User talk:Quiddity/Archive 10
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi Quiddity, thank you for your kind offer to help read through hundreds of puerile attempts at humour, for the Version 0.7 release. Wizzy has finally got a "diff" version of his list, which only lists "bad words" that have since been removed - it's still over 20,000 words, but that is much more manageable than 70,000. The list is available for download [here in zipped form. Please let me know if you're available to help, and then we can start divvying up the list. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Based on the way the history sections of outlines have been developed (especially the history sections of country outlines), the major classification scheme seems to be:
Which makes these articles general outlines, rather than timelines. The "By period" section may be a timeline, if it is formatted that way.
As far as I can tell, the "historical outline of" articles by Buaidh aren't chronological, but topical, which makes them generic outlines rather than outlines of the timeline variety.
The Transhumanist 01:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Burningview has asked for feedback on the Outline of Christianity.
He's interested in setting the standard (figure of speech) for religion outilnes.
I told him to take a look at Outline of Buddhism.
I'd be interested in your opinion of those two outlines.
(What they are lacking, their best features, etc.).
The Transhumanist 20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm so sorry. I didn’t know. I will try to revert my removals, on any pages where I'm uncertain whether or not the initial problem has been fixed yet. If its ok... I may just wait and see if other users revert my removals. I did some Maintenance on Category:Articles to be split from August 2008. I Removed and Updated the split tags on 247 articles. It took me 5 hours.--Zink Dawg -- 05:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Renamed a bunch of topic lists to "Outline of". So far, one person has pinged me on my talk page. Please have a look. By the way, here's what I've been up to...
I only renamed structured (subheaded) "topics" lists.
The Transhumanist 19:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
At WP:EL we are continuing to discuss the usage of official websites on web.archive.org here: Wikipedia_talk:External_links#ELs_of_official_websites_archived_on_web.archive.org WhisperToMe (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It's me asking: Ludvikus (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you look at the note I have left for you on my talk page, thanks John Francis...Tinkermen (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the insight, think I figured out where I'd really like to start now after getting your message, just what I needed. Looks like I've got some learning and reference work to do that will help me to dive in a little, man this is the deep end of wikipedia that's for sure. LOL I hope to come back again some day in the future once I have gained enough wiki experience to be of help with linking content and catagories ect. Have a great day, hope all of your dreams come true... John Francis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkermen (talk • contribs) 06:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Quiddity. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I saw you post on the usability project about the Navbox. I agree with you. I would like to show you my mockup.
| v d e |
| v d e | |
Example of content: Amsterdam · Athens · Berlin · Bratislava · Brussels · Bucharest |
| v d e |
| v d e | |
Example of content: Amsterdam · Athens · Berlin · Bratislava · Brussels · Bucharest |
Let me know what you think. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. As you have probably seen already, I made a review of West Rail Line on Wikipedia talk:Colours. And I would like you to review my own review. :D I'm a french user. Since there is no reply to my comment so far, I guess I was not clear enough and understandable. Could you let me know what you think ? I would like to improve my english, and my abilities to interact with the english-speaking community.
If you know of some Javascript expert user, please let me know: I'm looking for people able to improve the Navbox according to our previous discussion. Thanks ! :-) Dodoïste (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Well done on your unsung support of a much understated part of wikipedia. I myself have made a few attempts at making entry into WP easier for the new prospective editor, but still this area is undersubscribed and needs a bit of work, I hope to address this over the next few months, part of which is bringing together editors and interested parties together - I think the help project is the best starting point. One problem is that there is no project associated with many of the help/intro/access pages so I feel a project banner will bring together interested parties to a central pool - after all many of the discussions and points cover several articles from different technical groups. I see that you are busy but I get a gut feeling you have a good comprehension of the issues involved - so please keep tabs / advise ... many thanks for your efforts :) L∴V 01:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Ponte_Vecchio#Undoing_the_compromise? ... it has been suggested that the article be returned to a more standard format, as it has been a year since the compromise. Your participation may be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The "guidelines are descriptive and not prescriptive" rule seems to have disappeared. I thought it was in WP:BURO.
