User talk:Iduan

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Recorder (Talk | contribs) at 03:36, 12 February 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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






NFL Templates

Thanks for making those NFL Templates. I noticed some of them weren't being used in the articles, so I inserted them. I hope you continue making those templates. --Crocoite 16:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Ahh, thank you, yeah there was a question of what namespace they should go in for a while - but I think it's pretty much been resolved that the template namespace is adequate; and I certainly do plan on continuing soon! Thanks for putting them in consistently (I like the fact that you put it in its own section - that makes it a lot more clear and it also makes the pages nicer)--IDuan 16:31, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Those templates were originally in template namespace, and I suggested (months ago) that they shouldn't be. My reasons were as follows:
  • If they are only used on one page, there's little point in making templates for them.
  • Current policy is for templates to be locked, so if the roster changes (as I expect would happen reasonably often) then a sysop needs to change (or at least unlock) them.
  • If you don't want complex tables cluttering up the article, then they could be put into a sub-page and linked into the article as a template.
Now, if something has changed, such as them now being used on multiple pages, then that changes things, but otherwise I think they should not be in template namespace. I've not seen any other discussion on this, so if there is one somewhere, and particularly if it mentions factors that I haven't considered, could you point me to it please? I'm not laying this down as law, but I think it's pertinent to consider.
Philip J. Rayment 22:58, 8 February 2008 (EST)
The only reason I said I thought they should be in the template namespace is because when I started transferring them to the mainspace others started telling me to stop ... I mean frankly I'm fine with you moving them, I'll even go back and fix all the links - because I actually believe that they should be in the mainspace (since they're only being used on one page) - but ultimately it's your call - just give me the heads up whatever you decide and I'll go in and change the links.--IDuan 10:20, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Where were those "others [who] started telling [you] to stop" doing so? I'd like to see that conversation. Philip J. Rayment 05:31, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Re by emailIDuan 11:55, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Guard dog

What's the deal with that? --MakeTomorrow 17:27, 8 February 2008 (EST)

From what I've heard, and I'm not going to give away everything because I don't know what's final and what's not, it's an experimental program meant to more easily block vandals without the presence of admins - I was mistakenly blocked by it; but luckily Philip was there to explain.--IDuan 17:30, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Sweet! That will be awesome...except then we don't get to block them ourselves. :/ ~BCSTalk2ME 17:34, 8 February 2008 (EST)
It won't pick up all types of vandalism, so there will still be plenty of opportunities for you to block editors! Philip J. Rayment 18:07, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Ah...Okay...still it's really awesome(genius). :P ~BCSTalk2ME 18:16, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Haha - it does sound pretty awesome - Philip = amazingness--IDuan 17:36, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Very true!~BCSTalk2ME 17:37, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Wow, sounds like a very useful system. -- L.S.  17:44, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Looks pretty lame to me, but that may have just been the beta… --MakeTomorrow 10:30, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry about that latest block. Rather than it needing a bit more fine tuning, in this case it appears to be a bug. I've turned it right off for now, until I can find and fix the bug. Philip J. Rayment 16:59, 9 February 2008 (EST)
It's fine, don't worry about it. --MakeTomorrow 23:13, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Uhmm - well I think he was actually referring to my block (since I was the latest), but regardless - it's fine philip, lol--IDuan 23:18, 9 February 2008 (EST)
I was referring to you, Iduan. I've got no sympathy for MakeTomorrow who deliberately put it to the test. :-) Philip J. Rayment 05:26, 11 February 2008 (EST)


Congratulations. Looks good.--TerryHTalk 17:28, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks - I'm actually kind of nervous about the looks ... but I appreciate your support (oh and by the way - good thinking to use switch!)--IDuan 17:31, 9 February 2008 (EST)


Sorry if i missed this in the MOS, but is there a preference to have singular or plural article names? I found the Optic lobes article (plural title) and created Optic lobe with a redirect to it. I wasn't sure if what I did was ok, or if the singular title should redirect to the plural title, or if both are acceptable.--Recorder 11:49, 11 February 2008 (EST)

I changed the redirect to the singular. Redirecting to the plural makes linking more difficult. BrianCo 14:24, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Thanks.--Recorder 22:36, 11 February 2008 (EST)