User talk:156.34.216.200

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mailed

- you. ScarianCall me Pat 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heart (band)

as per previous template discussion/consensus - size for landscaped images = 250 - Where is this discussion / consensus? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

On the template talk page. Just like the edit summary says. 156.34.216.200 (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm afraid I'm not as clever as you are; could you supply a link to the template talk page please? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox musical artist. For future ref... when you click 'edit' on any page... scroll to the bottom and it will show you all the links to all the templates and and navboxes that are incorporated into the page you are editing. Most of them are protected and cannot be changed unless you're an admin. 156.34.216.200 (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Very useful, and most appreciated.
I feel really stupid asking this, but there is a lot of "stuff" on Template talk:Infobox Musical artist, and despite doing searches for "landscape", "size", "img" "250" and "yes", so far I haven't located anything even vaguely related to "size for landscaped images = 250".
The template page itself says:
Img_size
The image size should only be specified if the image is smaller than 220 pixels width. Enter the width in pixels without "px", for example 150.
Landscape
Set to yes when using wide, short images. The image height (rather than width) will be limited to 200 pixels.
None of this indicates any discussion, much less any consensus.
I gather I must be missing something; your further help would be appreciated. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That was very kind of you to give such a thorough explanation. Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sevendust

Why do you keep undoing my revision for the Chapter VII: Hope and Sorrow page? Album reviews are a perfectly legitimate thing to have on the info box. Kika chuck (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rush

I would appreciate it if you discussed why it should say "Peart continues to divide audiences..." I think it's an opinion. It should be what I changed it to. DrSatan (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not my POV, and I think this is all supposed to be in American-English. It is the POV of some other person that made up some idea tha Peart divides audiences without a legit source. Before you continue to undo my revisions, talk to me here or in the discussion thread at the bottom of the Rush article. It makes more sense to let the reader decide it it divides the audience, because nowhere on that source does it say that. DrSatan (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bachman-Turner Overdrive

I spent a lot of time updating articles about the band and its members - I am very good friends with all of them, and have gone on tour with them more than once. Why don't you just delete the articles about them altogether, you've ruined them and your logic for doing so is somewhat suspect. If you want to make these articles all facts, no conjecture, and everything must be verified, why not stop Wikipedia altogether and give the job to the Britannica or someone? You'll never get people to help you by pulling this kind of overzealous crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.139.224 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)