User talk:Coppertwig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikiquote[change source]

Great work on Simple Wikiquote! However, it looks as if the project will be closed shortly. If you wish to continue contributing, you can, but it won't make any difference at all in the vote, and it may be a waste of time. You're also registered under the name 'Copertwig' on Wikiquote if you're having trouble logging in. I'm also a sysop over there if there's any serious problems. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by that was that if you're building up a lot of content to try and change people's opinion in the vote, it's not going to make any difference whatsoever. The people that are voting to close Wikiquote think that the entire idea of SEWikiquote is useless, no matter how much content it has. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 09:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. See your talk page. --Coppertwig 13:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
About the Wikiquote page count, I could be wrong here, but it's probably not been reset in a while. The Wikimedia Foundation's server organisation is far too complex for me to fully understand, but basically some functions like the current time, Category:Deletion requests and other strange things only update every so often, so you can either manually 'purge' them and force the server to grab a new copy, or wait. I don't think you can purge the number of articles... Archer7 - talk 23:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Jesus[change source]

Hi Coppertwig! I've removed most of your additions to Jesus because they were not necessary. If you go back and read the page carefully, you will find that

  • The article tells in the introduction that the information comes from the Gospels.

....

Rest of Edit deleted by its author. Sorry about cluttering up your page. I hope you found my comments on the Priory of Sion fraud relevant. --Amandajm 14:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Check User voting[change source]

With the ongoing situation of vandals and their sock puppets disrupting Simple English wikipedia, a discussion has been going on about selecting users here to act as Check Users to help identify the people who are causing the problems and take actions to try and prevent them from causing more. For any wiki to allowed to have users with Check User ability, that wiki must vote on users and come up with a 70-80% approval with 25-30 votes. Simple has a small community of dedicated users, so we need all of us as a group to come together to make this happen. Many of our editors are not entirely interested in what goes on behind the scenes here, they are here just to create good articles. There is nothing at all wrong with this, but at this point in time we need each editor to take just a few seconds and visit the Requests for Adminship page and cast their vote for any or all people who they are comfortable with giving Check User access to. Each wiki needs two members who are accepted by the community to hold this position to help fight vandalism on the wiki.

If you have any questions about what a Check User is or what their job is, please feel free to ask any of the admins (or look at the information on Check User on Meta.wikipedia.org), but please take a moment and voice your opinion in the votes to help us deal with this ongoing situation. -- Creol(talk) 07:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please vote here: Requests for Adminship

As requested[change source]

To join the secret cabal follow me!Rainbow trout.png


Whack!

Good day. Synergy 02:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I needed that. Coppertwig (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Your sig[change source]

Hello Coppertwig. As much as I like your signature, unfortunately it violates the signature policy. Please see this part of the signature policy. Here it says transclusions are prohibited because sig pages are targets of vandalism. I see you use User:Coppertwig/Signature as your sig. I'm afraid you must change this. Thank you. ѕwirlвoy  22:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, SwirlBoy39, but I think it's fine. There are no transcluded templates in my signature. Look at my signature in the wikitext and you can see that. There are no curly brackets. I don't transclude the signature page; I "subst" it. Here you can see that transclusion and substitution are two different things.
The reason transcluded templates in signatures is a problem for vandalism is that someone can vandalise the template and then the vandalism will be visible on many pages at once, all the pages where that signature is. That can't happen with my signature. Someone can vandalise my signature page, but the signatures I've already put on pages won't change; and the next time I sign something probably I'll press "preview" so the vandalism probably won't come onto a page even one time. Coppertwig(talk) 01:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
As a native in wikicode, I can also confirm that your sig is not a transclusion, but merely using subst. I wouldn't do it myself, but the code does look fine. fr33kman t - c 01:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Fr33kman! Coppertwig(talk) 01:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Just remember to use preview all the time. If an edit gets made that is offensive due to your sig page being vanalized; it'll be considered your problem. Take care, welcome back! fr33kman t - c 02:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

See also w:en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Coppertwig/Signature. Thanks for the welcome, Fr33kman! Coppertwig(talk) 01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Join the English Wikipedia new pages patrol competition![change source]

Join the English Wikipedia new pages patrol competition! Join Team A or Team B, and have fun competing while helping clear the new pages patrol backlog! Coppertwig(talk) 20:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Message for Coppertwig[change source]

Hello there.

I have found you by accident hunting through seeing your comments on vitamin C on wiki.

I am interested in your (quite passionate?) comments on people being polite and courteous to each other when commenting and I wished to simply point out that some people do not intend to provoke anger and upset but do so just the same. I would suggest that this is a form of autism perhaps but nevertheless think that actually it is in the power of the reader to not get upset at anything at all if they choose. Sometimes it is obvious that people wish to be rude but then again they might be attempting to be funny. The perception of humour is extremely personal. Good communication is put as an essential on nearly all job specs but hardly anyone can agree on what it means! Actually it means good listening I think - and therefore there should be little restriction on what is written - just accept that to come to a common interpretation may take quite a few replies back and forth.

I would value your reply - however short and sweet (or not!)

Sp