User talk:Pathoschild/Archives/2005-10

Responses to editor actions

About your archiving work on Talk:Nanking Massacre

Pathoschild is hereby awarded the Working Man's Barnstar for his tireless archiving works on the Nanking Massacre and other articles, an aspect of wikipedia often neglected.
Pathoschild is hereby awarded the Exceptional Newcomer Award for being so proactive despite having less than 2 weeks of experience.

Hey, I just noticed that you've been archiving the talkpage on Nanking Massacre chronologically. I guess you should be aware that a page like this generates a copious amount of talk content, and archiving it once per year is going to result in a LOT of clutter. Also, many arguments/discussions/flames span multiple months, so that might not be the best thing to do grouping it by month. --Miborovsky 20px 07:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware. However, archives are rarely revisited, so bandwidth usage is not a problem. When they are revisited, it's usually to find a known comment or find out if a topic has been discussed. Both are much easier to do in a chronological ordering, both because of the chronological ordering itself and because of the fewer pages. I'm grouping each discussion by the date it began. This strikes me as a more relevant than by end date, because the viewer has an immediate overview (through the TOC) of the topics throughout the year, trends, et cetera. // Pathoschild 07:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I meant a lot of clutter on the main talkpage. If a page goes by for a whole year without archiving... imagine the mess. Also, in many discussions the direction goes so far off from what it was originally that it'd be best to seperate them into different sections. --Miborovsky 20px 07:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
There's no need to wait a whole year without archiving. Any archiver is welcome to integrate them into the appropriate year or, more likely (considering the work involved), simply create a new archive (ie, 2005 #2). All pages I archive are on my watchlist, so I'll be along to rearchive it shortly. As for seperating them into different sections, do you mean splitting the discussions into several headers, or several archives? // Pathoschild 07:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah I can see the merit in that. And disregard the part about seperating the discussions. I see you've done a very thorough job. Oh BTW, there are some parts in the 2005 article that were written in 2004... See this. --Miborovsky 20px 08:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out; it's been fixed. // Pathoschild 08:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstars for ya

Here, brandish them with pride! --Miborovsky 20px 08:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! ^_^ // Pathoschild 08:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Pathoschild 08:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC) : Editted the alignment and position of the award boxes to fit alongside the discussion.
No problem at all. In fact I should thank you, you made my day much better. I have plenty of my own problems, and have been stressed lately by the actions of several admins and "veterans" who think having 20,000 edits entitle them to be the Boss of WikipediaTM and above reproach. You show them what a newbie can do. Much more then I ever saw them do. Cheers. -- Miborovsky 20px 08:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


Nice job, you might wanna turn that into a template for everyone to use. I think this looks much better. Feel free.
-- MiborovskyU|T|C|E| 09:53, October 2 2005

  Due to high activity on this page, please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion Alternatively, use the "+" button to the right of the edit button to start a new discussion. Make sure to sign your comments by pressing the second-to-last button above the edit box, or by typing out ~~~~ at the end of your comment.
Pathoschild 01:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC): Editted Miborovsky's comment to change currenttime tags into date of post.
See the new {{Comment Guidelines}} template. It being public, edits are of course welcome. // Pathoschild 01:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


"Mundialization" is not an English word, I moved the article back. -- Curps 22:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Mundialization is a term coined as a more democratic form of globalization; see a google search. It's a reasonably popular world movement, and as such should be considered a valid word even if it hasn't made it to the paper encyclopedias. However, I'm not the advocate of the change; I just moved it for the unregistered contributor who is. I'll refer him to you, if he wishes to discuss the move. // Pathoschild 22:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems to be a neologism with limited use. In general, Wikipedia's policy is to use common names, and it's not Wikipedia's job to promote or popularize neologisms... first they have to catch on in the world on their own, and only then Wikipedia takes note of that fact (that is, as an encycopedia, Wikipedia is a secondary source and not a primary source). I suppose you could list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves and gather feedback. -- Curps 00:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Neither term is very common. Mundialization is simply the neologism for "Democratic globalization". If you compare, you'll find that the former has 952 results and the latter has 883 results. "Democratic globalization" is, as far as I can tell, simply the synthesis of common words to mean the same thing. // Pathoschild 01:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, your move was actually from "Democratic globalization" to "Democratic mundialization", rather than to just "Mundialization". So it appeared that you were simply using "mundialization" as a synonym for "globalization", and that would fail the "use common names" test since the latter is much more common than the former.
If you now wish to move "Democratic globalization" to just "Mundialization", well, I suppose Wikipedia:Requested moves might be a suitable place to gather feedback (you add a one-line listing there for the proposed change, which links back to the discussion page at Talk:Democratic globalization where the actual discussion of the proposed move takes place. See some of the other pages there for examples). -- Curps 01:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
See Talk:Democratic globalization. // Pathoschild 02:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Traditional Catholic

