User talk:Quiddity/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Quiddity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Answers.com, a major mirror of Wikipedia, doesn't display pages from the Wikipedia namespace. I use Answers.com as an auxillary whenever Wikipedia is down, but now that the links in the main navbars will be rendered inactive (as soon as it updates), it'll be somewhat crippled.

I don't know how many other mirrors exclude the Wikipedia namespace, but all the ones that do will be similarly crippled. Those mirrors will all be a Wikipedia without its contents pages.

That reflects on the quality and usability of Wikipedia.

I think it's a step in the wrong direction.

The list of academic disciplines is a major navigation aid, but now that it no longer sports the nav bar at the top, it disrupts the navigability of the contents navbar. That navbar put academia front and center. Moe removed it from there, and I put it back, but I reverted my reinclusion of it when I realized the navbar was no longer supported on the academia list page.

So, academia, a key main namespace resource now gets second-rate treatment/placement compared to the contents pages in the Wikipedia namespace. The problem is that people who browse using the contents navbar (the main navbar for browsing the main namespace) aren't even going to see the main namespace's main browsing page. List of academic topics is the most on-topic of all those nav pages.

Other encyclopedias, and just about every reference book out there include self-references in the form of tables of contents, indices, etc. They are included in those works for good reason: navigation. I do not believe that the "no self-references" policy was intended to exclude these essential design features from Wikipedia. Rather, that policy was created to prevent forum pages (like the help desk and village pump), help and project pages, and statements like "this article", from choking the encyclopedia.

Something's gone awry. We're not supposed to be dismantling Wikipedia and making it less usable, but that's exactly what's happening, especially on the mirrors that don't display the Wikipedia namespace. The Transhumanist 02:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the links to "Lists of basic topics" and the other main namespace nav pages show up in the mirror. See http://www.answers.com/Lists%20of%20basic%20topics.

But notice that the link to "Contents", "Portals", and "Categories", all which link to outside the main namespace, are inert.

Well, as soon as Answers.com updates, all the links to the pages moved to the Wikipedia namespace will also go inert, and searches for those pages on Answers.com will fail.

I can't even guess at how many other mirrors are going to be similarly affected.

The Transhumanist 02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to convince me! I already explained to you that I don't fully understand all the namespace issues, and like I said at Moe's page, I think it drastically needs more eyeballs of experienced editors (as do all the pages it contains).

Re-edit and bring the issue up at, the Wikipedia talk:Contents page, and/or a Village pump, and/or the Administrators' noticeboard, and/or a relevant Manual of Style page or two.

As far as the actual issue goes, I kind of agree with you that they count as lists and should be in mainspace; however, your answers.com argument is terrible: answers is currently not loading for me (actually, it seems to be one of their ad servers at [1]), plus Wikipedia hasn't been slow or offline in months and months (worldwide, local conditions may vary. (based on [2], and my experience, and lack of recent complaints at talk:main page)), plus, mirrors are really not a good thing to get people to "rally around" (mirrors clog google results, and steal potential editors from viewing us, etc etc). I recommend you de-emphasize that as a premise. --Quiddity 03:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

True, I haven't had to use Answers.com in awhile. And I've also noticed the problem with its stupid ads. But it's still the only auxillary access to Wikipedia I have, and has saved me in the past. I've also used it to retrieve deleted articles (as it doesn't update right away).

You mentioned that you don't fully understand the issue, then hearing explanations from all sides couldn't hurt.  :-) The Transhumanist 20:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I also mentioned that you shouldnt try to convince me. Try to convince someone else who understands it more than each of us. Please. (and not on usertalk pages either, but somewhere relevant instead.) Don't worry about me, I'll follow the issue wherever it goes. --Quiddity 21:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, your old edit was the best one I could find at the time... I'll try to keep your new one in mind if/when I need to restore. - CobaltBlueTony 14:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you are now updating the "future" message boxes. The current event image used so far on Wikipedia is non free (has copyright problems). May I suggest that you while you update "future" message boxes at the same time change image to a free image? Like for instance:

[[Image:Gnome globe current event.svg|42px]]

--David Göthberg 21:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Arg! But yeah, I figured I'd be the guinea pig and find whatever flaws there are, via complaint ;) I also meant to fix all the usage instructions to /doc format. Next run through... --Quiddity 21:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I too just went out and changed some message boxes so people will notice and react. And yeah, I too realised that doing the /doc move takes way more time so for starters I will be lazy just to get our new design out there so people notice it and start to use it. --David Göthberg 22:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a discussion on this change somewhere? Tyrenius 05:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please leave the starting and ending comments, people will subst these templates and it makes it a lot easier to untangle them with these in place. Rich Farmbrough, 14:58 15 September 2007 (GMT).

Incidentally good work. Rich Farmbrough, 15:20 15 September 2007 (GMT).

Thanks!

and sorry about any/all mistakes. I was trying to get as many as possible converted at once to avoid aesthetic inconsistencies, without making any blunders, whilst fixing the some of the weirdness encountered, and whilst the disappearing-image problem started happening. (I don't love the smell of chaos in the morning... :(

I'll check over as much as I can, now. --Quiddity 17:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Quiddity, I like the new layout too! Well done. — [ aldebaer⁠] 23:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Photography Barnstar
		Awarded to all the people here who worked so hard to rescue this image. You'll have to share it, though: everyone gets one slice. :-) Lupo 21:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC). Copied here! -Susanlesch 14:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your comment. I don't know if the thread will get noticed with all the other discussion going on, though. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I found a new home for the link list in the to-be-deleted Help article. Most of them have been ported and expanded into the full-fledged article crisis. I hope you like it. I sure wish partipants in XfDs would go one step further in solution finding than simple hack/slash. (Wipes brow).

The rest of the links were moved to Student.

