User talk:Spleodrach

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Spleodrach}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 18 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Template colour schemes

Hi Snappy. You raise a number of points, particularly about my "garish colour schemes", some of which are agreeable, some of which are not. The CB colour scheme is unsuitable so I will not dispute that. But what exactly is wrong with the others? As you say, "one persons tasteful is another persons tasteless", but there appears to have been no problem with the colour schemes before now; they are not political and I cannot see how they are controversial. I generally choose colour schemes which I think work and cannot see how they are offensive. I must all consider users with poor sight which I do indeed bear in mind; this is not particularly difficult for me as I do not possess the strongest of eyesights myself and thus would suspect this is to my own advantage when it comes to choosing colour schemes. I am somewhat offended at your assumption that users with poor sight may be bracketed as "disabled and the elderly", I had not thought myself to belong in either category before now. I can't think why you needed to include "disabled and the elderly" in brackets like that, I am quite aware of what a user with poor sight might appear like in person and, knowing many young people with varying degrees of poor sight, am almost certain they would not all regard themselves as such. Perhaps it would be better to hear from an elderly or disabled citizen on this issue before making assumptions that a) they all have poor eyesight b) their experience of Wikipedia is being destroyed by garish colour schemes concocted by me. I am fairly sure some would be quite upset at this questioning of their capabilities, I for one do not intend to treat elderly or disabled individuals as incapable human beings.

You seem to be particularly worried about The Panel? I would think that even the most severely crippled individual would be able to tell that the collapsible template – positioned on top of another collapsible template as is the case in the programme's article – which when uncollapsed reveals a series of links floating in mid-air is in fact not an incorrectly formatted article? I am quite confident that readers of Wikipedia are a lot more intelligent than you seem to be giving them credit for.

You classify your editing style as that of a WikiFairy – as indeed do I. A WikiFairy is defined as a wiki editor who beautifies Wikipedia by organizing messy articles, improving style, or adding color and graphics. Some WikiFairies create new articles or affect the substantive content of the articles they edit; others enjoy beautifying articles by clearing up confusing footnotes or references, standardizing format, or by organizing images for balance. Their goals are harmony and visual pleasure for articles. I can't quite believe then that we are engaged in a conflict over colour schemes which you appear to be removing because you little more than dislike them?

"I am quite confident that readers of Wikipedia are a lot more intelligent than you seem to be giving them credit for." Please don't put words in my mouth. I respect Wikipedia readers as much as you do. I didn't mean to offend anyone with poor eyesight by lumping them in with elderly and/or disabled. Sorry for any offence caused.
Some of your colour schemes make if hard for me to read, and my eyesight is ok. One point you haven't addressed is, what is wrong with the standard / default colour scheme that you feel the need to create other colour schemes on your own? The standard colour scheme is there for a very good reason. So you should have an equally compelling reason to change to a different colour scheme. I've nothing against colour, indeed some time ago I changed one of the Papal templates to a yellow header because the colour is used on the papal flag and because it matched the other papal templates and looked nice when they were all stacked together.

You have created many colour schemes but they seem curiously random, just whatever you liked on the day. I see no common threads or themes, or planning. Perhaps we could work together to come up with a common colour scheme for all Irish TV program templates. This would provide a visual linking between them, rather than the randomness at present.

