User talk:Lemmiwinks2

AMG BARNSTAR

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For your ongoing work on Timeline of the Bible. Falcon8765 (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lemmiwinks2/monobook.css

I like what you've done with User:Lemmiwinks2/monobook.css, but is it possible to remove the large red bar at the top? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a warning! Its supposed to be big and red. You can lose your account if you enter the wrong thing. Are you sure you want to change it. Anyway its just a message box of some kind. look at the source code for that box. then go to the section that colors the message boxes and look for that type of box. The message boxes were a real pain to get right. I eventually decided on 3 levels. simple infoboxes have black bachgrounds. more important message boxes have blue backgrounds. warnings have red backgrounds. You can always just go through the entire list of boxes and change everything thats red to blue or whatever you like. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the black and green gadget, User:Prodego said he would change it to your code when you have perfected it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a scene in Moneypit where Tom Hanks is told that the contractor said he would be back when Tom Hanks 'grows udders' and 'gets milked' and Tom Hanks replies 'thats a long time'. Its kinda the same thing here. I've perfected it as far as I'm capable of doing so. But even if it isnt perfected its still, if I do say so myself, an improvement. At the very least the parts involving background color of navigation popups should certainly be included in Blackskin. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has your monobook.css fixed the problems with Blackskin where

colored signatures come up as black on black?
images come up as black on black?

this discussion led me here. (Is there a list of improvements?) --Elvey (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I havent noticed any signatures coming up black on black but that doesnt mean it doesnt happen. i dont pay much attention to signatures. there is no list of improvements but its considerable. or at least it was considerable when i wrote it. only a few small parts of a few pages still come up as white on some light background. these parts can always be read by simply selecting it. I gave up on trying to perfect all these minor things because its difficult when, like me, you dont know what you are doing and its a matter of diminishing returns. some parts cant even be fixed becase they dont even have an id or belong to any class. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. here are some black-on-black sigs. Here are some black-on-black images. So with yours, much fewer things come up as white on light? I noticed that it was much bigger, and am hesitant to use something when I don't really have a good idea about what it does. All it does is try to make things display as light on dark instead of dark on light, like Blackskin, but better?--Elvey (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah. it started off as blackskin. then i began adding things. eventually i copied over a large part of monobook.css and modified that too. have you looked at the code itself? i added a table of contents and even a section of 'notes' so others could figure it out.

Anyway, i got the signatures on that page to work but that doesnt mean that all signature will work.

i dont know enough about images to do much. As a temporary work around i just set background color for all images to blue so the most images should now work. But if an image uses blue then it will be blue on blue.

I've done pretty much all i can with it. someone who knows more about it than i do is going to have to finish it out. --Lemmiwinks2

Actually, I noticed the ToC after I left my previous comment. I looked through the code a bit more and I've adopted it. Thanks for answering my questions - and sharing. --Elvey (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What created the universe

http://eternian.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/steady-state-theory Yahweh is Eternal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Rktect

After even an ArbCom action against him for original research didn't stop him, he was finally banned indefinitely for original research. Now that wouldn't be so bad if it was good original research, but I've seen his work for at least 15 years, on Usenet before Wikipedia existed, and everyone I respect has always rejected his 'work' as fringe/just plain wrong. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about the 'kiss of death'. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) Thanks for the reversion, by the way. Some of us have worked hard cleaning up articles after him! Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2010 (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) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]