Jump to content

User talk:Gimmetrow: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 275: Line 275:
:I've given you an explanation, and you haven't given me one. I don't want to fight you on this; if there is a problem then I would like to be able to resolve it, but I can't do that if you're not willing to help. If there is a problem with the banner then it needs to be fixed, and I urge you to assist me. Another edit war this time tomorrow will be to the benefit of no-one. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
:I've given you an explanation, and you haven't given me one. I don't want to fight you on this; if there is a problem then I would like to be able to resolve it, but I can't do that if you're not willing to help. If there is a problem with the banner then it needs to be fixed, and I urge you to assist me. Another edit war this time tomorrow will be to the benefit of no-one. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
:: You have still failed to give any explanation why the ''template'' is needed. (If you ever did, I would probably just change the template.) But you've done nothing, so there's no point. [[User_talk:Gimmetrow|''Gimmetrow'']] 03:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
:: You have still failed to give any explanation why the ''template'' is needed. (If you ever did, I would probably just change the template.) But you've done nothing, so there's no point. [[User_talk:Gimmetrow|''Gimmetrow'']] 03:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the majority of the banner is for whatever reason not auto-hiding, based on the "two pages" comment. That would be a display issue, but I have to assume it's on your side, since we've had this format for a long time without any similar complaints. If it is a technical bug, though, feel free to fix it - I hear you have a good eye for that. [[User:Girolamo Savonarola|Girolamo Savonarola]] ([[User talk:Girolamo Savonarola|talk]]) 03:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:27, 25 January 2009

Armenian Archepiscopal staff

Permalinks 		Armenian Archepiscopal staff


ignoring consensus

Gimmetrow, you have no consensus to support your elimination of agreed text. NancyHeise talk 04:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add the sentence that says "There is a strong body of opinion...." you need to have a reference. None of our references say that. Whitehead says that the name Catholic Church has been the official name since the time of Council of Nicea and continues through to this day and the latest council, Vatican II. He explains the preference of "Roman Catholic" by Anglicans and some modern day folk. Please read what he says before you insert a sentence on that subject. Our sentences must match what sources say. :-) NancyHeise talk 04:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of your references say that the "official name" of the church is "Catholic Church", so if you want to add that, you will need to provide references. Also "Roman was rejected" without qualification is not supported by the references. This is not subject to voting. I'm sorry it comes to this. When there is an editorial conflict, one way of resolving it is to state literally and exactly what the source says, and not expand on its meaning. I was hoping after all this time you would do that. Gimmetrow 04:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Under what premise would you think I would succeed at RFA? I pretty much just run WP:CHICAGO and produce WP:GAs. I have very modest experience at chasing vandals and such.

Yes, there are times when I could have expedited the proper functioning of the project if I had the wonder powers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24.249.192.164

That user is making abusive unblock requests. Please change the block settings for that IP address to "anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page" -- IRP ☎ 14:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not blocking for blanking a talk page

So for future reference, if a final warning is issued, and that warning is immediately blanked, what's the further action here? How are other editors supposed to rely on escalating warnings and so forth if previous warnings were deleted by the warned editor? Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins [should] look at the page history. My point is that this account's only edit after the final warning was to blank its talk page. If that's the last edit made, there's no point blocking the account as well. If the account does the same article edits again it will probably be blocked as a spam account. Gimmetrow 19:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's unnessacry, challnage it and improve the issue that caused it to get placed.

There is a justifcation for inclusion of archive.org links, but they need to i) be more clearly identified. ii) be 'obtainable' , as parts of archive.org are filtered by some ISP's.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, No consensus for this.... And IRC disscusion seems to suggest archive.org is stable enough...

So Apologies and thanks for the rollback :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re filtering , Some parts of archive.org are filtered in the UK, because of a 'censor' filter that blocks certain types of content

which are 'questionable' in the UK.

It seems that for whatever reasons archive.org gets passed through it, because it's cached something

that flagged the filter, because the filtering list is not public and for technical reasons, sometimes entire sites get filtered even though they do not of themsleves host 'bad content'.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How do you report a person on here? ====== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.14.12 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you want to report? (I think I can guess which editor this might refer to.) Gimmetrow 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but i never reported a person at all on here ===== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.14.12 (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question is - what do you want to report about this person? (Oh, you might want to use ~~~~ rather than =====, if you're trying to make a signature). Gimmetrow 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When that user put Kevin and Danielle are engaged but they are not http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiEUGG6IkGk 22:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.14.12 (talk)

Well, that's par for the course. I'll keep an eye on the article. If the rumors are unsourced they probably go against WP:Biographies of living persons. If so, just remove the unsourced rumors citing that policy. In some cases, though, if certain rumors keep coming back, there might occasionally be a valid reason, so you could ask for a citation by adding {{cn}} after the phrase or posing the question on the talk page. Hope that helps. Gimmetrow 23:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have proof that they are not engaged well accutally two proofs how do i add those 23:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.14.12 (talk)