Thanks for the reverts. A admin stepped in, now we are geting nasty garbage on the talk page. :-( Dominick 18:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at new commentator's contributions. I suspect that many of these are sock puppets. -.- // Pathoschild 19:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to keep it clean... Dominick 18:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Trying to, anyway. >_> // Pathoschild 18:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I apologize, I am so frustrated with people cropping up with few edits, and with the same thing to say. I do not like people coordinating efforts to twist this simple thing into a public attack on the Holy See and the problems some groups had with following the rules that were laid out by the previous Pope.
I am sorry my comments have gotten in your way. You are doing a much better job that me or Lima, I just hope that everything will not be for naught if a new revert war back to the 2003 version occurs. Dominick 17:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my comment seemed like it was targeted at you specifically. I was talking to all the commentators, including those who persistantly claim there's a conspiracy of highjackers. Hopefully this'll all calm down soon and we can continue from where we left off. // Pathoschild 17:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Not a problem, in fact, I think this has gone on for a long time, and nobody noticed. Dominick 12:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me leaving a message about this, contributors should be active people doing this. I don't see where the 100 edit rule should be applied. I hate to see an onrush of people directed to the article, only to influence the article, to circumvent real consesus. Dominick 16:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

And so it is. I personally distinguish between active contributors (Lima, Used2BAnonymous, and you), active commentators (users with at least one month of membership and 100+ edits), and commentators (new users). This effectively minimalises the effects of astroturfing and meatpuppetry, should it be tried. // Pathoschild 18:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Since protection is lifted, and no discussion has been going on since the butchery of the article to a even more narrow viewpoint, I think ethically, I should tell you I am planning a fully sourced article edits or series of edits. Anyhting I change shall have a footnote, denoting where the term was defined, and where the term is used.
Of course this doesn't stop people from revert wars, and the like, but it will avoid the here-say nature of this discussion. Out of respect for you, I wanted to share my intentions. You and Lima have been very patient and forthcoming, and I am sure I am just as annoying as the other group. Thanks! Dominick 14:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
If you can properly cite your sources, you're welcome to go ahead. The lack of formal sources is, I think, the biggest problem with the debate. // Pathoschild 18:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I have been gathering information. I have sources. I have the information to back up my contentions. I also have my own intoduction. Dominick 19:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't move my edits around

Thanks all the same but don't relocate my edits, again. Thanks.--MONGO 04:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

ó.ô // Pathoschild 04:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I didn't see that the warnings were broken down into months. I usually separate them day to day, hence my subheading. Your comment was not necessary.--MONGO 05:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon warnings/block formats...

I like the idea of standardizing, I'm just not sure I like your standard.  :) I find it visually cluttering with the continuous indentation, especially since the stop hand seems to interfere. I had started going with a section for warnings, and a section for blocks, where you could see the new ones on the bottom, but I'm interested in your thoughts. We also should try to involve a wide audience to get a consensus. Thanks again for working on this. Let me know what you think. Wikibofh 21:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I was rather surprised to see that the page had been organised; I had assumed I was the only one working towards a standard organisation of warnings. I've just rewritten the formatting guide to make it more human-readable by seperating explanation from example. I welcome new contributors; I suggest we use the formatting guide talk page for it's discussion. I copied the discussion so far there. // Pathoschild 21:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The discussion is continued at User_Talk:Pathoschild/templates/warnings.


You're smart enough to figure out for what.  :) Wikibofh 03:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) // Pathoschild 04:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hypnosis archives

whats going on w that? See w:Talk:Hypnosis#Archives. Sam Spade 14:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see my response on Talk:Hypnosis. // Pathoschild 14:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Keep up the good work, though! brenneman(t)(c) 02:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ohh, the irony... Thanks. :) // Pathoschild 02:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey, what have you done to my template! 16px Anyway, to get around the problem of <nowiki> tags and templates, use {{tl}}. Also see my toolbox of special characters, which could probably do with some expansion... good work and good luck! Alphax τεχ 10:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot; that makes most of my <nowiki> use redundant seem redundant. >_> // Pathoschild 13:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the links to the example templates, because they interfered with the list of non-subst templates for {{test}} (through the 'What links here' special page). // Pathoschild 02:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

About your opinions on paedophilia

Can you explain why you would be ambivalent to Paedophilia? I see nothing to be ambivalent about in light of the fact that the vast majority of Paedophiliacs rape their victims.--MONGO 05:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Concerning my edit summary comment, I assumed that you had noticed the monthly organisation, but deliberately decided to ignore it and revert edits by those who didn't. I apologize for the sarcasm. I'm ambivalent about paedophilia because statistics like those you've given are extremely flawed. I don't think there's every been a truly unbiased study on paedophilia — all the ones I've looked up have been either heavily tilted to one side or other, or flawed. Law or social indoctrination means most paedophiles may repress their desire, leaving only the criminal or social heretic who indulge, oft violently, ruining the reputation of paedophiles in general. // Pathoschild 13:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Ruining the reputation? Due to the nature of my occupation, it would be best (for you), I think, if you didn't tell me anymore.--MONGO 13:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Either that was awfully non sequitur, or I've entirely lost your train of thought. // Pathoschild 13:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Move: Why not just move it to Mallorca/infobox? // Pathoschild 09:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Because subpages are even worse than single-use and metatemplates. --Golbez 16:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

(Above posted on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Mallorca_infobox.) What's wrong with subpages? // Pathoschild 20:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)}}

See Wikipedia:Subpages - using them for a template does not fall under allowed uses. Such things used to be allowed, but now subpages outside of the User or Wikipedia or Talk namespaces is completely depracted, except for /Temp pages. --Golbez 20:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that. Thanks. // Pathoschild 20:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Archived from User warnings project


This is a list of subpages used for this project. Note that all discussion pages should redirect to this talk page.

