User talk:Onceler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello Onceler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

TheRingess 22:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] spanish wikipedia

"move" can't move pages between different-language wikipedias. -- Curps 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Now I've got a file in my user tree with a name a mile long. :( I won't be doing that again. I keep forgetting that I can't delete files under my own tree too so I don't intend to be moving things as much anymore either. I guess I can't really see them unless I explicitly invoke them or watch them but I don't like the idea of creating alot of clutter. Thanks anyway for the heads up. Do you know of any Wikipedia:Template space templates for signatures that take variable usernames? -Onceler 22:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bullets

(W:MOS bulleted items)

Regarding your edit of W:MOS on 1/19 which you later removed this part of:

+ Here is what the Chicago Manual of Style says:

if the guidelines are indeed from this source it would be a good thing to mention it in the article. I was about to change the first line of that section to:

The following are rules from The Chicago Manual of Style for using lists of bulleted items:

Then I realized you might not just have removed the line for reasons of composition--it could just not have been been from that book. I can check my local library but I don't happen to have a copy around at the moment. Is it actually from this source? -thanks,  EN1-UTE- (Talk) 09:22, December 13, 2006 (UTC) </nowiki> -->Onceler (Talk) (Mail)   01:38, 25 January 2006

I see. As always, the situation is more complex than revealed at first glance. I was surprised not to find any discussion of bullets in the WMOS talk archives--at least not enough to put "bullet" in a (==Section heading==). I am not sure if this is one of those important things someone should throw down a red flag on and escalate. It's less of a big deal the more its not documented because no one considers it important. If it's one of those things that people just haven't thought much about yet, that's another story. In that case, perhaps something slightly more explicit but not overly prescriptive on the CMOS-discrepant caps question is in order. Though WMOS is not required to comply with any external MOS, there are mentions of external sources elsewhere in specific style point sections. Since the CMOS did appear to be a source and since only one of the four points differs with it, as I understand, my personal preference would be that that much be explicit. Exactly how to word it is also an open question. Perhaps something like:
The first 3 of 4 following rules are from The Chicago Manual of Style for using lists of bulleted items:
  1. When using complete sentences always use punctuation and a period at the end.
  2. Incomplete sentences don't need terminal punctuation.
  3. Do not mix sentence styles, use all complete sentences, or use all sentence fragments.
  4. Each entry begins with a capital letter, even if it is a sentence fragment.
The fourth differs to reflect what appears to be prevailing practice with considerable legacy, at the time of this writing, of beginning entries with a capital, as opposed to lower-case letter, per CMOS.
That said, in the worst case, being explicit could open a can of worms real quick. That may or may not be what one would want. Tearing myself away from Wikipedia a bit to free up some of my time is kind the direction I want to go lately. So if you ask me, your reasons for doing it the way you did are sound. For now, the rules look OK. They did help me as I did not have anything else better on hand. -regards,  EN1-UTE- (Talk) 09:22, December 13, 2006 (UTC) </nowiki> -->Onceler (Talk) (Mail)   23:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I did originally take the rules from CMOS, but as I have been looking at more Wikipedia entries, I have noticed we haven't been following the rules, so I have modified the rules to give them a Wikipedia flavor. CMOS calls for no capitalizationm and here we seem to have most bulleted items standardized. Do you think the rules sound ok? If we reverted to no capitalization, it would be a lot of work, and I think the capitals look good. Some decisions are arbitrary, but necessary to have a consistent "look and feel" to Wikipedia.

[edit] (zuloaga xlation)

Helped out with Ignacio's translation. Give me the original text for year 1904 and I'll translate it myself. --SalomonMuriel 09:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your efforts on the Zuloaga xlation in my Sandbox page. I apologize that I'd already finished that translation but had forgotten to update the Wikipedia:Translation_into_English page. I just got done moving the status info from there to the Talk:Ignacio_Zuloaga page. It still takes me longer than I would have expected to remember the right way to update all the right places once I'm done with the translation. This information is mostly all at Wikipedia:Translation_into_English#Instructions but getting all the right steps in order on time is not second nature to me yet.

I moved your comments from my user page to my talk page. In the future if you want to talk to me, please just use the link User_talk:Onceler. -thanks, Onceler 19:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week

You showed support for the Spanish Translation of the Week. This week es:Universidad Nacional de La Plata was chosen to be translated to Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
Cast your VOTE to select next week's translation!

Nominate a good Spanish article


[edit] frerform surface modelling

Thanks for the comments. Good to get feedback and know it is useful. Was not sure about the graphics as they are large files, but I think it is the easiest way to get the point over. Also, thanks for improving the grammar :-)

[edit] pollution article

good work on the pollution article. but why omit the california standards discussion. seems relevant since california is a leader in some of these regs. also what do you think about the ambiguity section...seems to prominent and lengthy...best regards Anlace 06:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I am following up on your initial posting right now. I saw it earlier but couldn't get around to answering it at the time. I'll try and put most of my answer at Talk:Pollution so as not to spread the discussion out all over the place. -Onceler 08:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

further good edits on the Pollution article...regarding the lines about "solution to pollution is dilution", this is a folksy common saying, but i doubt taught in schools systematically. i would vote to delete that whole subdiscussion referring to "the solution to pollution etc"....i think the academic tone of the rest of the article is simply on a higher plain now, cheers Anlace 04:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
hats off to your further good additons to the pollution article on prehistoric and ancient cultures (i like your new headings better than my stab at it :), cheers, Anlace 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for reference to the original author both on their talk page and via email have gone unanswered. Noting the apparently non-existent historical nature of the dictum in question, but adhering to my position that it should be included, I created the Perspectives heading under which it could be treated separately. Hopefully this detracts less from the historical treatment. I have come to feel that it is indispensable as it defines state of the art practices. -regards, Onceler 01:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California State Students Association