What are they, and I'll take a look, but why does the article need to say this, either? Gimmetrow 23:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You know for proof http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiEUGG6IkGk and http://www.theinsider.com/news/1439313_The_Insider_Gets_Personal_with_the_Jonas_Brothers 23:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.14.12 (talk)

I tried one time to put a source for a diffrent person but i failed eva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.14.12 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, the article now doesn't say they are engaged. Does it really need to positively say they are not? Gimmetrow 23:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind okay whats a sandbox on here 00:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)~

A sandbox is a page where you test wikicode or "play around" to get something to work. One such page is WP:SAND. Gimmetrow 00:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this website and answers.com the same? 00:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.14.12 (talk)

They are different sites. However, answers.com mirrors a lot of Wikipedia content, so it's almost always circular to try using it as a reference here. Gimmetrow 00:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People always say that answers is more reliable than this site 00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what part of answers.com you mean. It should be obvious which parts mirror wiki pages. The question-specific parts can be better, although they too sometimes derive from wiki content. But there are parts which are authored, and if the author is a notable expert, those pages can be cited as the self-published work of an expert in the field. Gimmetrow 01:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Not that it really matters, but why the block on this user? Tan | 39 00:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake. Saw it at AIV. Already undone. Gimmetrow 00:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a declined tag on it... no worries, tho. Just curious. Carry on. Tan | 39 00:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry man

Sorry 'bout my vandalism report. Just was trying to help but I shoulda looked up the rules and such. andkore 05:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articlehistory bluelinked

Someone has done it again: Category:ArticleHistory error SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-deleted now. Gimme, someone at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Resizing references is pushing for automatic use of {{reflist}} over <references />. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArticleHistory and DYK stuff

Hi Gimmetrow, I haven't heard from you about the stuff we discussed in the past about making {{ArticleHistory}} put DYK/GA and DYK/FA articles into a category, and by now the discussion at WT:DYK is archived; I figured maybe you were too busy to get a chance to look, so I'll just paste the code I was thinking of directly here. Here is what I was thinking of: 

{{#if:{{{dykdate|}}}|
{{#ifeq:{{{currentstatus}}}|FA|[[Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured content]]}}
{{#ifeq:{{{currentstatus}}}|GA|[[Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles]]}}
{{#ifeq:{{{currentstatus}}}|FL|[[Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured content]]}}}}

This is probably not the exact code that would end up being used (because there's a lot I don't know about how AH works and things might need to be tweaked around) but should hopefully give you an idea what I'm trying to do. The first line would identify articles that have been featured on DYK in the past; the next lines would identify articles that are also currently good or featured content. If this works the way I intend, it should not affect the FAC or GAN process, and the people who work in those projects should not even notice a difference.

Would something like this work in the AH template?

Thank you, Politizer talk/contribs 14:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course something like that would work. I thought I said so in the WT:DYK discussions. Gimmetrow 15:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might have missed your comment; my apologies. I have been away for a bit, and of course at the same time this discussion was going on there was some other stuff hijacking the page and taking up everyone's attention. Anyway, if you like, would it be ok if I discuss with the DYK people what kind of articles we want to include (for example, if delisted FAs and whatnot should go in the categories) and then get back to you with a final idea of what code should be added?
Thanks for your quick response, Politizer talk/contribs 15:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gimmetrow, when you implemented this, it looks like you may have forgotten the Category: for the FL case. The code currently just adds a wikilink—[[Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured lists|{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}]], see eg Talk:List of Sultans of Zanzibar. However the category doesn't seem to exist either. Dr pda (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent block of vandal/ Protection

Hallo, I don't not whether you know already, but for the recent vandalism at Nicolaus Copernicus, Recovered Territories, Bureaucracy and other articles, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin and User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin. Serafin also used an UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH based IP for edits at Jan Dzierżon, see Special:Contributions/131.104.139.187. As he has now created 200-odd accounts mainly to vandalize the articles mentioned above, I suggest to full protect them, as other editors have been driven away already, leaving the field to Serafin's incarnations, which should be excluded effectively. -- Matthead  Discuß   09:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Protection of articles.-- Matthead  Discuß   04:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