  • warnings -- the main page, with an explanation and examples of the latest revision.
    • warnings2.0 -- the proposal under development for a parallel warning system, intended to create a full suite of guide-adapted warning templates.
      • warnings/warnings -- An exhaustive list of the current guide template suite. This page is highly experimental.

Visual clutter

The quoted text was moved from User_Talk:Pathoschild on 21:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC):

I like the idea of standardizing, I'm just not sure I like your standard.  :) I find it visually cluttering with the continuous indentation, especially since the stop hand seems to interfere. I had started going with a section for warnings, and a section for blocks, where you could see the new ones on the bottom, but I'm interested in your thoughts. We also should try to involve a wide audience to get a consensus. Thanks again for working on this. Let me know what you think. Wikibofh 21:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I was rather surprised to see that the page had been organised; I had assumed I was the only one working towards a standard organisation of warnings. I've just rewritten the formatting guide to make it more human-readable by seperating explanation from example. I welcome new contributors; I suggest we use the formatting guide talk page for it's discussion. I copied the discussion so far there. // Pathoschild 21:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)}}
I disagree with seperating blocks from the warnings. I can see how it may be useful for finding previous blocks for precedent, it becomes difficult to know if a series of warnings is ongoing or recently resulted in a block. It also becomes difficult to judge if past warnings resulted in punishment, particularly since the sections may not be archived with careful attention to synchronisation.
I do agree that there is some visual clutter, but I think the current version is a big improvement over the clutter of a disorganised page. If you can think of a way to lessen clutter further, you're welcome to try. ^_^ // Pathoschild 21:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem I run into when I go to block someone is whether or not they have already been blocked, if so when, and does it relate to the current vandalism (which is the majority of these blocks). Having all of the blocks in one place makes it easier for me to see the history of blocks (provided the admins actually note them). I agree it would be nice to see blocks and warnings together, but in practice they seem to be ALL over the place on the individual pages. Some people make separate sections for months, some for articles, some not at all, some above the TOC, etc... My thought was to keep them in simple groups on the hope that people would see the sections as obvious. It could be that your templates will reduce this chaos. As for the visual clutter, how about a 3 level max. First warning, all subsequent warnings indented one level, block on a 3rd level. Wikibofh 21:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
That works quite well. One doesn't have to glance at the end of every series for a block, one just has to slide down along the second-level line. I updated the page to reflect the new version as stated above. As for the general user following the guide, it might be a good idea to place a small but visible note somewhere pointing out that there's a standardised format in use. However, even if some users don't strictly follow the template, I've found that they unerringly do post their warnings under the appropriate heading. The difference between an unformatted and formatted warning is thus relatively small and easily integrated; I have 158 user talk pages on my guide watch list for that reason. // Pathoschild 22:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
PS: One way to make conformance to the guide easy would be to have tags specific to the guide. In this way, {{guide5}} (or similarly named) will automatically be a third-level warning, et cetera. The only problem is that users often start a series with {{test2}}, which makes it impossible to format it in advance. // Pathoschild 22:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that format looks MUCH better. Thanks for being flexible. Tonight or tomorrow I'll post something to the Village Pump to see if we can maybe move this towards being an official standard.  :) I agree that using a guide or something similar would be a good way to go. Wikibofh 22:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
One user's pet project straight to proposed official standard in one day. °-°'

On a related note, if every warning is first-level and every block second-level, it becomes much easier to distinguish between series, find block notices, and even create standardised template tags that automatically apply the guide. // Pathoschild 22:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've come up with a possible model for the above idea of guide template warnings. What thinkest thou? // Pathoschild 07:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Problem with {{if}} in templates

One of the problems I see with the current templates is that some have both named and unnamed warnings, but others don't; those that do accomplish this with two versions of each warning. I'm using {{if}} in the guide templates to make them all optionally named or unnamed, but I run into a problem in doing so.

If we aren't concerned with server load, I can simply use {{if}} as-is without problem. However, templates on talk pages should ideally be entirely subst'd to reduce server load. Unfortunately, there is no auto-subst that I'm aware of and, in fact, {{if}} cannot be subst'd without adding the page to the template's category. One possible solution is to convert {{if}} into the programming code it refers to in each template. I'm going to be experimenting a bit, but I probably lack the technical knowledge to do so. More contributors would be helpful indeed. // Pathoschild 23:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Pathoschild/Archives/2005-10".