The Transhumanist 19:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking for some sage advice on the article BosWash. My motivation is to avoid backlash resulting from acting on a strong temptation to do something overly bold and utterly eviscerate the article as it stands as of this writing. In July of this year, I placed a {{Disputed}} tag at the head of the article after seeing nothing of substance done for over a year previous about concerns raised by me and Struthious_Bandersnatch (talk · contribs) regarding the overall use of the article to declare extant an area described by the neologism "BosWash" in a forty-plus year old disputed theory. You can check the discussion for the many reasons we found to object to the way the article is presented. To be brief, the opening sentence reads: "BosWash, also referred to as the Northeast Corridor or Northeast Megalopolis, is a group of metropolitan areas in the northeastern United States stretching from Boston to Washington, D.C." This is then followed by paragraphs of statistics and images that essentially treat "BosWash" as something that really exists, as in Benelux. It of course should read something like: "Along with ChiPitts and SanSan, BosWash is a term coined by futurists Herman Kahn and Anthony Wiener in a 1967 essay which they used to describe a theoretical megalopolis extending from the metropolitan area of Boston to that of Washington, D.C. in the United States.", which should then be followed by a brief tie-in to the work of Jean Gottmann and sixties-era socioeconomic theory, with all remaining copy removed, and the hatnote serving to direct readers to the Northeastern United States article for the demographics and cultural features that are currently masquerading within the article as being part of this mythical land.
What should I do? I really want to remove a large amount of content and give the neologism a definition-only place within the encyclopedia, but fear a backlash from a few editors who seem unconvinced by the truths presented on the talk page. The page view history shows a steady readership of around 350 persons per day over two years, indicating that the term is searched for in a moderate amount (n.b.: I don't know if that tool considers robot hits, which may skew the results given the likelihood of mirror sites and search engines confirming that the page still exists). But I am convinced that its use as current name for an actual physical location is being unknowingly promoted by en.wikipedia through the way it is now written and that is then snowballed by the existence of many mirrors of this site that pop up in Google and Bing, all proclaiming a fallacy. Would you suggest a bold evisceration, or is there another way of handling articles such as this that are obvious misrepresentations of facts? I envision being portrayed as a bully kicking over a sandcastle that other editors have sculpted into a nice looking edifice, with some responding in effect "hey, they aren't hurting anyone, why did you destroy their little work?" Well, I for one know for a fact that the great majority of those of us who live here don't conceive of either living in a place called "BosWash" or even much ascribe to the underlying concept of a northeast megalopolis, I just can't prove it without using the WP:GHITS test that unfortunately is skewed by the mirrors. Call it a pet peave, but I am not happy with the way things are. The lack of objection to my now three month old {{Disputed}} tag suggests to me that enough time has passed to take some action. Again, what should I do? Sswonk (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You recently changed the redirect of Secular, with the edit comment "redirect to Secular (disambiguation), whilst discussing this and related at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary". I've looked at that discussion, and I don't see how it bears at all on the question of what "Secular" should redirect to. Moreover, you may not have noticed that over 900 other Wikipedia articles contain links to "Secular"; if you change the redirect, potentially every one of those other articles needs to be revised to fix the link which is now pointing to the disambiguation page. Pending some clarification of these issues, I've undone the edit. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah. I hadn't seen that = you mean each time some edits the intro page- and the bot restoring it the page turns up? When I'm more awake I'll look into - I have vague thoughts of a page that links to the talk page, and related changes would just show the talk page amendments, like I say when I'm more awake! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Here you go: User:Quiddity/Copasetic. +Angr 21:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thanks for your constructive note. I have replied on my talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I've created a sandbox for interested users to work on the outline RfC at: User:Karanacs/Outline_RfC_draft. Karanacs (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Good work on trying to bring smoe rationality to the whole scheme, I haven't had any responses to this idea , ok it might need a bot but I think it might help, think the wording can be improved to, I might make a couple of tweaks... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Have done and no complaints ... I am still checking in on outline related stuff, but will be backing off for a bit to concentrate on the Help Project, I'm still keeping an eye on the rfc development ( and a few other bits ) and do let me know if I can be of any other help... cheers and power to your pixel! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Quiddity. thanks for your interest for this. I actually started discussion on the Portal talk:Contents/Portals talk page. I would appreciate your comments also regarding the other improvement suggestions on that page. cheers. Elekhh (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Quiddity. Recently you changed the state of Template:Angling topics from "nocollapse" to "{{{state<includeonly>|expanded</includeonly>}}}". Woild you mind explaining the difference, and what this code actually does? --Geronimo20 (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, {{MediaWiki edit window instructions}} was a good idea, which I've taken further with {{MediaWiki messages}}, so it's basically redundant now, and you could {{db-author}} it if you agree. I just wish I could make {{MediaWiki messages}} 80% width and centered, to match the standard {{fmbox}} - can't seem to make that happen. Rd232 talk 12:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe it's now autumn, so I thought I'd poke you about going for adminship again. Best wishes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
See User_talk:Ssolbergj#Thumb_time for background and a link. Basically, I am wondering if you remember any discussions relating to the use of videos as an infobox main image. I don't have an issue with it as done at Signing of the Treaty of Lisbon, and can only envision the remote possibility that people might argue over which thumbnail (frame of a given clip) is best, at which point I might not be able to get my eyes back in position after they roll back inside my sockets! Anyway, ever heard of this? Sswonk (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating. I had no idea that, as a matter of policy, Wikipedia requires that editors mispunctuate their contributions. Clearly, this is another step towards the dumbed-down, anything-goes future we are headed for. Correct usage is correct usage, and calling some erroneous alternative "logical" doesn't make it correct. "Logically," we should all be spelling night n-i-t-e.