You have twice removed content at Roman Catholic Church that was agreed upon at the talk page. user Richard, user Xandar and myself have agreed to the use of Patrick Madrid's book, a source who meets WP:RS and is an includable POV per WP:NPOV. If we have omitted any POV's please come to the talk page and provide a link, we can include them. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 03:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, I am going to complain about you at the administrators board, you are clearly POV warring. I have clear talk page evidence to back up my use of Madrid, I was making changes that were discussed. I placed the info on the page and have asked the others to view it, they can not view it because you have omitted it with zero talk page discussion. NancyHeise talk 04:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have continually reverted me without discussion, removing verifiable sources with contrary views. Enough is enough. Gimmetrow 04:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not reverted you - please provide the diff to support such an accusation. NancyHeise talk 04:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many diffs do you want, Nancy? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Gimmetrow 04:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gimmetrow, thats not fair, the first two are my reversions of your POV edit warring with me after I inserted material that was agreed upon on the talk page. The others are your insertion of material that no one agreed to on the talk page, one of them is to an opinion piece in American Ecclesiastical Review that also ran a counter opinion, you inserted one opinion and left the other one out, how is that NPOV? NancyHeise talk 04:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. You had included the opinion which agreed with you but refused to allow the counter opinion which did not, yet apparently that was NPOV? And I did not remove the one opinion - I was happy to have them both. Enough is enough with the obstructionism, Nancy. Gimmetrow 05:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it was the opinion that cited the same facts as the only source used by worldwide Catholic media to explain the name of the Church. The other opinion had no corroborating source to support it. However, because you objected, I eliminated the opinion figuring it was unnecessary only to find you inserting the opposite opinion! NancyHeise talk 05:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No corroborating source"? You've been provided with multiple sources saying the same thing. A couple years ago I spent months at that article arguing for the page to be at Catholic Church. When someone on your own side is telling you the article appears biased on the point of "official name" and "Roman was rejected", it's a good sign that it is at least biased, if not wrong. Gimmetrow 05:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First - I am not on any "side". I am following Wikipedia policy, agreeing with page consensus and using WP:RS references that are the only sources that discuss the name of the Church, are in English language and are used by Catholic media to explain the name of the Church - Media that has bishop and vatican oversight like Our Sunday Visitor and EWTN. Being cited is one of those qualities noted by WP:Reliable source examples as evidence of a better source. Whitehead is cited by the two most respected Catholic media publications. The only thing I have been provided with to the contrary is being pointed to are things that WP:OR and WP:RS do not allow us to use as references - like Defteri's mention of Pius XII's one instance of using Roman Catholic when he is talking about what "others say" in Humani Generis. NancyHeise talk 08:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate your responsible editing on the Roman Catholic Church article - thanks! Some of us need to stand up to the blatantly biased and unacademic POV crap that the polemicists insist on including! Afterwriting (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could either of you please provide another POV that I keep asking for? How is it POV to include the only sources in existence that discuss the name of the Church, that are not opinion pieces in a magazine? NancyHeise talk 04:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might this be useful to your discussion? [6][7]--Phenylalanine (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've misunderstood or missed the part that would help. Could you explain? Gimmetrow 17:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:AN3

Hello Gimmetrow. In case you have not been explicitly notified, see this 3RR discussion which mentions you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

There's a couple of factors here - none of which I have access to - that would determine my choice of reaction. For one, as an admin I would have access to the deleted contribs feature (which only admins can access) which allow me to make a better judgment. the 2nd IP, given the personal attacks, would be somewhat of a no-brainer (block). As for the length, that varies again on factor to which I do not have access. If, for example, the IP showed no contributions other than personal attacks, I would make the block indefinite (as it is likely being used as nothing but an attack IP). If it shows contributions that are constructive, I would probably use a 1 or 2 week cooldown block. The first one, again, depends on factors that I cannot view, and so I am unable to make a judgment concerning the first IP. I have, however, given my rationale and personal preference for a decision concerning the second IP - I hope that suffices. Cam (Chat) 22:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that info helps. I would indefinitely block the 2nd IP, given that it is already suspected to be the sock puppet of an IP already known for making personal attacks (indeed, having looked at the other IP contribs, that can easily be confirmed). The first one now becomes a bit more difficult. Given that several pages have been blanked by the first IP, I'd be inclined to first send warnings to the talk page (though it should also be noted that this was not done in said incident). That said, the IP has an obvious history of blanking pages and making generally unhelpful edits. though it would not be my first action against the IP (warning being the first), I would resort to blocking the IP indefinitely should the behavior continue after the warning. Thanks for clarifying the deleted contribs bit. Cam (Chat) 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just here to comment, but admins rarely should give indef blocks on IPs. See this for more info. In short, the same user will likely not be on the same IP for a long time, so the block would be hitting a new person. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can say something about that for the same question on your RFA ;) Gimmetrow 00:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I will have some spare time tomorrow to answer the question. Sorry for the delay! Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answered back. Now I'm pretty sure most people would have blocked both for "block evasion", but I think my "technical" answer should explain why I wouldn't on the latter one. If you need any clarifications, go ahead & ask me! --Kanonkas :  Talk  21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the collision

