User talk:Electrobe

In response to your recent blanking of your talk page, I'd like to refer you to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages which says that “Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred.” Also, when archiving, I think you shouldn't archive active discussions such as “Standard”… All the best, Fred Bradstadt (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be very BOLD and are putting up new template designs. Whilst I like them, keeping complete control over them is OWNING what you aren't allowed to own. Let your style change and it may become standard. Fight all other edits, and it'll have a negative effect on your design. Remember: Wikipedia is about collaboration. You're also passing them off as standard; I can sympathise with that, but you should wait to see if it is accepted first and when it does grow to the standard, then start saying so. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I havent delibrately tried to keep the templates I create mine, however I am very particular about keeping certain aspects of the templates I create as standard practise for templates. Electrobe (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might not be aware that Wikipedia:Colours#Using colours in articles says “Overriding a link colour … is confusing and should be avoided” and “Be aware of the contrast of both plain text and the blue link text with the background colour and avoid clashes where possible …”. Since it is {{Navbox}} you are using, you might want to participate in Template talk:Navbox#Template colours. –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you see, I'm afraid that's OWNING. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not neccesarly the cartain aspects that I want to keep are actully neccesrry for the templates to make any sense so I would call that more making sense than OWNING however you are probalby right and I am willing to discuss these things its just nobody wants to talk to me. Electrobe (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cant just decide to create a standard for all template and expect everyone to go along with it and as Wikipedia:Colours#Using colours in articles states overriding the link colour is confusing and should be avoided there is no need for the links to be coloured black which makes the link appear as standart text and any attempt to communitcate with you results in being called a vandal --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know and I'm not saying that in fact I'm surprised that your not talking part in the discussion on teh topic. Electrobe (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The aspect I'm talking about is the blacking of the title. Fred Bradstadt is right, it's against COLOURS and doesn't help the template, it simply confuses new readers and editors. Your other arguments are out of my hands but that one should stop. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion taking place about the colour of bands, the current band colours make it differcult to see the words when i new colur has been selecrted which makes it easier to see the words when they are not blacked out as soon as I am inforemed of the result I will change the colours to their standard look. Electrobe (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I strongly ask that you stop "editing" templates until the aforementioned discussion is complete. There is no need to further aggravate everyone. Can I also have a link to the aforementioned discussion for clarity. I can't seem to locate it. Woody (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not botherd with you shading the background of templates I am asking you to stop colouring the WP:LINK it by default appears blue you are changing it to black so it shows as WP:LINK you see the link now appears as standard text this should be avoided I raised this issue at Template talk:Navbox#Template colours as I thought it was bad practice before I found WP:COLOUR which states that the link colour should not be changed. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what I am saying is that I am only making the links black becasue they are, as many peolpe have pointed out to me differcult to read. When A new Background is chosen I will feel happy about letting the links be changed (note only the link not the whole template) to how they were before. Electrobe (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You where the one who changed the background to the purple colour making the blue link hard to see if it was left the standard pale blue or another suitable colour there would be no need to change the link colour also you feel happy with will does override the manual of style --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say that I prefer the purple background to the pale blue, but hate the black links. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing it to a paler shade of purple could fix the problem see Template:JusticeSecretary --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, IMHO purple background and blue links look best. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no problem using {{Navbox}}’ standard light blue backgrounds (and of course dark blue links), but I know not many people agree with me. But if you/we agree on a different background color, I think it's important to define which templates are going to be colored – are they in a specific category or within the same WikiProject? –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you stopping with those black links...they're against Wikipedia:Colours#Using colours in articles and make it impossible to tell that there is a link there. Also, this may just be because I'm colorblind, but all of your new colors for those templates are just too dark for me to be able to read the title. For me to read it, I have to highlight the text or get really close to the screen and squint. They should be lighter colors to get more contrast between the background and the text. I changed some US ones to a lighter shade of blue so that I could actually read them. In particular, the UK ones are too dark of a purple for me to read, the Russian ones too dark a red. Might I suggest using #CCC0D9 and #D3A9A9, respectively. --CapitalR (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can read them fine; provided, of course, the links are not hidden. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Heymons is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Heymons until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Grove-School logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Location European Union 2007.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]