However, I appreciate the "heads-up" from you, and may now stop developing the bot that I was planning to create to deal with this issue. B00P (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I have completed a major rewrite of Wikipedia:Linkrot, an essay that you commented on in the past. Would you be interested in reviewing it for grammar, comprehensiveness, and clarity? In the next few days, I will place notices of the rewrite at the Village Pump and maybe the signpost.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Quiddity,
As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.
Happy editing,
Neelix (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I wish to have nothing whatsoever to do with you for any purpose, at any time, this is not going to change. Any contact with me on my talk page for any reason, even any tagging of any kind, will be considered harassment and will be treated as such. I do not require notification that you understand. That is all I have to say.- Wolfkeeper 22:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! I've christened it the "Hall of Fame", and transcluded it into the template page. — Pretzels Hii! 21:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, criterion 9, non-free images are not allowed in userspace. I have removed the non-free images in your userspace at User talk:Quiddity, User:Quiddity and User:Quiddity/Pheasants forever, leaving the links to the files in place. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Re [3], which I've reverted. Please review WP:NPA, WP:TALK, and WP:CON. Name-calling and accusations of bias hurt honest attempts to improve Wikipedia. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Sry I didn't realise you'd commented on my page a while back. I ended up contacting Nevin Mattell who recently tried to track Watterson down for his book, and he said the image can be sourced to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, although no photographer is specified. I've changed the relevant source info on the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adondai (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I used {{Db-imagepage}} to mark files (like File:ZweiRadMuseumNSU_Quickly.JPG, File:Cessna.fa150k.g-aycf.arp.jpg (both pages were deleted by User:Skier Dude (F2: Corrupt or empty image, or image page for an image on Commons)) and other image page with no corresponding image, or where the image is on the commons and the page has no Wikipedia-specific information) for speedy deletion until User:Graeme Bartlett asked me to use {{db-f2}} instead (you probably noticed his messsage). Please ask one (or both) of them if you need an explanation. -- Common Good (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Ciao Quiddity, and thanks for the support at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by William Gibson/archive1. I expect to finish the featured topic sometime in 2022! Cheers, Skomorokh 11:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
... to see if we get more feedback at WT:5P, I'll pass along that I asked Jimbo a related question recently, and got no answer, here. (That was the archiving edit, search for "Dank".) (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I have left a message for you at MediaWiki talk:Edittools#Separate the Insert and Wikimarkup sets. (Short version: It's done! :)
--David Göthberg (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I semi-randomly selected you (Firsfron, Masem, Protonk) as major participants in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 30#Per station television schedules, which I didn't follow closely. The subject has arisen again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Forbidding programme guides, and I was wondering if any of you could give a short/neutral summary at the VPump, of what the WT:NOT thread's consensus was, if any. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I apologize if I am not using this resource correctly; I am an infrequent contributor to Wikipedia, and thus am unfamiliar with the mechanisms. It is my intention here to send to the user Quiddity what amounts to a personal -but not necessarily private- communication.My edit to the Thagomizer page was made because we do not, in fact, know with the certainty or unanimity implied by the words used that humans and dinosaurs did not live contemporaneously. As I am certain that you are aware, this is a point of some controversy, and there are millions of adherents to both sides of the issue. I felt that, as a source of general knowledge, Wikipedia should reflect these differences in opinion rather than gloss over them, and accordingly changed the text from:
"The fate of Thag Simmons notwithstanding, dinosaurs and humans did not exist in the same era. "
to
"The fate of Thag Simmons notwithstanding, dinosaurs and humans are not widely considered to have existed in the same era."