Now your other points. None of the programmes on the Channel 6 template are broadcast on 3e. Many of the leftovers were axed at the takeover so it is misleading and incorrect to associate them with 3e. I'm and Adult, Get me outta here! probably does deserve an article, would you care to contribute? I am not to be prompted on what to create; there are hundreds of neglected programmes and I cannot possibly create them all. I generally only add more programmes to the template when they are created, some are not even on it. I am at present concentrating on a heavy backlog of recently finished programmes which it appears will be forgotten unless a surprise user pops up to assist. So it is unlikely I will get to your request soon. --can dle •wicke 21:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get around to it soon, I've my own backlog of stuff to do as well. Snappy (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The colour schemes are not random. --can dle •wicke 02:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They seem pretty random to me. Can you explain? Also, I'm sure you are aware of WP:OWN. Snappy (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite aware of it thank you very much. I created them but do not own them. They are all in the public domain. But since I'm the largely the only contributor to them and there is nothing overwhelmingly controversial (apart from the destruction caused to the eyesights of the elderly and disabled) I do not see your point. It comes across as a tad overly fussy. I think you'll find that many are based on colour patterns used by the individual shows. You might, for instance, find some of the colours in the logos. They may not be exact but I was unaware that they had to be perfect or that there was any rush to ensure that they were immediately so until you recently deemed many of them "garish". --can dle •wicke 16:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've obviously touched a nerve here, you may be aware of WP:OWN but you certainly don't like it when another editor touches them. Yes, some of them were garish (no quotes needed), its some constructive feedback for you. Looking at other TV program templates (Fair city, Emmerdale, Eastenders, Holby, Coronation Street, Doctor Who, Star Trek, Neighbours), I see standard colour schemes all round. Yes, there are a few coloured ones. Which brings to a point I made earlier, what is wrong with the standard scheme that makes want to come up with alternative ones? I refer to WP:NAV, "Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative, There should be justification for a template to deviate from standard colors and styles". You claim there is some link between your colour schemes and the shows colour patterns. I fail to see much of a connection. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Snappy (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How strange, I was just about to use that line... I don't know what nerve (or which part of me) you've touched, I see nothing obvious in the above which indicates that this is so. In fairness, you have listed mainly soap operas, an area I barely have neither the toleration nor the motivation to go into. I know navigation templates are not "arbitrarily decorative", and I have given a justification which is simply not to your taste. You seem unable to recognise basic colours when placed side by side comparatively and it is not my place to tutor you on this matter. If you persistently edit to your own tastes, styles or that which is agreeable to you, I see your NPOV as being potentially questionable. I personally do not see what is broke to fix but you have somehow managed to do just that. Perhaps that is to be congratulated, perhaps it is to be criticised... but evidently my choice of title for this section was also broke for you have taken the liberty to fix that as well... --can dle •wicke 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, its my talk page and I'll edit how I like, and that includes section headings. You accuse me of editing to my own tastes and styles and this being POV. Lol, I don't think so! Hello Pot, have met Kettle?! What I've actually done is simply used the standard wikipedia template colour schemes which are provided by default and are very widely used. You are the one that is editing with your own random colour schemes because you think they are pretty. I earlier offered to work with you to come up with a common colour scheme(s) for Irish shows, I see that offer has been roundly and rudely thrown back in my face, oh well! Apparently, I can't recognise basic colours when placed sided by side comparatively, well would that the the vomit shade of green on one of the templates or would that be the beautiful and amazing Celebrity Bainisteoir template which used the colour red for all links. So what if wikipedia uses red coloured links for non existent articles, you go ahead and use that colour for all links in your template because its apparently not random and somehow fits with the shows colours and because you have a degree in colourology, that'll be fantastic looking! Once again, you avoided answering a simple question that I asked you. What is wrong with the standard template colour schemes, that you feel to need to inflict your (obviously very tasteful, totally not random) colour schemes on wikipedia? Snappy (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not at any point thrown anything "roundly and rudely" back in your face. I have done my utmost to respond in a CIVIL manner to a user I'm finding to be of the most disagreeable variety. I can see I'm not the first to have encountered your wrath but I had not expected this conversation to descend to the level which it seems to have to have now fallen to. I do not think the templates in question are "pretty", I would not be so arrogant as to suggest I have developed a mastery of colour. Which "vomit shade of green" are we talking about precisely? Again I was not under the impression that Wikipedia had to be completed before noon – otherwise I would have ensured that each of my edits were suitable for the completed product, as opposed to any form of experimentation to gain a wider knowledge into what might be most appropriate. You are the only person so far who thinks of them as "random" or "garish" "vomit" – with no consensus I cannot help but sense POV creeping in here somewhere. I am extremely sorry that your tastes have been offended by this most despicable habit I have of vomiting across Wikipedia. I can only hope you will be patient with me and offer your most earnest support as I do my utmost to overcome this burdensome addiction. --can dle •wicke 19:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I find you incivil too. Your comments here are snide, sarcastic, arrogant and condescending. I offered to help with a new colour scheme and reach consensus, that was not taken up. I've repeatedly being told my edits are POV when this is in fact incorrect. My edits restored the standard wikipedia colour templates. You added arbitrarily decorative colour schemes in breach of WP:NAV but I'm the one whose edits are wrong. I've been told I don't "recognise basic colours when placed side by side comparatively", but you of course know all about colour schemes, this apparently being a prime example. Again, you've repeatedly refused to answer the question about changing the standard (and widely used) template colour schemes.

