User talk:IntrigueBlue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wikipedia piracy article 2 QWERTY to Dvorak converter. 3 Jennifer Huygen 4 I have a quick question. 5 excessive link removal

[edit] Wikipedia piracy article

If your still looking for some pre-2000 history, there is a important part of it on the following website:[1] . It tells why the floppy disk based protections, that were on almost every piece of software in the 80s, finally disappeared. (look at the bottom of the webpage for HISTORY). Hope this helps you fill the earlier timeline out.

71.143.0.193 23:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 02:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QWERTY to Dvorak converter.

I saw you page at http://www.intrigueblue.com/?s=goodies&p=0001 and downloaded the JavaScript file. After researching in the Internet, I came up with an improved method to convert QWERTY to Dvorak. I have sent you a mail to this address: [removed]. My email address is [removed]. If you haven't received the mail, do tell me on my Talk page. I'll add the contents of the mail here. --ADTC 10:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I got your email, and thanks - I appreciate the help. Unfortunately, the code you gave me does not work on Safari, apparently because the event.keyCode variable is read-only. Still, I'm working on a rather more complicated method that does the same thing more reliably, replacing the QWERTY box with a variable. Give me a bit to puzzle it out and we'll see if I can't get it working in an acceptably cross-platform manner. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 21:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In Netscape, it's not keyCode, but charCode... that's the problem we'd face there. Try if it's the same for Safari. keyCode is readonly, but maybe charCode is not? (I don't use Safari so I don't know). If you can get the code to check the browser type and switch between keyCode and charCode accordingly, it should be fine. The advantage is that the text box acts perfectly like a normal text box. This is because the JS is coming in between the keyboard and the text box, as opposed to coming between the first text box and the second one. This means the normal editing capabilities of one text box can be maintained. But the disadvantage is obviously cross-platform incompatibility. I wonder if there's anything similar to keyCode, but is cross-platform compatible.--ADTC 13:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You have a new message here --ADTC 14:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I neglected to add the page to my watchlist. Replied.

Regarding Safari, I debugged your command and it worked right up to the point where keyCode is assigned a new value. However, I believe it should be possible to simply add a character to the box and move the insertion point ahead one character, without having to simulate pressing a certain key. I'll see what I can work out on that front. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 17:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems harder to do than assigning the keypress a new value, because you will have to find out where the cursor is, what is currently selected and such complicated stuff. If the keypress is assigned a new value, everything else would be taken care of by the inbuilt support of the operating system/software.--ADTC 23:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is harder, but since the variable is read-only (on Safari anyway), there's not a whole lot of choice. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 04:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, while you develop a cross-platform compatible page, you can have a seperate page for Internet Explorer for IE patrons to enjoy ‎ and also another page for the ardent supporters of Mozilla (with charCode instead of keyCode)--ADTC 09:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a fairly simple matter to have browser detection built in to the page if necessary, but I'm hoping that IE 6 supports charCode since it's the DOM standard. Naïve I know, but what can you do. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 17:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I tried charCode instead of keyCode but it didn't work. I have IE7 (it's released already). --ADTC 07:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Huygen

Looked this one up after the reunion dinner. Lawl, and nice job.

I would have expected some edit happy user to have it deleted by now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LucidGA (talk • contribs).

Thanks. I assume you're talking about Jennifer Huygen here, so I added an appropriate section header. Why do you figure it'd have been deleted? She's pleasingly notable. Oh, and who is this? I checked your profile but I can't think of any Pages I know that go to NAIT. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 04:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out. Greg, right? I've only heard of you by reputation, and I don't remember running into you at the reunion, but at least I know who you are. In fact, I linked to your blog. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have a quick question.

Hello, I received your message a while back, and would like to thank you for your advice. I'm having a great time on Wikipedia, however I'm having problems editing my User page. I've been seeing allot of people with picture boxes that have messages like "This Wikipedian Plays Video Games" or "This Wikipedian is interested in Ancient Rome". I was wondering how you get these on your User Page, and where I can find a list of available options.

In response to the note you left me:I'm not sure how many people died during the American Civil War, all I did was total up the numbers given on the articles main page. I have seen 558,000, 618,000 and 970,000 all used allot, I just thought 618,000 would be the easiest to source, as its also used in the bare-bone Casualties of the American Civil War article. —the preceding comment is by GreatEclipse (talk • contribs) : Please sign your posts!.

You might be interested to check out WP:BOX and WP:USER for info on uses for your userpage. As for the total, that's fine, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a number you had made up or some such. Anyway, for that sort of edit it's a good idea to provide a reputable source as described in WP:CITE. Hope that helps. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 18:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that you have two user accounts, User:GreatEclipse and User:Thomas Caballeros. While this in itself is not a violation of WP:SOCK so long as you do not use one to support the other and whatnot, there is no reason why most users need multiple accounts. I suggest that you choose one and stick with it. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 19:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] excessive link removal

You removed the link bridgetype.googlepages.comfrom the bridges page for no apparent reason. It is a relevant site. I have looked at my pages viewing history and unless you where in Edmonton you did not go to the site but deleted the link 75.28.151.72 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed visited your site and it contains nothing that contributes to the article. Just because a page talks about bridges doesn't mean it should be linked from the article. From the look of it, the page is in fact mostly taken from Wikipedia. Because of this, no matter how many sock puppets you create to re-add your link, I will continue to delete them. Rather than creating parallel sites to Wikipedia and trying to sneak your links onto the site with fake edit descriptions, perhaps you would like to contribute to the project. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 06:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all I am not the user cinnagingercat. second of all it is not taken from wikipedia. If you looked at the bottom of the page you would see the books that were my sources. And did you go to my site from Edmonton on a Intel Mac with Safari browser 419.3?Beagleball101 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My location and software are none of your concern. At Wikipedia there is a policy called "assume good faith": if I say that I have visited your site, I probably have unless you have reason to believe otherwise. And whether or not you are the same user (which I still suspect), I do not believe that the content on the site is of any use to an individual reading the bridge article. No matter your source, the content largely duplicates that of the Wikipedia article. External links are used for providing information that could not otherwise be presented in the article, or valuable in-depth further reading. Apologies, but your site contains neither.

If you do not object, I would like to move this discussion to Talk:Bridge to seek a consensus on the issue. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 21:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not cinnagingercat. Cinnagingercat is a friend of mine. I'll stop posting it because you keep removing it. I asked about your computer to check if you visited my site.Beagleball101 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)