I won't have a lot of time until sometime next year (hopefully early in the year). So maybe we can tackle a big project together then. If I haven't moved on by then, that is.  :-)

Lookin' forward to it,

The Transhumanist 21:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Try the mailing list, this doesn't seem like something suited for AN(/I). --Coredesat 22:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I always replied back somebody who vandalized my userpage/talkpage with huge welcome screen. Just to tease them. Some get irritated but I found one who repelled back and turned into a nice wikipedian. :-) — Indon (reply) — 08:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. Do you have any suggestions as to how I should get that quote put on the page? Dustihowe 17:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can we not put one of his quotes on his articel in Wikipedia? If someone feels that it is important and should be added there then it should be left there. Wikiquote as i understand is strictly for quotes, Right? However, its Einsteins article here and it is something that he said so therefore, it should be added!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustihowe (talk • contribs)

Like I said, ask at the article's talkpage, maybe they can explain it to you better. --Quiddity 17:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your 20:56, 5 October 2007 post at #The following makes no sense. While I'm not familiar with the history of the currently disputed insertion, The Transhumanist is historically correct about "stealth additions" to the guide. As you may know, good faith need not be assumed when bad faith has been demonstrated. Due to jossi's unilateral insertions into this guide and the major deletionist effect it had on an article that I edit, I felt I was forced into a major confrontation with him last year. jossi is not a model admin. I know more than I chose to tell, because at my and others' insistence, jossi began to cooperate, and the process was resolved to my satisfaction. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with the currently disputed section either. That's why I went through the history to see how long the sections had been there for, and whether they had been substantially edited by any other admins or other respected users: See sample admin edits: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], vs Transhumanist's lastest edits: [9], [10], [11], [12]. That's all inconclusive, but it gives a hint that those admins agree with the content. I also checked the talkpage and the recent discussion at User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines to see if there was any obvious mention of objections there (there weren't). I can see the section in the guideline's history at least as far back as May/June 2007.

I did not read the 140kb at Wikipedia talk:Lists/Archive03, from May, but at a glance I can see wikilawyering and philosophical arguments that belong at the Village Pump or mailing-list ("what is consensus?", "what is allowed as a list on wikipedia?"). I also see that there are 4 admins supporting jossi at the end of the first thread here, and that the discussion devolved into argument in part because of comments by User:Polar Deluge (one of The Transhumanist's old sock accounts). I've worked and argued with The Transhumanist a lot in the last 2 years, and he seems to be an extreme inclusionist/eventualist, and often argues about individuals rather than issues, both of which this dispute seem to be orbiting. So he isn't a good model to follow either. (I don't know jossi's editing patterns at all, so can't comment on that).

I will say though, be careful with accusations of bad faith, as there is a vast difference between someone's being actively malicious (which is what it implies/means), and their simply not agreeing with your personal philosophy of what Wikipedia could and should be (which is what some people inaccurately use it for). Everyone who wants/helps the encyclopedia to improve, is in "good faith", regardless of whether it coincides with our personal opinions of what constitutes an "improvement"!

Also, consensus is not the same thing as unanimity, see WP:PRACTICAL. (It's still a wonder to me that anyone agrees on anything!)

Hope that helps. --Quiddity 06:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wikipedia - comparison of template standardisation.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr 18:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert this diff? Don't think a search would be helpful? Martial BACQUET 21:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I just finished writing the explanation at the talkpage ;) --Quiddity 21:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the India Noticeboard. The consensus was not to categorize people by caste, and Iyer is a caste.Bakaman 03:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for pointing out the background. Although that debate is a year old, which is decades in wikipedia-time! ;) --Quiddity 04:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Basically there are thousands of castes, so its unwieldy. Caste-partisans also like to advertise their castes on wiki by claiming people, violating WP:BLP and pushing on WP:SOAP.Bakaman 04:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a style guideline that controls pages like this? I started to look through the ones you listed at WT:WPM but I don't want to edit them too much without knowing the recommended format. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone seeking information on the lists of basic topics should head to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists of basic topics. Thanks. --Quiddity 01:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tx for your message. My initiative stemmed from: [13] - which I partially reverted because of the (obvious) WP:ASR infringement. Sorry if I created fuss (without wanting to) tried to avoid a plethora of cross-namespace links from main namespace. [[Portal:]] namespace seemed like a good idea to me. --Francis Schonken 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I added some links to your article on Steel Pole Bath Tub. Honestly, I'm happy to see that someone else here on Wikipedia has heard of this creative, but rather underrated and underexposed band. What I was wondering though, is it really appropriate to categorize them as a "hardcore punk" band? I always considered them to be more of a noise rock group. Let me know what you think. --Eastlaw (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please check my edits to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. I've tried to clarify the difference between self-references that are allowed and self-references to Wikipedia itself, as discussed on the talk page in the thread on contradictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Transhumanist (talk • contribs) 20:39, 12 November 2007

It'd be better to ask at the talkpage of the guideline itself. --Quiddity (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you did some cleanup work on The X. It looks much better. What do you think about merging it with X (disambiguation)? There was some discussion about this type of situation here a few months ago, and I tend to agree that it would be better to combine them all on one page. Any thoughts? SlackerMom (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been dabbling with the dab cleanup for a while, but pointedly avoiding the alphabet dab pages until I've read and grokked more. They're complex!

That said, I'd agree that those types of pages should be merged.

I just don't know whether they'd be better off in a new/separate section by themselves at the bottom, or completely integrated into the page's current topic headings? (ie. do they go under a new "The X may refer to:" section, or do we put music under music, math under math, etc?)

I'll watch and learn :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that they should generally be integrated, so that each section starts with "X" items, then "The X" items would follow. We could change the intro line to "X or The X may refer to:" You're right, the letter pages do seem so complex, but I've started to roll up my sleeves and tackle them. I did U (disambiguation) today, although, of course, The U probably should be included and I haven't dealt with that yet. If you have time to merge the X pages, give it a go, otherwise I'll probably take a stab at it later on. (BTW, what does "grokked" mean?) SlackerMom (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Grok ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Hadn't come across that one before. Another reason to love WP. SlackerMom (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

replied in orig thread. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quiddity, do you have any thoughts on the latest Browsebar discussion (Template talk:Browsebar#This Browse Bar is All Wrong)? I added a suggestion for a relatively simple upgrade. ;-) RichardF (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I was unsure about that one. It would be more consistent, but it is not formatted like a typical portal. I'm leaning towards moving it to portal-space, but didn't want to do it without discussion. I think the various featured content pages should probably be moved to portal-space as well.

Regarding the index lists and such, if moving them out of the main name space isn't an option, has it been suggested to differentiate between encyclopedic lists and index list by having the former keep the name List of..., but moving the latter to Index of...? Cheers, —Ruud 12:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Contents isn't formatted like a typical portal either ;) Understood though, and I was contemplating the ramifications of the moving the featured pages/portals too. Suggest it wherever appropriate, I guess.

