User talk:Shane/Archive3

Cape Cod, MA

I was in cape cod this weekend. Kinda werid having no internet. Anyway, I'm back! --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 22:42, 29 May 2006 (CDT)

A reminder

I know the person who keeps changing the Galactica type battlestar page is annoying, but please don't bite the newbies. I'm an admin but even I don't threaten blocking unless they are a spammer or refuse to read and acknowledge our requests after a period of time. It's not appropriate to threaten anyone with being blocked from the wiki (especially if you lack the power to do so). That said, thanks to you (and Mercifull) for keeping the page intact. --Spencerian 11:04, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Hey, before I make the initial comment, I didn't check the history or contribs of the guy, too. Still be careful of the wording, but both you and Mercifull are doing the right thing. --Spencerian 11:14, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Tag for alternate/sep continuities

Hey Shane. Could you whip up a generic tag that says something to the effect of:

This article's information is based on characters or events within a separate continuity that may differ from the aired content of the Re-imagined Series, the Original Series, or Galactica 1980. Be sure that your contributions to this article reflect the characters and events specific to this continuity only.

I've asked Mercifull if he could make an icon for it (I suggested a character with a goatee; you probably get the reference). The completed tag will still need to pass consensus, but it will a good one to add to all video game and comic articles, especially if new ones appear. --Spencerian 14:49, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

Roger that. I'll post it in site images so me and merc are on the same page. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:43, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

Much obliged! --Spencerian 19:36, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

Template:Location Data

I don't think this is a bad idea, Shane, but isn't there any way you could have proposed it and gotten feedback before you ran off and implemented it on a dozen pages? --April Arcus 13:08, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

Technically, it's only on 5 pages. It just using the same Category as most. Why would I need to take an extra step to get "Good Faith"? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:14, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

It's a fairly large project, and just because I don't mind it (although I'm also not convinced it's necessary) doesn't mean that nobody else might have something to say. It's always a good idea to bring up major changes on the Quorum to get differing viewpoints before you implement them. --April Arcus 13:21, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

April, I suggest you read up on BW:BOLD. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 14:03, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

...but don't be reckless. --April Arcus 14:06, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

...but don't be reckless. regrades to "That's a good thing. But please note: be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as re-imagining or God.". And I am "If you are an experienced Wikipedian, you will probably have a good sense of which edits will be accepted, and which should be discussed first." so I know that this was accepted as you already indicated. Refer to Don't let that scare you off! --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 14:09, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

All I'm asking you to do is display a little courtesy to your fellow editors. I don't think it will kill you. --April Arcus 15:47, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

That is not what you orginally ask. You asked for me share your idea. If there was a disagrement on the use of the template, you should have posted in on the template talk page. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 16:03, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

Shane, I've read the above exchange and noted April's recent reverts, of which I concur with. The absence of disagreement or comment does not necessarily indicate acceptance of a change. It's important not just to do, or to ask and wait for an hour, but to give time (1 day or more) for any comments or responses, and to consider what such changes do. We've all seen the magic you can throw here and I, for one, am impressed by it. But changes must occur for a reason. The location template you made looks nice, but does add a level of complexity to a page that appears unnecessary. In the case of the "Tomb of the Ninth Lord," it seemed particularly cumbersome since it is very likely that no additional data will ever be added to that page. Also, just because we have an ability to do something (particularly with the newer MediaWiki software) doesn't make it a very good idea to apply all its features. Please use the Quorum to voice things first, AND also note the suggestion on the article's talk page to help with attention as well. As with the Main Page, you can also always make a mockup as a demonstration to point us to--just don't do it to live pages until we've all had a say (which can take a while). Also remember: You're not just "talking" to April here. Try directing your thoughts to the collective editors and it won't feel so personal. I'm sure April (or anyone) is NOT centering you out except to ask you to help work with you and not against your contribution. --Spencerian 19:56, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

Besides me and April's inability to work together sometimes, the location template is not just for TOS use, but RDM use as well. Though there are little things in each of the TOS, those are to be expanded because of the "TOS Development" project. Main page was never a problem. I do my work at BW:MAIN already. Another problem is that I do so many changes and so many addons, that my contribs list is to long for any one person to work on. I been meaning to update my user page, so that I list my projects. I will do something on there that reflects what I am working on. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 21:13, 11 June 2006 (CDT)