Your article California State Students Association has appeared in the Dead End Pages list because it is not wikified. Please consult the Wikipedia Guide to Layout for more information on how to write a good, wikified article. I would encourage you to revisit your submissions and {{wikify}} them. Thanks and happy editing! James084 03:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You posted a notice on my talk page that this article was something of a dead end. As it happens I did not really write any of it. I don't know if I even read it. I had created CSSA as a redirect after which 198.189.231.50 overwrote the redirect with the content of the article in question. I "created" said article so as not to just delete the content of the ungracious anonymous user and made my initial redirect into a dab article to recover from this unceremoniously destructive edit. That's about it. Not a neat little history that ties a user to an article per its history link, but there you have it. Usually I would be more likely to be accused of having too many things wikilinked--especially dates--than too few, so it is kind of ironic. It's likely that this user wanted to create the article but couldn't since they weren't registered and just pounced when the conveniently named redirect appeared. -Onceler 06:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Thaks for the explanation. I should mention that when doing my cursory scan of the list of articles on the DEP I don't really read them too close or look very close at their histories. Eventually, I come back to them and if somebody else doesn't wikify them then I will start digging deeper into them. I'm glad I could be the first to accuse you of not wikifying enough!  :) James084 12:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Lunchboxhero/monobook.js ... externISBN

Would the cache reloading instructions be any different for Opera? I just tried your script and still get the Book sources article. -thanks, Onceler 19:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you still having troubles with this script?
-Forest

Yes I am but I have come to suspect my system at this time. I also just tried the same thing using Firefox and it doesn't work either. This could be a bigger problem than just your script. -Onceler 07:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental Science

thanks for the good feedback on Soil contamination. yes there was rather a gap. i would like to invite you to be a formal participant in the structuring of the Enviromental science category. i think it needs some thought on the hierarchy. for example Social science is now listed as a subcategory of Environmental science whereas Soil contamination and other topics that should be are not...they are simply articles thereto. here is the page to visit Wikipedia:Wikiproject Environment Anlace 00:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

glad you joined the structure discussion group. be sure to visit the "hierarchy" subdiscussion

cheers, Anlace 04:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your thoughtful analysis under hierarchy. ive left a reply to you there cheers Anlace 02:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] marine

sorry i just saw your note to me on this...apologies for any misunderstanding...i thought marine was a misprint, but i fully understand the context now...i actually worked in this area for a few months so i should have recognized it :), if you wish to reinstate a remark im fine with that

on a more fundamental note there is a potentially impatant discussio going on at Talk:Noise your input may be valuable on...check it out, best regards Anlace 23:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. There does look to be a lot of discussion going on there. I'll need to set aside some time to read through all that carefully. I just glanced through quickly and also noticed something I did not know about before: the Noise article is something called a {{rootpage}} article, distinct from a {{disambig}} page. This might be a useful concept to inject into the Environment Project discussion. Thanks for the heads up. -Onceler 07:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Burnett, Lord Monboddo

i am impressed with your wide ranging knowledge, onceler! didnt know you were into the scottish enlightenment too. do you have any historical insights to the article on monboddo. have you ever been to the Monboddo house? im planning to visit there in april. cheers, Anlace 06:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's OK if you are impressed now :^)--but I have to admit complete prior ignorance about this figure. Nevertheless, I do find the article very interesting. As you may have noticed, I do have something of a penchant for exploring the historical side of things. I am not especially knowledgeable about the Enlightenment. There are things I remember from school and others I browse on occasion, mostly just casually. In this case I will have to be more of a Wikipedia consumer than contributor. I took one "history of science" elective at University and found it enjoyable. I have never been to Scotland myself though came close once. It will probably be all the more rewarding for you as it sounds like you've studied this topic quite a bit already. Have a pleasant and safe journey. -regards, Onceler 07:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noise pollution

Please check out Talk:Noise pollution under "lughole" and give a second opinion in a somewhat inane dialog regarding images on science articles. cheers Anlace 15:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please choose your words more carefully and refrain from personal attacks. I have removed images that are of no value to the articles whatsoever. Also please look up definition of Internet troll and describe how my actions fit into that description. Otherwise remove this accusation forthwith. Thats all--Light current 01:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
i appreciate your high level of civility onceler. i dont understand the actions of user:light current removing relevant images from a number of articles, without discussion on talk pages. my concern is loss of image information from articles that can benefit from having images. i know we both have more important things to do than monitor vandalism. these actions of light current are the worst case of "negative energy" ive seen while ive been on wikipedia. it seems as though most editors are constructive, even if they have differing views. regards Anlace 00:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
My reasons for removal are stated on the relevant talk pgaes. I couldnt be more clear that I think the removed images do not add anything to the articles. If you think they do, then let's all hear exactly what they do add.(in simple terms please) Thanks!--Light current 20:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/n/c/User_talk%7EOnceler_c389.html"