Consistent/differentiated article naming was last suggested at Portal talk:Contents/Archive 3#Rename of indices pages. Suggest it (and summarize the past discussion) at the VPP thread. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about a set of topical contents pages organized like Portal:Contents/Arts and culture? I think it would be cool to link to pages like that from the Main Page. :-) RichardF 06:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! From the proposed navigation bar, can I assume that the proposed page names at Portal:Contents/TOC work for you? :-) RichardF 13:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quiddity,

Oh man, I am a doofus. :) I didn't make the connection that uploader == photographer. Thanks for the heads-up. cheers --pfctdayelise (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation of your revert of my edit at Meaning. Wow, I wish all reverts were that polite!  :) Bry9000 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This diff still has transclusions, so the look will change, but here's something pretty close to what I have in mind. Using inspiration from the Community portal and a three-shade color scheme, I also would have the main Contents page be blue and the page-type pages be green. All pages would use the same basic layout design - two complementary transcluded designs for the subpages and one for the main Contents page. :-) RichardF (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We're just talking about the colours here? Yeah, they look good. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the page layout too. Any comments on that? RichardF (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no immediate objections to the layout.

I'll try to respond more fully on the contents talkpage, but I'm still very unhappy with the amount of confusion we're presenting to casual browsers here (as John Gohde has tried to explain in the "Redundancy" section of the talkpage). We've stared at it for hours and hours, we know where it all goes and what it all means; but to anyone else I think it appears to be an overwhelming mess. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's because it is a mess. But I believe shining a light on it helps clean it up. I still say going by topics is much better than going by page type as the main organizer. If the types get culled back then that will help. I'm just advocating eating the elephant one bite at a time. ;-) RichardF (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

mMMmmm, elephants </homer>. Well, feel free to get a bonfire going, and experiment/draft at length. If I think of anything useful I'll jump in. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm about out of things to try besides window dressings. Do you have any specific and/or general ideas you would like to see mocked-up? :-) RichardF (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You asked for it, you got it! ;-) RichardF (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

well, i thought i can as there were lots of questions...you reverted mine. Where should i ask then? 87.177.208.91 (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, you should ask questions at Wikipedia:Help desk. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, thanks, then i'll do so there :) 87.177.235.180 (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I'm whistling in the dark on the Contents and megaportals peer review. I certainly won't be doing a Lone Ranger bit on this one, so I guess it's pretty much off the table for now. RichardF (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been avoiding this one, and trying to clear up some related matters (plus real life stuff..). I'll try to get back to it soon. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe I just should have said, "Portals... good!..." ;-) RichardF (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A users want his coaching discussion page deleted because he believes his IP could be discovered through it. What's the policy on this?

... please see and reply to this discussion.

The Transhumanist 22:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the rules for adding portals to the directory were there to read, and I simply didn't bother. Thank you for being patient and civil despite that. It's rare to see! Fishal (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what, that comment was so nice, I just have to give you this.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		You went out of your way to show patience and tolerance even when I followed procedure incorrectly. Your behaved in a civil and helpful fashion that is rarely seen. Thank you! Fishal (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

YOur name is interesting. How did yu come up with it?? cheesepuffsaretasty!!! (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See the article quiddity ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the new MediaWiki:Newarticletext. I hope it does some good. I'm curious as to how you tracked it down. The first time I tried to find something like that it took me quite a while. I eventually found Special:Allmessages and then MediaWiki, where I search for message text to find the right page. Is that how you found it or do you know an easier/faster way? Sbowers3 (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. What I did was: Highlight a chunk of the text by click-dragging my cursor over it, then right-click and "View selection source" (I think only Firefox webbrowser has this option. You could also just "View page source" in any browser, and search that for any relevant word, eg "Information for editors" in this case). That gave me a small chunk of html code, which I eyeballed the relevant chunk out of:

<div id="jump-to-nav">Jump to: <a href="#column-one">navigation</a>, 
<a href="#searchInput">search</a></div> <!-- start content --> <div class="mw-newarticletext">
<div id="newarticletext" style="border: 2px solid blue; margin: 8px 100px; padding: 8px 16px;
 background: white none repeat scroll 0%; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; 
-moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;">
<center>
<p><span style="font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold;">Information for editors</span>

The bits "<div class="mw-newarticletext"> <div id="newarticletext" ..." was what I needed. HTH :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(Quiddity: FYI. Please weigh in on this so we can put an end to at least one little edit war. RichardF (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

I have reverted your edit from "Culture and Arts" back to "Arts and Culture" [14] because according to Wikipedia:Portal/Directory, the correct category is Arts and Culture. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but according to the actual location of the template, it's "Culture and the Arts". You will have to take it up with The Transhumanist – Gurch 12:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How about both of you taking it up at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Contents#General comments so we can work on getting some consensus about this? RichardF (talk)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Colorpickerscreenshot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm back to work on these.

I noticed your name on the Wikiproject's participants list.  :)

Any chance of getting some help?

You could look over what I've done recently - touch it up, or use it as a springboard.

Or join a collaboration I'm pushing: List of basic space exploration topics.

Or pick a basic topic list (from the list on the project page) and complete it.

Or do the linky thing. Like select a range of lists on the Wikiproject page, load them into tabs (right click for the drop down menu, click on Linky, etc.), and then cycle through them in rapid fashion working on the same section on each list. It's more efficient working on the same section type, because you pick up little tricks that pertain to that section (like unspoken standards or conventions in article or section naming, etc.) that speed up the hunt for links, etc. The increased interactivity between lists also makes it more likely to notice improvements that can be applied to the rest.

Or the other linky thing - select a range of lists on the page lists of basic topics and scan them for problems. (Press Ctrl-W to close the current tab and instantly display the next one). It's faster than browsing via the watchlist.

I look forward to your reply.

The Transhumanist 08:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really in the mood for a lists project, having recently categorized all of the Category:Topical indexes. I'm also not particularly inclined to "being encouraged" ;P I just dabble wherever takes my fancy.

