User talk:Imzadi1979
(Redirected from User talk:Imzadi1979 (public))
Welcome to the talk page of
Imzadi1979
If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page.
Please start a new talk page thread either by clicking the New section link above or using the box below. This will make sure that the edit summary that appears on watchlists accurately shows your edit as a new topic, and not related to another topic. Thank you.
"Imzadi1979 (public)" is an alternate account for use on public computers.
Imzadi1979
If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page.
Please start a new talk page thread either by clicking the New section link above or using the box below. This will make sure that the edit summary that appears on watchlists accurately shows your edit as a new topic, and not related to another topic. Thank you.
Post a message to my talk page 
You've got mail!
[edit]
Message added 16:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I sent the mail yesterday. Hope you'll read it and understand. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Please do not edit against consensus. Please undo your edits. Polygnotus (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus: my edit is not designed to be against consensus. By default, the author is missing from all invocations of the template, unless it is specifically desired on an article that cites corporate authors consistently, like several dozen highway FAs. You don't want it, you don't get it. If you want it, you should still be able to have it. Imzadi 1979 → 15:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the consensus is to remove a parameter, and you add it back in (even if you make it optional), it is still against consensus. But you knew that already. Please respect the WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus: then what you would like me to do with M-1 (Michigan highway), a Featured Article using this template. If you look at fn 1, fn 4, fn 5, fn 7, fn 61, fn 64, fn 68, fn 73-81, all of those list the author of the maps being cited, but now fn 9 does not. It's inconsistent. That's one FA, and I could do a similar listing with 30 more FAs on state highways in Michigan. If I can have an optional parameter to restore the author, then we should both be happy. You don't have the author anymore, and I still can have it for consistency. The alternative is that a template created by highway article authors for highway articles will end up abandoned by those same authors. Imzadi 1979 → 15:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- To me, this perceived lack of consistency is not a problem, but editing against consensus is a big problem. If it is important to you then you can use the talkpage to get consensus. I deleted some links [1]. Polygnotus (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus: that's now how things are handled when nominating articles at FAC. Either way, I'll just manually cite the maps in the future and abandon the convenience template. Imzadi 1979 → 15:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- No one is forced to use the template, manually citing is fine, in whatever way you prefer. There is quite a bit of freedom in that area. I think there is a larger group that wants things a certain way when using that template, which clashes with your personal preference. I have added a few buttons to the wikieditor so I can easily insert text strings the way I want them to be. You could consider doing something similar if you want to. Polygnotus (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus: that's now how things are handled when nominating articles at FAC. Either way, I'll just manually cite the maps in the future and abandon the convenience template. Imzadi 1979 → 15:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- To me, this perceived lack of consistency is not a problem, but editing against consensus is a big problem. If it is important to you then you can use the talkpage to get consensus. I deleted some links [1]. Polygnotus (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus: then what you would like me to do with M-1 (Michigan highway), a Featured Article using this template. If you look at fn 1, fn 4, fn 5, fn 7, fn 61, fn 64, fn 68, fn 73-81, all of those list the author of the maps being cited, but now fn 9 does not. It's inconsistent. That's one FA, and I could do a similar listing with 30 more FAs on state highways in Michigan. If I can have an optional parameter to restore the author, then we should both be happy. You don't have the author anymore, and I still can have it for consistency. The alternative is that a template created by highway article authors for highway articles will end up abandoned by those same authors. Imzadi 1979 → 15:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the consensus is to remove a parameter, and you add it back in (even if you make it optional), it is still against consensus. But you knew that already. Please respect the WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies for the unintended block
[edit]Hi. When dealing with a sockpuppet case in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/That guy who plays games, the tool I use to block and manage the cases pre-selected you for a block because your username had been mentioned in the report. I didn't notice this until it was raised to me on my talk page. Please be assured that this was an accidental block and there are no accusations of sockpuppetry. Apologies for this, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)