This is Archive_3 for User_talk:Wikid77 (Oct 2008 - Apr 2009)
Archive 1: May2006-Feb2008 Archive 2: Mar2008-Sep2008 |
Hi Wikid77 - good to see you making a few new stubs for wildlife reserves in Texas. If you mke any more could I ask you to add ((Texas-geo-stub)) rather than just ((Geo-stub))? It'll save a bit of sorting further down the line. Cheers, Grutness...wha? 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, saw some of your edits in the various horse articles. Your attempts to clean some of them up are much appreciated, but be sure you aren't being TOO "helpful," OK? Some of the things are where they are, the way they are, for a reason -- particularly reference sections for articles that are start-class and just contain bibliographical info in absence of footnotes. Please don't make them "external links" when they are actually sources for the article. Also watch red links and disambiguation of links, OK? You may also be interested in looking at the "convert" templates that make it easy to put in both metric and imperial measurements. Overall, your efforts are (mostly) appreciated, but maybe ask a few talk page questions before making drastic changes -- at least to see if there is anyone out there who cares. (grin) Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Claiming someone has "mental problems", and advising someone to "seek professional mental help" because of a content dispute is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please do not make such comments in the future or you may be blocked from editing. Green caterpillar (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You wrote:
Leaving aside the unwikipedialike insult, let me mention that I was responsible for the Ada Test & Evaluation activity at Intermetrics in 1979-1981, where we worked with Ichbiah to refine his Green language into Ada. I think I understand Ada pretty well. And the use of "nested comments" in this section is completely idiosyncratic. --macrakis (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Ada comments are in fact not a complex subject. The current text is unnecessarily convoluted, especially since everything it says applies to any end-of-line comments, whether in Ada or in SQL (which also uses the --...EOL convention along with the /*...*/ convention or in Lisp (;...EOL). Please see my remarks in Talk:Ada (programming language)....
I find your tone condescending. Peremptorily reverting my edits without comment is not "merely expressing a strong opinion".
I feel just fine, thank you. --macrakis (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I am unsure why you repeated the changes to the Summerdale, Alabama article even though you had been reverted. Perhaps we need to take your changes to the article talk page instead of making just making the change. Please drop by there and let's discuss what you are doing. Thanks! JodyB talk 12:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the modifications. Is it possible for you to find out on what ground did [122.160.107.146]change Bagha Jatin's date of birth and impose 8 December ? Regards.--BobClive (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Commonly misspelled words, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod))
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 18:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
here is a usefull link to locate [1] > Prof.Sherif (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Unbekannt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.
If you think ... .... Crusio (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Delighted to see you added the German musical numbers. Many operetta article sections are based on English adaptations rather than the originals. I wonder if it's possible to edit the synopsis so it is faithful to the German work? What do you think? Best. --Kleinzach 04:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hola! Helpful film and book editing Tip-'O-the-Day!
Please read:
Try to only include what is in the film itself in the "Plot" section. Characters come first with (actors in parenthesis and optional). Don't add things that are not in the film into the "Plot" section, add them elsewhere. Facts about an event that are not in the film or book go in the "Background" section.
Hope this helps on your road to higher quality output.
- 209.86.226.21 (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I see you've been involved with ((Google Inc.)) so maybe you can help. The template has a bug, see the talk page for description... GregorB (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The da Vinci Barnstar | ||
For fixing a complex coding error in Template:Google Inc. when no one else could figure it out! - Ahunt (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
I think this edit doesn't match the tone of the essay in question. It presents a strong point-of-view that does not seem neutral. Would you consider toning it down a bit? --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Interesting information on your user page. I notice you edit year pages. Are you interested in participating in a series of mini-projects as part of WikiProject Years on selected decades in the modern era? Nothing on this has happened yet, although there has been minor discussion. I'm free after the start of March. Also, what is your view on my feeling (expressed on the WPr Y talk page) that there are advantages in merging year-pages from long ago (including those on your "to do" list, I guess) into decade articles, to enable a better fist to be made of each, with a richer information base and a greater ease of giving readers a sense of historical movement in the medium-term? Tony (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Can i remove the text you added to Template:Ph:Images and other uploaded files? it does not appear to be true any longer. Bawolff (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
On behalf of about 5000 asteroids, I thank you. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Why would you write this:
-ln(1-p) =
when you could write the following instead?