If it's merely a matter of finding works to cite (if we honestly need to cite works for such a small thing, and a well-known one at that), then I can probably help with that.75.8.90.107 (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 75.8.90.107
I'm looking at Wikipedia:List_of_templates_linking_to_other_free_content_projects to see if Template:Arborwiki can be folded into that effort productively; give me a chance to get up to speed. thanks Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You have listed yourself as a member of WikiProject Cats. I would appreciate your help in creating Canadian Cat Association, which is a request on the to-do list. Thank you, Brambleclawx 00:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
threads moved to User talk:Pirsquard
The interwiki links you added all refer to WP:FA, and you can click them and look the English interwiki links to verify it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
As one of the very few editors that actually gets active responses from Badagnani, do you have any idea how to get him to consider following 1RR? I'd like to hope it's possible...
As an aside, like GTBacchus, I'd like to know how'd you get the number of editors watching his talk page. --Ronz (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I've undone your addition of several external links you made to this article. They fail WP:ELNO point 13 which reads that Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked. should be avoided. These links may be appropriate in articles about these sites specifically, for example the Music Council of Australia link can be linked to in an article directly about the Music Council of Australia, but not in articles with a broader subject. We do not link individual societies and organizations, however notable, in articles about a broader subject because if we did this for all viable links, our external links sections would be overflowing. Again, ELs have to be directly about the subject of the article and I believe there is a consensus among EL-conscious editors that these would not belong in this article. ThemFromSpace 06:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
When I find an external link that has the potential to be a reference, I'll leave it if the article has few external links. Otherwise I move it to the talk page with a note. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I just userfied it to my page per the general concensus. Hope that's ok? I asked Kleinzach to cleanup the redirects. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting on the "arborsculpture" debate. I agree that User:SilkTork's comments at Talk:Tree shaping make sense as an isolated analysis. I'm not sure if you are aware that User:Blackash is the Pooktre mentioned in the article and they have stated very plainly that they have a real life agenda not to have a word coined by a professional rival (Reames) applied to their work. Because of this blatant WP:COI editors should be looking very, very carefully at the views that User:Blackash is trying to push and why. I've provided some Evidence of arborsculpture as a generic term. The only one in the world who seems hell bent on making it otherwise is Pooktre/Blackash. Peace and respect. --alias "Griseum" (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The tag you placed on the tree shaping talk page reads "This user's editing has included significant contributions to this article"assuming "article" does not mean the talk page, please review the contributions made by user Slowart to the article, thank you.Slowart (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
yeah, thanks for the welcome, and thanks for putting back my information on the page about oobleck. also sorry for not making the information i posted on it clear. Abb615 (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I undid your actions as I do not believe you are an admin (I checked your userpage and the list of active admins). Thanks, Verbal chat 08:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You have a question waiting for you at Wikipedia talk:Outlines#Problem with lack of suitable attribution, GFDL.
The Transhumanist 19:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This isn't allowed, right?
Where is this covered?
The Transhumanist 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
If a person deliberately tries to sabotage a component of Wikipedia, such as the Outline of Knowledge, using various tactics to attack its pages individually, is that vandalism?
If not, what is it?
And how can I stop the perpetrator?
The Transhumanist 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I notice you have previously commented on the use of colour on Wikipedia talk:Using colours. You may be interested in commenting at this discussion. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Gay (word), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay (word). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Wolfkeeper 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I dare you to vote keep.