Presummably you meant to link something else with linky? (I've read most of the various VC pages. Some good tips throughout. I keep meaning to add to it :) Linky the extension, I used to use, but since migrating to linux in early 2007, Firefox doesn't get along with quite a few extensions, and except for conquery (hacked for v2.0+ compatibility) and customizegoogle, I dont use them much. (i only miss colorzilla and optimoz tweaks).

I like how all the basic lists are developing though :) -- Quiddity (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated List of vehicles in Invader Zim, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Invader Zim. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Help contents contents toc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In general I think that we shouldn't protect the first page, we should be careful. Normally the anti vandal bots also check that page to make sure the first two lines are always there. If the bots aren't doing that then try to get that restored first. --Trödel 03:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The template's are now protected. Can you figure out who is running the anti-vandal templates now and see if they can update them to check on the introduction page - I can't do it right now. TIA --Trödel 02:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Following on from your answer on User talk:Dicklyon#Spacing between list items, I'm obviously missing something. (Probably a number of things!)
I interpret your code illustration as saying: "No blank lines produces one list with many items, whereas interleved blank lines produces many lists, each of one item." Is that the intention of the illustration? If so, no problem yet.

Exactly :) And that's what I mean by 'render properly' (I'm possibly using the wrong term, with "render"). See the intro at Semantic Web for possible clarification. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

But you're also saying: "They're all part of the same unordered list, and should be next to one another in order to render properly." That one I don't follow - Why should they "be next to one another in order to render properly."? (I know "appearances can be deceptive", but I can't distinguish any difference in the rendering. i.e. to me, they both seem to be rendering properly.)
So, what is it that I am missing? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On a different tack, my POV is that computers are here to make life easier for people. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that people need to modify their behaviour and inconvenience themselves in order to make things easier for computers. Or is it a case of, again, I'm missing something? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's partially a part of developing Best Coding Practices, not really a requirement. Slightly more important than (because it has an actual effect), but sort of analogous to using <br /> instead of <br> (one is xhtml, the other html).

Similarly, putting 2 spaces after a fullstop is not a good practice, because it doesn't have any actual effect. (Aside, see an interesting (to html-geeks) last paragraph at kottke)

Or, putting 2 linebreaks between paragraphs might be clearer to some people (or using doublespacing throughout), but we can't because it effects the rendered layout.

I'm not sure about this last one, but putting linebreaks between list items might also have a drastic effect on how screen readers interpret-and-hence-read the text back to blind users.

Hope some of that helps. I'm just an amateur with regards to web accessibility, so take with a small pinch of salt ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure I entirely agree with you, but at least I now understand you! ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

re your test at mediawiki:edittools. Possibly http://test.wikipedia.org would work for your needs? (I was poking around there yesterday :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually created an account on the test wiki today, only to find that even over there, pages in the MediaWiki namespace could only be edited by administrators. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Doh! ah well. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Quiddity; regarding your question at test.wikipedia.org I suggest that you enter the freenode IRC channel #mediawiki. You can find me in the eavenings or at night European time using the nick name « gangleri » . Best regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 04:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me on my talk page. I won't promise that I'll be generating any new articles soon, but I'll keep an eye out for typos while I'm reading Wikipedia. Thanks again. Robaker (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I saw and agreed with your userpage mutterings. I was about to quibble over <br/> vs <br />, then saw in one reference that it is considered optional. Following back to the (gah) spec,[15] I see it is indeed, but it's also recommended there[16] and elsewhere[17] to do so (leave a space before the closing slash). So there! muttermutterrant. (so, remember the space! ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah well. The MediaWiki software sanitizes it into <br /> on the way out. I just think it's easier to learn (X)HTML if the slash is in there somewhere to remind you to not to put a closing tag, and it's faster to type <br/> than <br />.

Incidentally, I looked at your contributions and I believe that when you have reverted edits, you have done so appropriately. So, I have added rollback rights to your account. Please note that rollback should be used only for blatant vandalism and does not leave a useful edit summary. I hope you find it useful, but if not, just ask and I will remove it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nifty! Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How do new users become noticed by welcomers in Wikipedia?

Have you noticed anything I should be doing differently?

Pee Tern (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just reading your discussion with Transhumanist, followed it back to your talkpage, and saw you hadn't been given a welcome template yet. No problems noticed; as someone once said to me, you aren't a real Wikipedian until you've made, and learned from, 50 mistakes. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will add again once we are completed the startup phase - Tinucherian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

for the original barnstar conferral--made me very happy.-- Wageless (talk) 21:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Quiddity. I think it is a shame that the Chuck Marean situation has reached this point, for there is no doubt that his intentions are good - he certainly isn't trying to be disruptive. But he seems entirely incapable of following or even understanding the simplest rules, and lashes out quite inappropriately when challenged. I wish there were a chance that he would improve, but after nearly two years of work by a wide variety of editors, he doesn't seem to get it at all. A shame, but I think inevitable. Thanks again for the comment. Best, Gwernol 21:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not a programmer, and I find Wikipedia's internal functions phenomenally overcomplicated for what ought to be simple things, such as, for example, reaching someone in authority (or heck, even knowing who *is* in authority). Even sending *you* a response message...am I doing it right? I have no idea. Why in the world can't I just click on your ID and drop you a simple email message, like I can do on so many other systems?

I also see rampant inconsistency across the breadth of Wikipedia -- for each of the items in THE LAST UNICORN pages that someone has tagged "verify! verify!," I can point to hundreds of similar things on other Wiki pages that have not been so tagged.

As for the whole verifiability thing, the fact remains that not everything is on-line. As just one example, someone is asking for verification of the fact that many critics have called THE LAST UNICORN a modern fantasy classic, one of the best novels in the field in the last 100 years. But those reviews and articles aren't on-line. The ones I have in notebooks were published in newspapers and literary magazines in the first 20 years of the book's existence, and since it was published in 1968 there's simply no place for me to *point* to. It is true, it is absolutely true, and it can be verified by anybody willing to go to a library and pull out the right roll of microfiche. Just not online.

My main issue is keeping things factual. Lots of people have put up false information about Peter, his book, and the movie based on it over the last two years, and every time I spot this stuff I take it out, because I am in a position to know what the facts actually are. It is annoying to have false statements *reinserted* by people who do not know the facts and don't take the time to check them out through direct verification.