−ln(1 − p) =
You used a HYPHEN instead of a minus sign and you didn't use proper spacing. And why set it in bold? This is all codified at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). Michael Hardy (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I've raised the issue of your edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is what you found:
Here is what you put in its place:
-ln(1-p) =
Here is what I first changed it to:
−ln(1 − p) =
Here is what I changed it to after that:
In your edit summaries you've attempted to say something about the nature of your concerns, but they're not clear to me. But if addressing them requires crystal-clear violations of the norms of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics), then you will need to discuss them at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (mathematics), and if you continue doing them they'll get discussed there whether you're the one who brings them up or not. I don't know whether the last edit I did addresses what concerned you. It's clear that you don't have a good idea of what the effect of your edits are, in terms of the appearance of the article after your edits. Using a hyphen instead of a minus sign in non-TeX notation is wrong. Using two side-by-side TeX displays and expecting them to get properly aligned with each other is wrong. Neglecting proper spacing in non-TeX notation is wrong. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
24-Feb-2008: Hey, sorry for all the confusion. Thanks for helping with the situation. I was changing those articles to address concerns of WP:Accessibility. The emerging consensus is that 800x600 screens are still considered as "supported" for typesetting, however, smaller (such as hand-held devices or mobile phones) are not the primary focus (yet). Readers had been, perhaps, 80% of them using 800x600 screens in 2005, raising the level as a major concern. Typically, people tend to emulate the past displays, so it is a good idea to expect wide-screen users to narrow some windows as 800x600 pixels (of course, even smaller for side-by-side windows). As you might know, many future computers will have multiple screens, perhaps unfolding from a "laptop" in a style similar to Thomas Jefferson's revolving bookstand that displayed open books on multiple sides of a revolving column (to cross-reference the "windows" by spinning the bookstand). Meanwhile, the display of a math formula could auto-wrap or scroll (left/right) within a page, to allow viewing on either wider or narrowed windows (for multiple windows on same computer screen), because Wikipedia (currently) shoves over-wide lines further down the page (which is "committing a crime" in professional typesetting). It's not just math articles: Everything in Wikipedia started at neophyte levels; even the MediaWiki software (version 1.15) is still primitive or elementary (but keep that on the QT; developers have strong egos), and vandalism is rampant (some articles are 90% vandalism edits - hello, it's out of control in 2009). Again, thanks for helping: I forgot to enlarge one formula by adding "\!" or "\;" ending the formula in <math>...</math>. I've been writing WP:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth, which I think will be perhaps 9 million articles (there are already 800,000? articles about sports), so I appreciate your help. I archived most of my talk-page to allow quicker access here. Again, sorry for the confusion, and thanks for helping to make each math formula easier to read. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
\!
and \;
to force PNG rendering is desirable.<math>
tags will never automatically break lines. It is impossible with the current system, and nobody's going to solve that problem any time soon; quite frankly, if Knuth couldn't solve it, then neither can anyone else here.<math>\displaystyle X + Y = A + 9</math>
<math>\displaystyle X + Y =</math><math>\displaystyle A + 9</math>
<math>\displaystyle X + Y =\;</math><math>\displaystyle\; A + 9</math>
<math>\displaystyle X + Y =\ </math><math>\displaystyle\ A + 9</math>
<math> \begin{align} &\; X + Y \\ =&\; A + 9 \end{align} </math>
<math> \begin{align} &\phantom\mathrel{=} X + Y \\ &= A + 9 \end{align} </math>
texvc
does not support \phantom
.texvc
so that it generates a smaller font. This is in fact a long-standing issue at the math WikiProject: Everyone agrees that sometimes the output of texvc
is ugly or broken or undesirable in some other way, but nobody has the technical skill and the time to fix it. We've filed bug reports with the developers, but no action has been taken for years.\;
and \!
to force PNG rendering. In addition to all the issues I mentioned above, PNG rendering itself causes accessibility issues. PNGs cannot be put through a screen reader (and the automatically generated alt
attribute of the PNG is the TeX source, which is not helpful to most people), and they cannot easily be magnified, unlike ordinary fonts. Forcing PNG rendering is rarely desirable and should be done only under unusual circumstances.25-Feb-2009: I can understand the Knuth viewpoint that TeX could not auto-wrap a formula based on pure mathematical notation, within the TeX language. There is the old saying of "thinking outside the box" or in this case, outside the TeX language. That is the solution: although the TeX language does not provide logical auto-wrap capabilities, other languages, such as the MediaWiki markup language can provide auto-wrapping, in conjunction with TeX. It is a case of synergy (a "win-win" situation), where both languages work together, and the two languages can perform more than either separately. TeX markup can generate Greek letters, symbols & fractions, while MediaWiki markup can group expressions to pre-determine where they should be split & wrapped, even testing the values of variables. For example, if "X > 10999200999" then allow more space for X to be displayed because it is a longer string of digits (over 10 billion). Note how the conditional expressions could even decide "(long result, see box below)" where testing the value of X could even generate an overflow-box to fit an entire formula that could not be split within the given space, but must be shown inside a different box.
