User talk:Iduan

M Welcome to my talk page! Please feel free to ask a question I'll be happy to respond as soon as possible leave a comment Some things to keep in mind: Please sign your name using ~~~~ I'll typically respond on my talk page unless otherwise requested I archive whenever a convo is done T A Y L K

2007 (August) (September) (October) (November) (December) 2008 (January) (February) (August) 2009 (January) (February) Dates of Existance Fantastic job on the dates of existance on countries! I was wondering, and I know it is probably quite difficult, but, on wikipedia they have, on either side of the years, arrows that link to what the state was previosuly and what the state is now, Would it eb possible to do soemthing like that here on Conservapedia?--IScott 16:50, 18 February 2009 (EST) Quite possibly! I don't want to say for sure yes because I haven't really tried something like that here, but I could definitely get the arrows and maybe get the flags. That all being said, I am a little worried about the template becoming overloaded with parameters, so I'll try it some time within the next week and we'll see what it ends up looking like; thanks so much!--IDuan 17:00, 18 February 2009 (EST) I took a look around, and, in my opinion at least, I feel that having the arrows (which are really all flash and little substance) wouldn't be worth the extra code, especially since having one arrow for the pre-country/post-country status really isn't accurate - there are certainly countries that have split into multiple countries. I'll still work on trying to minimize the code, and maybe one day implementing it, but I'm afraid it can't be at the top of my list right now, but I promise that will definitely attempt it at least a few more times.--IDuan 16:41, 21 February 2009 (EST) Template:Governors Thanks for the fix! I'm not well-schooled on the art of template creation yet. WesleySHello! 17:08, 21 February 2009 (EST) Hey no problem - it was a minor error; if you ever need any help, though, feel free to ask! :) --IDuan 17:46, 21 February 2009 (EST) Your template ideas Iduan, what do you need from me to support your proposed changes? I'm pretty good with templates but by no means an expert; I tinker where others pioneer (with an occasional exceptional insight like {{age}} I may say). --Ed Poor Talk 16:44, 21 March 2009 (EDT) He doesn't need anything, Ed....just a bit over-eager about some stuff is all. ;-) --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT) (edit conflict) Oh thanks very much Ed- and I think you're better than you think you are - great job on the age template. Template's aren't measured by their code, but by their usefulness. As to the proposal, as you might have seen the proposal is a little complicated technically, but it's actually a very minor proposal with a minor scope. I've pretty much worked my Officeholder template to allow all subpage to be protected by cascading (which, again, as you probably know, is where a page is automatically protected because it appears (by transclusion - like how template show up on other page) on another page that is protected). Now, since all of the sub-pages are protected, I'm saying that there's no need to individually protect them. The reason for this is that if the pages are individually protected, it becomes excessively difficult to unprotect the sub-pages, because not only would the sub-pages have to be unprotected, but the page itself would have to be unprotected. Now, that doesn't seem to hard, but then when you're talking about making one minor change throughout each sub-page, then it's a lot of extra work. If my proposal were passed - the only page that would need to be unprotected is the first, over-arching page. So I'm saying that if a template sub-page is set up to be protected by cascading, then it shouldn't be protected individually (see what I mean about a small scope? ;) ). I'd appreciate any support or feedback you can give me, thanks again Ed!-IDuan 16:57, 21 March 2009 (EDT) BNP Why revert? he said it. JosephHKL 19:59, 21 March 2009 (EDT) Don't even pretend like you're editing in good faith - I'm not going to entertain your edit. If you're so desperate for a reason, then it's because Andy's quotes on certain subjects made on this website do not necessarily need to be placed in those subjects' articles.--IDuan 20:03, 21 March 2009 (EDT) Generally I disagree with reverting statements on talk pages, unless the user is nothing but a nasty sock, previously blocked as DaveM, ChristopherM and AliceBG, for the same contentious arguing. Good work, Iduan. --₮K/Admin/Talk 21:35, 21 March 2009 (EDT)