Connor Cochran Business Manager for Peter S. Beagle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.56.217 (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Replying at your user talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I was offline for over a week and therefore didn't really get around to it, but I think I have now found a way to implement this, without breaking any of the major browsers that are in use. The following should do it. I removed the explicitly defined font size from Mzajac's solution, which was causing unpredictable cross-browser results. I now simply rely on "inheritance". I have also added an IE6 specific CSS line because IE6 does not properly recognize "vertical-align: baseline;". This should not conflict with any other browsers, and IE7 will ignore it.

#bodyContent sup {
    vertical-align: baseline;
    _vertical-align: bottom;
    position: relative;
    bottom: 0.33em;
}
#bodyContent sub {
    vertical-align: baseline;
    _vertical-align: bottom;
    position: relative;
    bottom: -0.25em;
}

This code is tested and confirmed to work with: Safari 3, FF 1-3, Opera 9.25.3721, IE6 and IE7. I'm pretty sure that Safari 2 accepts this as well but was unable to test it. That leaves about 4,5% of the worldwide internetusers that run software that is older (IE5,N4,IE-Mac etc) or unknown. In those cases there might be a slight chance that one of the CSS lines is not being applied. However this should hardly affect readability. What do you think ? Will this be an acceptable solution to put into the site-wide CSS? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I answered your question at User talk:Teratornis#Search VP?. I like to keep talk page threads together, so this is merely to notify you to look there for my answer in case you hadn't checked your watch list already. --Teratornis (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I answered your later question at Template talk:Villagepump#Village pump section search links. I think. You may want to check my work. --Teratornis (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree!

That's what I was trying to get across! Although, it was good to have some genuine debate on the show - proves we don't decide before-hand and make a cabal of it :-) Witty Lama 14:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

ii can cite some references if u want, wut r u deleting my edits for ey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cup a teacuppy (talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The lists of basic topics are more than one person can complete.

Any idea how we can find people to help work on these? The Transhumanist 06:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no quick fixes we haven't tried. The only things left range from getting involved in single collaboration-nominations, to writing to individuals. Not everyone enjoys lists as much as us, it seems. Plus, I don't think we really have that many dedicated editors; most never see the community portal or rfa or guideline pages; they just add content here and there, copying the style that they see elsewhere.

You could get one of those WP:BANNERs made? (I dislike them, personally)

Eventualism will solve it, if nothing else does. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I think you should drastically trim the lead at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics. Remove the digression about linky and all the "motivational" style language. Copy one of the other more successful wikiprojects. Condense and simplify any and all instructions. Brevity makes for efficiency in understanding and absorbing. I think ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• How you can even think of merging 1000things... to a trash article like that they are not one in the same please respond and bring some reason!!!!!! (User talk:Jashhagltalk) March 13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jashhagl (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

At first I agreed with those prods, but then I noticed the birth and death dates, so it obviously wasn't self promotion. A simple 30 second google search yielded those results, and someone with more knowledge of Japanese than me or more knowledge of Japanese literature could probably flesh those out. One of subjects has a much longer article with a pic on Japanese wikipedia, albeit still a stub.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of Wikipedia:Gaming the system as the article and its variants have under gone multiple AfDs with the majority closing as DELETE:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Church of Google - DELETE
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 20 - DELETION REVIEW ENDORSED DELETION
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google - DELETE
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (2nd nomination) - KEEP

I am going to put it up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (3rd nomination) one more time. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I am sorry that you did not like my Happy Spring Message, I was just trying to brighten up peoples day. Anyways, best wishes --Mifter (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thx for reverting my revert at Maya Lin! -Pete (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

np :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have used the codes on Wikipedia:Tutorial/TabsHeader to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh/Deshipidian tabs. But, I can't get the edit tag to show along with headers on the pages I used it in. Can you help? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how they work, sorry. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No I hadn't seen it -- I love it! And all too true. It (or a link) may end up on my User page, when I get around to doing something about it. I like yours, by the way: clean, simple, to the point. Elphion (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! You saved me from deserting the vocation of the casual editor and if you promise not to construe this as a self-aggrandisement I will say you are a credit to your kind. If you need my services for some light tasks as befit my lowly status please don't hesitate to ask. I am an A-grade undergraduate student of the English language and I am keen to assist in an auxiliary role primarily as a draftsman; that is, to work purely on the continuity and cohesion of articles rather than their factual content.

Let me know if I can be of any assistance to you and once again thank you for your warm welcome. Morganautt (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits fit the profile of a serial spammer, so I removed them. Maybe I was "overzealous" in hindsight, but at the time I think I did the right thing. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it was April fools. And I don't think it was that disruptive an edit. Take care, 128.83.167.129 (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'm the one who originally uploaded the text; thanks for spotting my gaping oversight. The doors of perception are... er... now in place. Ham 22:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments :-) The way things are going, I think there's going to be a fair few maths portals created in the not-too-distant future. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Quiddity for spotting that and for the IMDB assess. Appreciate it. The change is much better but now I feel nervous about the other imdb stuff. PS aptly cool quotes to top your pages. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Take it easy and get well soon, Julia Rossi (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[18] You are not native speaker! --Pianist 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. I only saw the header "Places" in the diff, and didn't realize it was a subheading of "Placeholder names in other languages". I am a native speaker of English, in which Timbuktu is used as a placeholder name. Sorry about that. Feel free to change it back. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We are now deploying two new box types and CSS classes for the article message boxes. You can see them in MediaWiki:Common.css as "ambox-speedy" and "ambox-protection". If you have the time and feel the inclination: You might want to add those to the skin you made at Wikipedia:Ambox CSS classes/Skins.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on a new article space template at TfD Images needed. GregManninLB (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I liked your work on the wheat page. BTW what does Quiddity mean? just curious.AlexGWU (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) See the article quiddity for my username's meanings. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hesperian 01:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly reminder. Have your views of me from a year ago changed? Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize who you were (your old username) until you said that. And I don't really remember what interaction we had in the past. But based on the edit which I saw in my watchlist (adding the link to the petition to the WP:CBB), and the complete lack of information at the petition page (such as links to ongoing discussions, background information, etc), I think you were trying to create a counsel or cabal or league last year? Ah yes, User:Geo.plrd/Embassy and User:Geo.plrd/audit and Wikipedia:Justice Court and various attempts at getting involved with medcom, medcab, arbcom, ama, rfa.