On the block of 86.137.142.168 (talk · contribs). I've restored your settings. Toddst1 (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Doesn't matter. Gimmetrow 17:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My talk

Thanks. I can't figure where it's coming from, but with UK, Ireland, Canada and India, it's coordinated somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related to 4chan, I think. Gimmetrow 17:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see Talk:4chan#Protection now, but it goes nowhere? It's on the mainpage on the 14th, so semi-pro may be needed longer? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I'm caught up on the two threads at AN/I, 4chan attack. So I'm not just a run-of-the-mill bitch: I'm special. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

In case you haven't seen yet, I answered your question at my RfA. Enigmamsg 04:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting my script to add a template

Hi, there is is a discussion on my talk page about adding a template to indicate to future editors whether a page should be in dmy or mdy format. Your comments would be welcome. Do you know how I would code for that? Lightmouse (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions as to how to add a pice of text (in this case, a template) at the top of an article? Lightmouse (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still struggling with my script. I have been seeking advice at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Custom_Module_to_have_similar_.27Ignore....27_settings_as_in_.27Normal_settings.27.2C_.27Find_.26_Replace.27_dialog. If I could work out the piece of code that I posted there, I could make progress on hiding quotes from the monobook script. Any thoughts would be gratefully received. Lightmouse (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Botification

I had a busy day, Gimme; am just now preparing to read FAC, so I may be late. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor promotion glitch

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Brazil - Did I do something wrong here? Cirt (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

I began a Request for Mediation here [8] and listed you as a party. Please sign your name here [9] to agree to participate. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 06:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Encyclopedia

I am putting {{Catholic}} on these pages because they incorporate information from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and therefore should be in the appropriate category and have the appropriate attribution tag. As far as I know, the same thing was done with the {{1911}} tags. Feel free to revert my edits if you feel I am wrong. --Eastlaw (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul II

Hello Gimmetrow, We are looking for help on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and eventually ‘Featured Article’ status. Any help would be much appreciated.
Kind Regards Marek.69 talk 01:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Ali Zardari

Hey, let me know if you consider the current version to be more appropriate. I suggest you rephrase sentences instead of removing material backed by reliable sources. Thanks --Incidious (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should avoid misrepresenting sources, too. Gimmetrow 00:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll be more careful next time. Thanks --Incidious (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia GA articles

Alright, I'm asking. What is the purpose of this category? - Stepheng3 (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Edit warring over project banner

No; you explain why you insist on removing the project banner. I've looked at the page history and see that this has happened a number of times before. PC78 (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already responded. The article falls under the scope of the WikiProject, and has been tagged accordingly. The banner does more than just hand out an assessment. Now I repeat: why do you insist on removing the banner? PC78 (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding WikiProject banners to article talk pages is standard practise. I will ask you nicely for a third time (and please stop avoiding it): why do you keep removing the banner? PC78 (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it looks horribe? That isn't a reason. Keep your idle threats to yourself; you're in no position to hand out a block, nor is one warranted. You appear to have some serious WP:OWNERSHIP issues with this article. PC78 (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The banner allows the project to assess the article and keep track of that assessment; it allows potential areas of cleanup to be identified (in this case the article has no image); it brings the article to the attention of potentially interested editors via the project or its numerous task forces; it gives editors a port of call should they need any advice or assistance with the article; it is, as I have said, standard practise across Wikipedia.
I believe I have answered your question, but your steadfast refusal to answer mine is a growing concern. Please don't make me ask again, and please give me a satisfactory answer. PC78 (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't failed to answer you; I have done so several times now, but you're not reciprocating. You say the banner looks "horrible", that it's "intolerable". You say it takes up about two pages on your screen, but it shouldn't. I suspect there is some kind of browser issue here that is causing a problem. Communication is the key here. Can you please upload a screenshot so I can see what it is that you're seeing? PC78 (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utter waste of time. You expect me to take a screen shot when you can't even type up an explanation when requested? Unless you can provide an actual explanation as I requested originally, there is nothing further to discuss with you. Gimmetrow 03:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you an explanation, and you haven't given me one. I don't want to fight you on this; if there is a problem then I would like to be able to resolve it, but I can't do that if you're not willing to help. If there is a problem with the banner then it needs to be fixed, and I urge you to assist me. Another edit war this time tomorrow will be to the benefit of no-one. PC78 (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have still failed to give any explanation why the template is needed. (If you ever did, I would probably just change the template.) But you've done nothing, so there's no point. Gimmetrow 03:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that the majority of the banner is for whatever reason not auto-hiding, based on the "two pages" comment. That would be a display issue, but I have to assume it's on your side, since we've had this format for a long time without any similar complaints. If it is a technical bug, though, feel free to fix it - I hear you have a good eye for that. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gimmetrow&oldid=266243206"