If you don't vote keep, you're basically admitting to stalking and block reverting me.- Wolfkeeper 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup. Embarrassing slip on my part. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Danger (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for making that. Maurreen (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
For this. Just spotted it! BTW, shouldn't music be in the WP top 10 vital articles or is that just my bias? --Jubilee♫clipman 06:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
How does "Alias" become "Also known as" in the displayed infobox?!?!? I can't figure that out at all! I can see why it makes sense to do that, I just cannot see what process it is that makes it happen. Is it embedded in the code or something? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
{{{Alias|}}}
has the bar| with nothing after it. That's a variable.{{#if:
indicates a conditional statement (if x, then y, else z). See Wikipedia:Conditional tables for details on that.Alias=
in the template's usage), then add the title header "Also known as", and add [the variable's value] to the infobox. However, If [variable named alias] is empty, do nothing.{{#if:{{{Alias|}}}|! style="white-space:nowrap;" {{!}} Also known as{{!}} class="nickname" {{!}} {{{Alias}}}{{!}}-
Hi, I remember you being very much a part of the outline projects. I just want to bring to your attentions this An editor did a copy and paste of Water and added it to the Outline of water which I just reversed. Is there an ongoing conversation still going on about this or the RFC? It's been quite a time since the RFC was announced to happen but I don't remember seeing it go live. Any info would be appreciated, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I just want you to know I responded to you on my talkpage. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Given that Wolfkeeper is insisting on his changes, should we open an RfC on the template? --NeilN talk to me 22:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Or perhaps revisit Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_73#WP:DICTIONARY_needs_tweaking.3F with a formal RfC given [5]? I think we need to hash this out, one way or another. --NeilN talk to me 00:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion in the AfD. I agree with your assessment, that the organization is not notable at this time. I'd also like to apologize for not stating my COI (as a leader and former board member for the organization). Please accept my sincere and deepest apologies for any confusion this may have caused. Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Ravpapa (talk · contribs) seems interested in designing a new Infobox for classical musicians, also. A collaborative effort by two knowledgeable editors would be far better than efforts of a single editor that hasn't a clue what he's doing (i.e. me). I've requested that my old deleted userspace be undeleted for your convenience, also. The 2007 attempt by Turangalila (talk · contribs) is also worth a look: User:Turangalila/sandbox/Infobox composer. That's basically where my attempt stemed from. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 22:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to work on the infobox. As stated, I won't personally use it (at least, certainly not in the foreseeable future) it but others may find it useful --Jubilee♫clipman 22:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: [6] Good job! I'm standing well back for now but watching... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
discussion moved from User:Quiddity/sandbox to here, regarding my draft of proposal thread:
BTW, Removing the Styles/schools field was a good decision which I almost made myself but left to your judgement based on Ravpapa's advice --Jubilee♫clipman 02:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your gracious comments. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, when you said "I have no strong opinion on which title/location we want to merge them to, but a single location is definitely wanted.", did you mean that a single location might be what has now been inserted in MoS main page here? Do you not think that this solution will expose a lot more editors to the message, and that the page as it stands contains a lot of text that is either repeated elsewhere or is questionable? Tony (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
You undid my rollback of an unsourced addition to List of gestures saying, "that gesture is the primary gesture taught in scuba diving (because a thumbs-up means "I'm going up now"), rephrased-please improv".
The text I reverted said that the 'Okay' gesture also means 'Okay' in the context of scuba diving. If it means 'Okay' in most contexts, this is hardly a meaningful addition, is it? If, as your edit summary suggests, the gesture is particularly meaningful in the context of scuba diving, perhaps that should be spelled out more explicitly.
I would also note that List of gestures is a list of (ideally) short descriptions; A-ok is the Wikipedia page dedicated to this gesture. The scuba-specific uses of the gesture should probably be described on that page or possibly on Okay, not on List of gestures. Thanks for your additions, and happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft, a page you contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. The Transhumanist 23:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Quiddity, good to see someone is finally getting something going with an RfC. In my opinion the RfC ought to be on Wolfkeeper, not on words articles, for two reasons - first, no one besides him really sees a major problem with our articles on words, and second, because his disruption has started to go far beyond just these articles - he's also edit warring on policy pages (to justify his edit warring on word articles).--Cúchullain t/c 20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me of the signature length guideline. -- Chickenmonkey 21:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in the tree shaping article. In answer to your query, User:Slowart is Richard Reames. User:Blackash is Beckey Northey of Pooktre. I'm just an exasperated Wikipedian with no connection to this subject matter. In theory, I object to either of these folks editing the article based on WP:COI guidelines, but I have encouraged Reames to make whatever edits he deems appropriate as "damage control". I'll refrain from recapping the big picture, as that might be seen as focusing on editors rather than edits. But if you have any questions, I’m happy to respond. --Griseum (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at recent discussion on the talk page when you have time. Reames and I both objected to Blackash's recent edits on the grounds that referring to the “arborsculpture method” or using similar verbiage reflects a blatant disregard for the consensus (based on verifiable references) that arborsculpture was never the name for a method and is widely-used as a generic term for tree shaping. --Griseum (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand that in Wikipedia this is original research but it will give you a brief glimpse of the issues related to Arborsculpture. The use of Arborsculpture and in what context to use it in, has been an issue though out the whole history of the Talk page quotes with links from talk page history You most likely have seen the next list and it does show that the word Arborsculpture is linked to Richard and his books. This was a google search with Richard Reames name removed, realistically how many people are going to get google to remove Richard Reames name from the search results of Arborsculputre.list Google Arborsculpture it leads to Richard Reames and the methods he teaches either in his books or in person.