I strongly suggest editing the encyclopedia, instead of trying to get involved in the bureaucracy. Read and learn m:Exopedianism. It might be a better fit. You seem to have a strong desire for influence and a leadership-role, but you need to be a normal citizen for a few years before people will elect you to a town council.

Also, petitions are a terribly divisive and undiplomatic way of getting attention to an issue. Starting discussions is much preferable. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't start the petition. I just linked to it on meta. Do you know of any areas in particular where I could edit? (I have been working on Categorizing) Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community Portal is where all the suggestions are. Just reading the encyclopedia, is good too; I go days without editing, but still reading dozens of articles. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your support for the change to Wikipedia:External links. I hadn't followed up on my edit, so it was good to see that you started the discussion. If I seem to be missing in action again, I'd appreciate it if you posted a note on my user talk page suggesting that I might want to involve myself. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the problem on my talk page. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry the second suggestion didn't work out. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you may be interested/helpful in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia logo improvement. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Thue | talk 07:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Per this edit, the top-left character is a khmer character. You don't need to fix it. Can you please check out the Quiddity's link and confirm if other issues have been taken care of? Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is both a Khmer character and a Tamil character, then. The problem with it was not that the character was drawn wrongly, but that it did not represent the sound "w" like the other characters in the logo. The Khmer character does not represent "w" either. Thue | talk 08:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos#Alphabets represented in the logo, they do represent the "letter from that alphabet that most closely resembles the English "W" as in "Wikipedia"."

However, according to Nohat at User talk:Nohat/archive 2005-02-22#Trouble in All the Logos!, "only some of the symbols were selected to represent "Wikipedia"— others were chosen at random." and 2 threads at User talk:Nohat/archive 2007-06-06 say the same thing. Angela says the same thing in meta:Talk:Main Page/Archives/2006/01#Error in the Wikipedia Globe. Zocky repeats it at Talk:Main Page/Archive 86#Wrong devnagari symbol for "wi" in Wikipedia's logo.

The only remaining tiny flaw I can see in your logo Thue, is the top-right piece (klingon r) is lacking any depth (there should be a black edge to the piece, but instead we see the grey of the inside). Not very important at all though. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I (and the person who reported the problem with the Tamil/Khmer character) thought that all the characters should represent "w". But that is obviously not the case. IMO the Klingon "r" is within stylistic freedom, so I guess the logo is correct now. When at first you don't succeed, redefine success :). Thue | talk 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we have all the required variants ready (version with logotype like commons:Image:Wikipedia-logo-en.png, and anything else that might need to be duplicated at commons:Category:High-resolution official Wikimedia logos)? (svg/png, huge/usage-size, with/without logotype)

If so, or when done, just let User:David Gerard know. (I emailed him about a week ago, and he said he has passed on my comments (the nytimeslink, and old mailing list links, and current discussion at WP:VPR) to the comcom and board mailing lists. So the appropriate people know that at least something is going on, if they're not actively lurking! Then they can give the go-ahead (hopefully, presumably), and the update process can begin. I think.)

And a Huge thanks again, for all your work on this :) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue about how to create the SVG logo :). Thue | talk 17:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, you suggested a merger, but you did not start a discussion, I think there may be a case for this but moving acousmatic music to acousmatic would be the wrong way to approach it. Instead, I would suggest changing the title of the acousmatic article to 'acousmatic sound' so that the page can function as a sub-secion of 'acousmatic music'; which is a particular form of electroacoustic music, one which specifically uses acousmatic sound sources. The acousmatic sound article might focus more on Schaefers' and Chions' theories while the acousmatic music page could deal with the artistic practice of using sound in an acousmatic context. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks for clarifying that. Can I then simply change the title of the acousmatic page to 'acousmatic sound' Semitransgenic (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I can see where mergers would be useful but certain related topics might be better served if looked at in a nodal manner, particularly if it entails compromising conciseness and reading style. An explanation for AS could be placed in the AM article but it would be simpler to just link the first mention of AS and readers can refer to that if they want a detailed explanation/ Semitransgenic (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok will look into the archiving feature soon. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW can you tell me briefly what the policy is regarding articles that use one specifc publication for the bulk of citations on a topic. I have one case for instance where I consider the source to contain POV statements, but it is a notable item so have simply used terms such as according to x, x proposes, in his essay abc x asserts efg etc. Surely when there is a lack of sources provided it's acceptable to neutralise wording so content reads as theory rather than fact? What is the standard view on this? Semitransgenic (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Howdy. Two things.

• I was wondering if you recalled why we settled on the word "navigation" instead of "browse" for the top sidebar box (See the thread at WP:VPR#Change "navigation" on sidebar to "browse")
• I was wondering if it would be simple/appropriate to ask you to undelete some images for me, to expedite the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 22#Wikipedia:Sidebar search box images. I was planning on (somehow?) mentioning User:Quiddity/highlight search box and reraising the issue of Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Searchbox redesign (which we decided to postpone at the time), in the thread at WP:VPR#Move the search box directly beneath the puzzle globe (which you also may be interested in).

Thanks. Your advice/opinion is as always appreciated. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! As I just noted in the discussion, my recollection is that we had to retain "navigation" because changing it broke many users' scripts.

I've restored the images and closed the deletion review. And yes, I'll check out the search box discussion.  :-) —David Levy 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. PLease also pass on the message to anybody else who you may think might be willing to help. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a lot more patience for the proposal process than I do.

That page has some ambiguities and really needs to be proofread/edited by a capable editor.

I think it would benefit from your attention.

I handled the Welcoming Committee at your request.

I'm now requesting that you proofread and propose improvements to the upload page.

See ya around.

The Transhumanist 00:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I barely know anything about our image/media policy (except how complicated it is), so I would not be the ideal person to tinker with it either. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand why your statements at AN made no sense. You misinterpreted what the discussion was about. There isn't any policy on that page. The discussion pertained to the editing of the English/grammar and MOS elements. The understandability of the menu itself. As a menu. Like the sentences "Where is it from? (Click on the appropriate link)". You don't instantly see anything wrong with those? Or with what they imply?

Nothing clicks?