I am finding it wearying to log in to wikipedia every day to see the orange banner, which means I have another sarky message from Candlewicke. If you have anything further to say, please reply on your own talk page and not here. Thank you. Snappy (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is the purpose of having a talk page if one does not exchange comments? I always thought dialogue was better than edit-warring. I am very sorry that I'm the only person who appears to be using this page and that it appears to be causing you great inconvenience to see the "orange banner". I have also apologised for the "vomit" and all my other foul deeds and past misdemeanours but you have as much as told me to go away and type to myself on my own talk page? What illogical nonsense is this with which you are trying to insult my intelligence? If I leave something on my own page when I want to have a conversation with someone who do you propose will reply? That example of my bad colour editing you give is the only one you seem able to offer. I've seen that, yes, you've as much as "roundly and rudely" (and repeatedly) pointed that out to me yourself and I'm sorry it is so offensive to your tastes that you cannot yet forget it. I am also sorry that you mistake my expansive use of vocabulary (an act which I thought would clarify and therefore dispel the notion of arrogance in my words) as sarcasm. I have never set out to say you edits are incorrect. I was merely offering an alternative opinion through the use of dialogue on a talk page (which I was under the seemingly false illusion was to be used for such purposes) and I am sorry that this has caused you such extensive long-term pain. --can dle •wicke 17:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you politely yesterday to stop leaving messages on my talk page. I asked to reply on your own talk page where we could then continue the discussion there, and not here. It was a simple (and polite) request. Yet, true to form, you have not only ignored my request, but you have left yet another rude and sarcastic reply. The reply is again littered with abuse, invective and more mock apologies. Btw, you don't have an expansive vocabulary. Maybe you think your replies are witty, unfortunately I think not. Yet again, you haven't answered by question as to why change the standard (and widely used) template colour schemes to arbitrary coloured ones by you. I suppose it's easier to hurl abuse at me than answer the question. So, once again, I ask you to please, please not to reply here on my talk page. If you want to continue this discussion (though it has become very pointless now), then leave a message on your own talk page, and I will reply there if necessary. Thank you. Snappy (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikistalking

Why are you following me round, and undoing my edits? Fasach Nua (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wikistalking you. Snappy (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tánaiste & Taoiseach

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

Fasach Nua , that warning notice coming from you is a bit rich .Garda40 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly! Fasach Nua, have you met Kettle? ;-) Anyway, all the images on those pages are either copy free or fair use, and they are there to illustrate the head (and deputy) of the government of a nation. I don't see a problem with that. Many of the subjects are deceased, so obtaining copy free images is difficult. Rather than waiting for decades for copyright on the images to expire, what's the problem in having some fair use images, all of which comply with the fair use guidelines. Snappy (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi Snappy! I just wanted to thank you for the improvements you've made to List of national capitals by population, such as diambiguating the links etc. I can't believe I didn't think of checking the links to see if they were okay myself! Cheers, Jprulestheworld01 (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Snappy (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do SVG images

Snappy, hi! Nice to hear from you again.