Anyway, in the case of a 2-part equation, just insert an HTML non-breaking space " " between the 2 math-tag parts, generating:
<math>\displaystyle X + Y =</math> <math>A + 9</math>
.Again, the solution is to think outside the box, outside the TeX language, to combine TeX with features of MediaWiki markup, and outside an infobox that would not fit a very-long formula. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
<math>\displaystyle X + Y = A +</math> <math>\displaystyle 9</math>
. The problem is that, without anything to the right of the plus sign, TeX thinks the plus sign is a unary operator, not a binary one. (I.e., TeX thinks it's setting the grade "A+", not the first part of "A plus something".) So it spaces it wrong; and as far as I know, there's no way to tell texvc
to fix it.
s because
s don't know whether or not they're next to equal signs. Your technique will result in incorrect spacing, and I don't see any way to fix it. Ozob (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)I took the liberty of adding two more aspects to your very nice essay, Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth. Oddly, I've never seen these mentioned. It should be possible to get numerical estimates for these. I don;t thing they've been discussed semi-quantitatively yet. DGG (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
One of your recent edits to Template:Africa infobox caused a formatting problem. I have reverted it since I have no idea how to read all that code, but you may want to take a look. - BanyanTree 03:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I left a comment on [[2]] about some of your edits. Thanks dm (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I see you're changing more NHL tables to fit different formats. Rather than have you touch these piecemeal, could you please bring the topic to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places? We went to a fair amount of trouble to make them all look the same last year, and I'd like to ensure we keep uniformity, regardless of what that might turn out to be. Thanks dm (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I just had an oppertunity to read your essay, and I must say I was impressed. Kudos for taking the time to put it together. If you have some extra time I was thinking of puting an essay together myself, any pointers? Good job Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I created a section at the NRHP talk page for your switch to your new template NRHPdts on the Alabama NHL list. Changing from January 21, 2001 to 21 Jan 2001 on US based articles is a bit questionable. I realize you prefer to tinker rather than talk, but I wanted you to know .... dm (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you just read my birthday on my userpage and realized I was a Scorpio. Just because I'm aware of the astrological signs, doesn't mean I believe they control our fate. Nor do I believe whether or not you were born by Caesarean section has any relevance to how you live. There's a line in the Guadalcanal Diary song "Everything But Good Luck" that goes "When the stars come out at night, they shine on everyone." I think that says it all. ----DanTD (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Your essay Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth looks very good. I would suggest to add an introduction and a link to Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growth. As you might know I introduced the 3, 4 and 5M limit as the maximum number of articles on the english wikipedia (the logistic model). This as contrast to the belief that growth was exponential. My model was created in March 2006, THREE YEARS ago. Until this essay I have not seen new models. HenkvD (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort you put into dealing with the issue of placing images when there is already a floating table. I fear that there were quite a few nights put into it. I'd given up worrying about a response after a week. I'll have to look more carefully at it when I can find the headspace. And thanks for the border + cellpadding tip. Cheers. -- spincontrol 23:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Please stop making disruptive edits to the disambiguation guidelines, like you did here. I see that you're a regular, and the warning templates won't be needed, but other editors have already pointed out WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT in the edit summaries and on the talk pages. Please respect the consensus, even if you disagree with it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
((pov|guideline))
to indicate an ongoing WP:NPOV dispute. Per long-term Wikipedia policy, such a tag should not be removed during the process of resolving the dispute. I am NOT angry at you for ranting with your message "Disruptive edits" but please, let this be a wake-up, that you tend to jump to conclusions, which violate Wikipedia policy. Here's a hint: If a Wikipedia editor is experienced enough to use a POV-tag and/or Template:ombox, then consider, politely, asking them why they added those into a page, rather than claim disruption. Just a word to the wise... -Wikid77 (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Nice addition. Thanks for doing that. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Dysm
Hi Wikid77! Do you have an idea how to deal with this problem? bamse (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)