The Transhumanist 06:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I understood exactly what that discussion was about. However, I imagine you will be sufficiently cautious now that there are many more critical eyeballs watching; the page has been unlocked, so go do what you will.

To elaborate on one point: I believe leaving editprotected-requests on talkpages is preferable in cases like this, because it guarantees feedback, because it avoids the danger of confusing the users with temporary mistakes, and because it leaves a more visible record of why an edit is beneficial - for others to learn from. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Other than at RfA, when am I not sufficiently cautious?  :) People learn by example pretty well - discussing mundane edits seems like overkill.

Clean up is complete. Feel free to refine or revert as you see fit.

By the way, thanks for your input. Those issues needed to be considered. I've replied to concerns in general at WP:AN.

The Transhumanist 13:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You've given me an idea, which I've presented in the basic topics renaming proposal discussion.

The Transhumanist 03:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The pic you sent would work. I whipped this up to see if anything could be done with it. This one is crap because the lighting of the two objects don't match, but it shows that the concept has potential.

I just thought the original globe was too small.  :) The Transhumanist 09:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like an idea of what the trophy will look like, I've posted the specs and some components at user talk:Penubag#This one should be fun. The Transhumanist 11:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Saw your changes to Template:MiniAWFP looks fine to me, should the parent template Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects be changed as well? Jeepday (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I can do that. I'll leave a note on the talkpage in case anyone misses the green. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Quiddity, thanks a lot for leaving me a delightful message :)

I just couldn't stand with how the article is looks and couldn't leave it for anybody with much incorrect data (though I just changed the basics) and I wanted to contribute something better and much sorter :)

Thanks a lot for supporting me, and I'll try to cotribute as much as I can from my knowledge of Moomin. I'm a hobby fan :) >>> Strekoza (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just thought to say hi! You seen Category:Categories lately? See talk on category talk:parent categories and chime in. (I'm about to finish a post--saw you checking a page history) // FrankB 21:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The unwatchability of categories makes me dislike them, and stay away as much as possible. Sorry. Good luck :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Tattling on you... with referral. Since there seems to be a lot of international effort involved in a standardized maps color scheme for SVG map generation (HEY! I'm just trying to keep the filing system straight!) and you "expressed interest in such matters" in diverse places, including our first contacts back when... well, I fingered you! (Your welcome. Send $$$$, not curses! <G>) Seriously, though, looks like you might lend some mature wisdom to the enthusiastic ahhh participants there. // FrankB 23:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

I'm contacting you because you were involved in the discussion concerning the renaming of the lists of basic topics.

I ran into resistance when I attempted to rename the set.

Therefore, the name change hasn't been completed, because the previous discussion wasn't widespread enough, nor announced in enough places.

I've submitted a new proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to rename the pages called List of basic x topics to Topic outline of x.

The Transhumanist 06:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey! You're famous! Check this out. >;-o)

Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/RichardF

RichardF (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, cute. Navboxen ahoy. :)

(Featured topic but not list? There'll be torches and pitchforks...!) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't get it to work right all the time. Sometimes, the entire list would show up! >;-o) What's the odds of any of this getting anywhere? RichardF (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a consistent problem with anything WP:FL related. People keep removing the includeonly templates that transclude the short sections. (last time i checked, which has been a while)

I'm currently favouring the current Main page, and I've been watching since the start. I'd guess and hope that we'll end up implementing 3 or 4 small tweaks to the current design. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Good evening Quiddity! We wish to better understand how we can successfully contribute to a particular article. Is it possible to guide us? We have a few precise questions. Thank you for your precious help. AML and JSB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Les Villes Invisibles (talk • contribs) 03:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Quiddity, I noticed you added {{reqdiagram}} to this talk page. Would you mind please adding a bit more detail to the talk page describing what kind of diagram you envisage? Otherwise maybe remove the request? thanks --pfctdayelise (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In response: the page tab says [unprotect]. To me that means the page is protected. How is it not protected? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Will do. Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As per your suggested standards, which I agree with, I've made the WikipediaWeekly template compliant. See what you think. I've also replied saying as much in the talkpage where this was being discussed. Cheers, Witty Lama 07:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In the last couple of days nothing has progressed with the templates on the community portal. I've changed WikipediaWeekly's to comply with your proposed standards and NotTheWikipediaWeekly's template is smaller still. However, despite "red thunder" being aware of the issue - he proposed his own solution - "WikiUpdate" remains extremely large, highly "branded" and has no demonstrated longevity nor listenership. Wikizine has been publishing for a long time and they don't have a template there - surely there must be some minimum standard. I, of course, am by no means objective in this matter so I'm requesting that you might like to follow this through? I suggest that you might want to listen to the first couple of minutes to the episode 7 of WikiUpdate - quite bizzare. All the best, Witty Lama 03:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree, and appreciate your confirmation of my own thoughts, and the assistance at the WT:CBB talkpage. Feel free to keep an eye out there - as an exopedian, I don't quite know how I got stuck with the job of maintainer! -- Quiddity 04:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Joopercoopers has posted a test page which seeks to resolve the infobox hiding issue you commented on at the Editor Assistance Request page. If you can weigh in on the current Infobox style discussion it may help us move forward in our efforts at a now much better chance to form a consensus. Sswonk (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we were cross editing. Thank you for your comment. Sswonk (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

np. thanks for the notification :) -- Quiddity 18:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How can this discussion be quickly moved to the Village Pump, which is where I originally thought it would be most appropriately housed? Sswonk (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cut&paste, with a pointer at the original thread, would be the best bet.

Add a

<small>copied from ....</small>

line at the beginning and end of the moved section. -- Quiddity 18:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion started with the dispute between Wetman et. al. and Denimadept et. al. from Ponte Vecchio talk and got snowballed into the mess that exists now. You have given us reason in the past to move the talk from EAR and then from MOS. I utterly agree with your latest comment at WP:VPR. So, how can it be archived, for example is there a tag to place at the end and/or beginning? I will gladly do that and notify Joopercoopers.

