User talk:Docu

04:17 [update]
Commons clock - made from this set [update]

• For more talk, see page history.
• For bot related questions, please use the bot's talk page.

Hello,

Concerning "Actually, I posted a fix a couple of days ago for the problem" which you mentioned at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#User:US_National_Archives_bot, I would be glad if you could provide a link to your fix if such a link exists. Teofilo (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Commons:Batch_uploading/US_National_Archives, look for a collapsed "source" section. It fixes the quotes and adds ".." when the title gets too long. --  Docu  at 18:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am trying to understand why this category move was made. Could you provide a link to the page where the move request was made ? Teofilo (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was requested by Jacklee on the Siebot talk page, together with a series of similar ones. As the target category was already on the page, the bot just removed the original category. --  Docu  at 18:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC), edited --  Docu  at 20:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am a little confused as to why you think a year category is non-topical/index. You took this position for the categories related to years of birth and death, and I don't recall it going over very well. Am I completely missing a discussion of some kind? If so, please let me know. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not "non-topical", but it's an index category. Feel free to open it for discussion, but, unless there is a discussion I missed, please refrain from simply remove or reverting me. The category was set up that way, so please seek consensus first. --  Docu  at 20:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis, all categories are index categories. I'm sorry, I just don't see eye to eye with you on this one. Since it was created in April, two editors have taken issue with your view. You are in the minority on this one. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume that you're not disputing that then? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We all agree with you that it's a topical category. Other than that, if you want to think of you and yourselves as two, I don't mind, but I don't think it entitles you to do undiscussed changes. --  Docu  at 13:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is a need to be uncivil/sarcastic. The two editors to whom I am referring are myself and Sju. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your comment "build a consensus first" is a bit uncivil, especially as you made it when implementing a change, but maybe you could outline when and where there current solution actually is a problem for you. --  Docu  at 14:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that's uncivil. I was referring to your suggestion that I was idiotically counting myself twice ("you and yourselves"). Perhaps I misunderstood. As for consensus, I was simply referring, as I have been this whole time, that two editors on two occasions in the short time this template has existed have taken issue with your characterization of the category. That's why I suggested it was time for you to seek consensus if you wished to revert both editors. I'm sorry if that was unclear - sometimes we make assumptions about our comments being understood/understandable, when they aren't necessarily as clear as we thought.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds a bit odd to me how you refer to yourself as another person. I'm not sure what there really is to do. You seem to count simply any edits to the template, but don't bother pointing out problems with the current solution. Other than that you disagree, is there are any specific problems you encountered? You probably noticed that both SJu and myself agree with you that it's a topical category. Hope this reassures you. --  Docu  at 15:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused. When have I referred to myself twice? And I'm not sure what you are getting at with the topical category reference.

I would have thought the problem is quite clear. It isn't an index category, and should not be treated as such. I'm not trying to be difficult, but it's fairly clear-cut. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing me of being Sju's sockpuppet, or vice versa? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]