User talk:Microchip08/Archive/2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Statistics
User Page User Talk Accounts Changes E-mail Subpages Awards Sandbox Megabook.js Statistics Monobook Editor Review Wikiproject
         
Boite archives.png
Archives
Archived every 20 headings
1 2 3 4 5

This is an archive. Please do not directly edit this page. If you want to bring back a discussion I have archived, just copy and paste it into a new section of my talk page. Thanks!


Welcome to my talk page!

Template:Countrycat[change source]

I've changed Template:Countrycat so it works on country categories like the United States, where the flag as the in the name. If this happens again, use {{countrycat|Country Name|Name in flag}}.--  Lights  talk  12:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Great; thanks. mC8 12:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I took the template one step further and changed its image select to use the {{Country flagicon}} template that is used for the {{flagicon}} template (only 5x larger). With the exception of some strange category names (Georgia (country)..) which would need alias templates created, this should work for most every country (or at least all the main ones - some of the smaller ones may not have been created yet). I also relinked the country name to link to basepage rather than {{{1}}} since {{{1}}} is often used as the short name (UK/USA) and would likely be a redirect. Again problems with the odd country/cat name may crop up in this linking, but more will be fixed than broke I think. The usage for the template with all options has been included (noincluded actually) in the template. The template should also work on most US states as well as the large subdivision of most other countries. Worst case would be that a set of alias templates might need to be created, but many work fine without the templates.-- Creol(talk) 13:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Template:mouldy[change source]

Can I ask what this is for? Personally, I'd be offended if someone gave me moldy bread. Isn't that kind of rude? Do you mean it to be some kind of reward, or is it supposed to be funny? · Tygrrr... 13:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Randomly amusing. They use it on En, it seems. It was a choice between the "crackpot mouse" or the "mouldy bread". mC8 14:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, just wondering. · Tygrrr... 15:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:-) mC8 15:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lul[change source]

lmaonade --Gwib -(talk)- 16:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically it was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism...so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... so was a false edit and thus was vandalism, but then it was a good faith edit as it changed the counter to be correct, so then could not be vandalism... (and so on) Lol. mC8 16:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:[change source]

I don't know.....--   ChristianMan16  18:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I know.--   ChristianMan16  18:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(nods) Microchip 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Signature[change source]

I am sorry, but you are going to have to reduce your signature size. 12 pixels is the maximum height it can be, and yours looks to be at least 16 or 18 pixels. Please consider changing this to make it conform to the signature policy that we have here. Thanks, Razorflame 16:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please compare    ChristianMan16  and Microchip
Mine, it seems, is smaller. Microchip 16:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yours appears bigger on the screen, and it is larger than is allowed by the signature policy. Cheers, Razorflame 16:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Select one, please.
Microchip (1) Microchip (2) Microchip (3) Microchip (4) Microchip (5) Microchip (6)
And, incidentally, it's copied directly from an EN-WP sig that hasn't had any problems. Microchip 16:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
2 would be much better than the one your currently have :) Razorflame 16:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What about 3? Microchip 16:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ta da! Now with new and improved timestamp! Microchip 16:39, Friday, May 30 2008 Utc]]
Might want to check the sourcecode for that, you've got an extraneous pair of brackets hanging out just after the timestamp. TheWolf 11:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 8d1fc02c07cdcd84b9aab4650156b698[change source]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Tools?[change source]

Hi! I am pretty new to the Simple (tho I already got a Barnstar!!), but an old time editor (3+ years) at the English Wikipedia. I was wondering if there are tools like Twinkle that I might be able to install here? I feel like I'd like to do some new/recent page patrolling and vandal fighting in addition to creating articles and improving the level of simplistic English on others. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I believe that a couple of editors are busy porting Twinkle, but I'm not sure of the progress. There's a Vandal Warner gadget (that allows quick warning templates to be placed into the edit screen) and a New Pages / Recent Changes box that updates every 5 seconds. All three can be enabled in your preferences. Nice to see you around here. Microchip 17:58, Friday, June 13 2008 Utc

Editor review[change source]

Hello. I was wondering if you could review me. -- RyanCross (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - I don't know you that well. Microchip 09:45, Tuesday, June 17 2008 Utc
Oh, and, not that I mind, but other people might, so read this.
Oh, I see. I thought that if you force someone to review you was canvassing. But telling people nicely one time wasn't. Sorry, I didn't know. -- RyanCross (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it's open to interpretation. You're probably right... sorry if it came over the wrong way. Microchip 09:52, Tuesday, June 17 2008 Utc
That's how I learned it at en-wikipedia. Well, whenever you think you know me better, you can review me if you want. Yeah, and your forgiven. No worries. ;) -- RyanCross (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA spam[change source]

I forgot to tell you...[change source]

I replied at my editor review, that several of us have chatted at Swirlboy39's IRC Chat. Not to seem mischievous. Cheers -- America alk 17:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no. My browser (Flock) says that it doesn't know how to open the program. Not sure why. Cheers -- America alk 17:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tip[change source]

Thanks for the tip, its only blank because im not doing any huge big changes just now. But I will remember that :) ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey[change source]

Can you pop by for a minute please? Thank you! SwirlBoy39 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship[change source]

Template:RfD/Preload[change source]

I'm not sure how to fix it so I'll suggest it here instead. Have you considered using {{SUBST:SUBPAGENAME}} for the part that asks for the page's title? I figure this would make things easier. —Giggy 03:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That would work. Good idea. You can edit the preload by going Template:RfD/Preload/Template. Microchip 11:55, Sunday, July 13 2008 Utc
I see you did it - thanks! —Giggy 03:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)