Thank you for your message on mi talk page here
I'm not sure I can help: one of my sore points in this burg is I can't create/change SVG images. PNGs yes, SVGs no - I don't have the tech.
I would advise you to ask Barryob, but as you point out, he seems to be inactive at the moment.
However, I may have a solution. If you leave a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop they may be able to do it for you. If you explain it clearly, point out that we have GFDL images for all the changes, and that they're needed for an upcoming election, they may expedite it. I used their service last year and was pleasantly surprised, but be advised you may have to wait a few days/weeks.
If you get no joy, get back to me and I'll run off PNG images for the Ireland Euroconstituencies, but be advised they won't be as clean as the SVGs and won't have a transparent layer.
I note in your correspondence above that you have had an ...interesting interaction with another editor who maintains, for reasons known only unto God, that a template should have a different color scheme. You have my sincerest sympathies.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I will leave a request at the Image workshop, as you suggest. Btw, since I don't know much about graphic images, what is the difference between svg and png? and why is svg preferred over png? Snappy (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an oversimplification, but here we go...

PNG

Stands for Portable Network Graphics
It is a Raster graphics format.
The value of each dot on the image is stored (so to define a red square, the file goes "Dot (1,1) is red, Dot (1,2) is red,...Dot (256,256) is red").
The tools to edit and display them (e.g. MS Paint) come prepackaged with virtually all PCs.
For a line diagram (e.g. an electoral map), the files are bigger and less clean that the equivalent SVG.

SVG

Stands for Scalable Vector Graphics
It is a Vector graphics format.
Only the value of specific dots is stored (so to define a red square, the file goes "Dot (1,1) is red, Dot (256,1) is red, Dot (1,256) is red, Dot (256,256) is red, they are connected by red lines and the fill is red").
The tools to edit and display them (e.g. Inkscape) do not come prepackaged and must be specifically downloaded.
For a complex photographic image (e.g. a picture of a face), the files are bigger and less clean that the equivalent PNG.

The controversy

SVGs are preferred by experts on Wiki and Commons because they are leaner and scalable. I have no objection to this.
However, some of those experts go further and delete PNG images once a SVG equivalent is created.
I have strong objections to this because people who do not have unrestricted access to their own PC cannot edit SVG files.
There was a movement on Commons to delete PNG files en masse: it was stopped but I fear it will resurge.
I have spectacular ethical objections to that movement because (to take an extreme example) a kid in the Sudan who gets occasional access to a powered PC and who uploads a PNG of the multiple wars will one day find that her map has been replaced by a SVG map by a fat graphic designer in Seattle who thinks that "...but everybody can can see SVGs and they're much nicer, mmmm'kay...", and she won't be able to update her own map.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. Snappy (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SVG requests for EU parliament elections completed

Template:Graphics reply --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Snappy (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help! If you're happy with the images and no more changes are needed can you add the following at the top of your request: {{resolved}} this will produce the following tag:

Resolved

and allows a bot to archive the request. Regards --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added a labeled map per your request. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversiom of Brian Cowen

From Brian Cowen history you refer to "rm duplication - see talk" on 23:20, 11 May 2009

I can't find anything contributed by you about this "duplication" on article's talk page. Please explain the basis for your edit. Are you aware of the need to be neutral in editing in accord with NPOV.

Can you explain the basis for your edit, other than a "see talk" reference.

"23:20, 11 May 2009 Snappy (talk | contribs) (44,853 bytes) (Reverted to revision 288381506 by Snappy; rm duplication - see talk. (TW)) (undo)''

Zubenzenubi (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Octanis simply editing under a different name won't stop me recognising you .Garda40 (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zubenzenubi, you are a known sockpuppet, I don't owe you any explaination, since you are probably Octanis anyway. Snappy (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garda40, I already suspected Zubenzenubi (who is a known sockpuppeteer) was probably Octanis. I will be lodging a checkuser request shortly on both of them. Snappy (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]