The issue we have with Arborsculpture, is it has methods of shaping trees associated with it. Our trees, Axel Erlandson trees plus others are unachievable using these methods. I have pointed this out to Reames/Slowart though out Wikipedia and silence is the only reply.
Silence spokes volumes,
When Griseum and Slowart can't rebut my points they yell COI and NPOV I most recently answered here [7]We don't see that a word must be either a name for a method or used in the generic sense only, why can't a word be both? Blackash have a chat 02:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Quiddity! Martin has finally closed the Composers RfC: his closing remarks are required reading, perhaps... --Jubilee♫clipman 16:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
Now that the dust has settled I wanted to recognise the sterling work you and others did on the infoboxes RfC in order to work out a compromise. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC) |
You stated "If there is a discussion elsewhere (that formed a WP:Consensus) then link to that also (I searched the WikiProject Thoroughbred racing talkpage archives, and there were no discussions about flags or icons. Possibly you've discussed it somewhere else?). That's the main point."
Two points - Had you actually read my statement before you made your "main point", I said: "So, I will initiate a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing to help formulate any appropriate additions to this guidline".
Next, linking "Wikipedia is not a battleground" to make it highly visible is 1) improperly used and derogatory in this context, and your calling my words aggressive is nothing more than your POV. When my clear, precise, and legitimate position totally consistent with the "guideline" is removed with a snide remark, and by someone who either doesn't bother to read it or as their editing record shows, is intolerant and uses a cabal, including stalking, to quash anything they rightly or wrongly see as a disagreement with THEIR position (BTE imposing "guidelines" is not allowed at Wikipedia), then I will certainly speak out and not just for my rights, but for all legitimate and sincere editors at Wikipedia. I hope next time you comment on any subject at Wikipedia, you will take the time to read the facts and not cast aspersions based on your POV. Thank you. Handicapper (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Quiddity, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Starcastle, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Colonel Warden. This has been done because the page is unquestionably a copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}
" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Colonel Warden. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) 21:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorted (though there are still teeting troubles) --Jubilee♫clipman 20:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Tree shaping article has undergone a series of mayor changes in the last few days. Here is the page before and now Duff has now proposed to change the article's name from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. If you are interested please come and comment on Talk:Tree shaping. I am contacting everyone who has edited about arborsculpture Blackash have a chat 08:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
So I go to the OED, and there's no American English fulfill. So not only is fulfil an acceptable variant, as you kindly suggest, but it in fact «is» the Queen's English single expression.
So I stand corrected, even, as you note, in the US, and thank you for educating me about yet another British/American English variation. Now I shall go out and see if I can find a comprehensive lexicon of British/American English variations.
For what it's worth, it was the visually unæsthetic aspect of fulfil that offended me. And I have long preferred (but no longer use) the variant-variant "til" (v. 'til v. till), so, as we say in the States, go figure.
Dstlascaux (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Quiddity will you please archive some of the discussion on Tree shaping talk page. It getting long again and I don't know how to archive. Blackash have a chat 02:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I added the author's article to the afd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Starting an edit war? "Revert vandalism on sight, but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. Edit warring is prohibited." WP:RVV
WP is not a search engine. "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow the user to choose from a list of ... articles" MOS:DAB. We can't be listing every known subject that may be incidentally associated with another one. "Disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title." MOS:DAB I checked both Home row and Password strength - neither are ever referred to by the term "ASDF" - never. So, please make a case in those two articles that they are known by the term "asdf" and then add them to the DAB.
