverting, I asked around some people I know who live in USA if the end of school is considered a holiday. They said it didn't, so I reverted. So... Not much else. Just wanted to drop my word. Have fun, and for Pete's sake, do not feed The Huuuuuuuuudge. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 15:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Lucky Star
Yes I was. I love that show--Luckystar27 19:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I'm more of a perv. *ahem* so I watch ecchi-based shows more. ColdReactive 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Minor Tests
Testing some junk. ColdReactive 04:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hey there, [ColdReactive] from Madison, Why? Welcome to the Homestar Runner Wiki! I hope you got to enjoy our little April Fools' Day prank, but now that it's ended, no doubt you'll find editing much easier. If you have any questions, you can ask them on my talk page. Have fun at the wiki! Heimstern Läufer 04:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