However, my main concern at this point is that the sometimes impudent comments and actions of the "disinfobox" group that initially altered the infobox at Ponte Vecchio have gotten lost in the shuffle. My initial argument was against their handling of that dispute and their poor treatment of reasoned argument for inclusion of the infobox until a consensus could be reached. And I still don't like the "elegant solution" they have on the Ponte Vecchio page now. So my other question is, where does that dispute belong now? You have discouraged the hiding of infoboxes and your contention that many others agree has been more than supported by the comments of others in the subsequent forum discussions. How does that message get relayed to the "disinfobox" group so that the hidden box they have created is put on hiatus and the argument finally ended in an authoritative way? Sswonk (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed the problem! Ummm, something like this, adapt as necessary:

• {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}} can be used to archive the thread (Add a 2-3 sentence summary explaining that you're also going to:).
• add a brief proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes) for an addition to the guideline that says "infoboxes are not to be hidden (with the exception of long subsections, eg Toronto or Bertolt Brecht)". Or something. Because, strong consensus (with numerous admins) has been reached at VPR. (Maybe with the addendum that if an infobox is not perfectly suited to an article, instead of edit-warring, a custom-infobox should be designed (as it should in the Ponte Vecchio case - I'd want to know all 3 major reconstruction dates (from what I can glean from a glance at the talkpage))). Parenthetically speaking. (sorry!)

In the meantime, the infoboxes should be made visible because they don't print properly. And because strong consensus (with numerous admins) has been reached at VPR. Temporarily removing them from the live article, until consensus for a "correct" version can be reached on the talkpages, might be diplomatic.

Hope that helps! -- Quiddity 05:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. As I originally inserted it here, the infobox included three construction dates as well as other information plus one datum which was unverified and denoted with a "?". I got those dates as well as the rest of the non-"?" data from the text of the article at that time. I can find sources for dates, not necessarily those, on my own, and document the references.

On a slightly different issue, one thing I agree with others on is that infoboxes probably shouldn't emit output which occurs outside their bounds. That is, and I'm as guilty of this as anyone, using {{coord|...|display=title}} in an infobox. I want the NRHP infobox changed to remove the "title" option from coord, and have said so on the appropriate talk page (see small comment currently at bottom of section). That infobox makes good use of the information internally, but that attribute was added without seeing with what it would conflict, and it has conflicted with anything else which already posted the coordinates in the title area.

Anyway, regarding the "impudent" comments by some, I prefer "disparaging" as rather less arrogant, and quite clear in that the behavior it refers to is rather likely to annoy and anger other editors, as some have succeeded in doing. I think certain people are a bit young and haven't yet learned to moderate their immediate impulses from those of insulting confrontation to less satisfying but more likely to succeed efforts. Words relating vinegar to honey come to mind.

To answer a question by User:Sswonk, I will not back removal of the infobox. Ponte Vecchio is a bridge, it should have a nice infobox summary. If I didn't feel that way, I wouldn't have inserted the infobox in the first place. While there's certainly a lot of history associated with that bridge, there's lots of history associated with many bridges; it's not anything like a unique attribute for a bridge. Ditto the houses or whatever those buildings on the Ponte are. That used to be very common. See the article on Pont Neuf, especially the third paragraph under "Construction". Also, London Bridge, third paragraph under "History" and under London Bridge#"Old" (Medieval) London Bridge. Note the chapel there, which is also not a unique feature. If Rialto Bridge can have an infobox, and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and London Bridge and so many others can have an infobox which adds to the article, then Ponte Vecchio can have one regardless of how Wetman et al feel about it. - Denimadept (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up Ponte Vecchio and Cellini Salt Cellar. Let's continue the discussions at their talkpages. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus - not even I am that quick to judge! --Joopercoopers (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Oh, that brightened my mood considerably. Thanks for both pointing out and fixing :)

As I said, feel completely free to tweak, redo, overhaul, smash, or delete it yourselves. I'll try to leave well-enough alone now, unless invited to participate further. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually Quiddity I'm going to bed and shall sleep on reverting you whilst waiting for my bugzilla account to be verified and then logging the printing issue with them. I don't share your philosophy regarding "centralised authority" it tends to create centralised authoritarians. --Joopercoopers (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I'd actually be fascinated to know what the developers think about this hiding method. (Yes, slippery slopes are bad! Shades of græy and all that. I can't type out all the contexts for every statement made though, there isn't enough time or matter in the universe! Abstract philosophies have to adapt to real-world situations. All perspectives are just perspectives, except for the exceptions. Objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear. Yes!) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Zhaozhou said, "Wú". --Joopercoopers (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, on reflection, I'm still without enlightenment and have reverted - there's no reason to impose such draconian reaction to experiments. Bugzilla is impending, there's no deadline for the print issues to be resolved, we've actually proven the scant argument for the information in the box, however as a concesssion to those who believe differently, this is still a compromise (see denim's ardent arguments on my talk). Swooping in and enforcing arguments to authority is never going to play well on WP - surely you know that by now? --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it does work. Depends how heated the discussion is at the instant of contact. It's all about OtherPeople'sPerspectives, and correctly nudging those other perspectives into a more overlapping frame of reference. More venn, less scattergraph. (Sometimes it all goes horribly wrong, and I end up putting the participants on the stubbornly defensive. Now Lar is reading my plea as an ultimatum! Thoroughly wrong stress on the intonation in there somewhere :(

(From the perspective of a web-designer, and accessibility/usability advocate, and wiki-template hacker (who sees enough heated arguments as it is) - the hiding-of-entire-infoboxes is an idea with far too many negative ramifications. I wish I was better at explaining.)

Anyway. I look forward to seeing whatever resolution the situation is allowed to arrive at, and what the developers say about it. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Quiddity, JohnInDC, Lar (Joopercoopers has commented already): I have added a revised version of a proposed statement against hiding infoboxes at MoS (infoboxes). Please take a look and add your valued input there, as the previous discussion has been archived. Sswonk (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Lar's latest comment, which appears to be a breakthrough. I'd like to see you take a stab at rephrasing the proposal into something that would include his compromise caveat. It would be best to post it in this talk thread as we have had so many problems in the past with confusion about topic moves and working versions of a statement. Please contact me if you need to discuss this first. Sswonk (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Dropping the proposal, I agree that would be the wisest choice. I am archiving the discussion at 1800Z, giving it a few more minutes in case there are any further comments in the works, and will notify the other participants via their talk pages. From my perspective, the results for now are acceptable. If the hiding-div goes viral without any major improvement, I think Lar will step in to quash such a movement. Sswonk (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)