Please read MOS:DAB because oh this error: "exactly one navigable (blue) link" MOS:DAB#Introductory_line
--Hutcher (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
That reminds me, the AfD directive to merge the state history outlines into the state outlines needs to be completed.
About 15 more states to go.
The Transhumanist 21:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
If you haven't found someone to talk with Mr. Kamen, I'd suggest User:PeteForsyth (or his sock, User:Pete Forsyth (WMF)). He's helped people with COI and making productive edits in the past, even when paid editing was a concern. He's with WMF, and really good at outreach. tedder (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Template:Glossaries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that referral to a much-welcomed, good, weepingly hysterical guffaw. Oh my goodness, that is funny! Good luck on the merge resolution. Duff (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Quiddity, we've spoken in the past regarding design of various pages, particularly the Community Portal. I saw User:Gareth Aus's recent update to Help:Contents and made a few more edits on Help:Contents/Draft. If you could offer your opinion on the changes I'd really appreciate it. — Pretzels Hii! 20:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The user interface has changed!
Now how do you watchlist a page?
The Transhumanist 16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
How do you force a "Search" search now?
The Transhumanist 03:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
As one of the few people interested in this sort of thing, I thought your input would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#JW publications. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You may want to ring in on the RfM survey at Tree shaping->Arborsculpture RfM at some point during the next seven days. Blackash have a chat 10:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
File:Chair1.jpg - Am I hallucinating or did Buckey really draw and uploaded this illustration and then add the notation "Please give credit to Arborsculpture.com"? --Griseum (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thanks for removing the SELFREF to my userpage from the article about the concept of wikipedian in residence. I'm not a fan of that article in general as I think it's one big self-ref, but keeping it referencing the mainspace is a start... cheers, Witty Lama 01:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I came across as short last night. I saw your reply and wanted you to know I'd read it, but tiredness got the better of me. Best, Verbal chat 08:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Quiddity. I might have been acting bold in regards of improving the Portal:Contents/Portals page, but I find this warning by User:OhanaUnited very dissapointing. Your feedback welcome. --Elekhh (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
yeah thats a major malfunction —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryk20 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
"See [8] [Ed: shortened] for a good summation of the actual background, including the original image that started it." Wow, I really wish I hadn't!. :-) TJRC (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You have previously commented regarding the essay WP:Wikipedia is amoral; I am soliciting suggestions for a better title for the essay. If you have any, please list them at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_amoral#Suggestions_for_new_title.3F. Thanks, --Cybercobra (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
If you find time, check out Thomas Hager's writing.
The Transhumanist 21:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Buaidh#Status report on the historical outlines
The Transhumanist 01:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the Celtic Nations,one user named BritishWatcher will not allow any flag representing Ireland in the article on the box with all the details about the Celtic Nations flags.He does not care about the article,only getting his political message and beliefs across,and will not compromise for another suitable Irish flag that symbolises Ireland's celtic identity only for all the other flags of the countries to be removed which will ruin the tone of the article.I have no time for politics on that article its is only about Irreland's celtic identity,I asked for a non-bias third party opinion but I have received no reply.If you interested please check Wikipedia:Third_opinion. Thanks. Sheodred (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Have you seen the Encyclopedia article? I've done a bit of work on it, with actual sources, that may be enlightening for future discussions such as the one at WT:NOTDIC. It's getting the predictable friction from certain quarters, though.--Cúchullain t/c 11:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
At User talk:Courcelles#Re: Four days full protection, the admin suggested an RfC tag. Do you know what he's talking about? I'm hoping you know the name/syntax of the tag.
I'll check back here.
Thank you.
The Transhumanist 23:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Good pick up. Hope you feel better. 13:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 13:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
{{Commonsfähig}} "works" but usually it takes a long time until somebody moves the files (130 files are in the category "commonsfähig" currently). I transferred the files. For you now. It seems you like to use them. ;-) Please check and correct the descriptions and cats. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit note on Talk:Callianassa, etc. I really wasn't sure if it was OK to do it. You never know whose toes you are stepping on these days! Moonraker12 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
That's WikiGnome magic for ya! --Cybercobra (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)