User talk:Quiddity/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Apologies and thanks

Sorry mate, for my poor editing of the William Gibson article and thanks also for the tip about the [citation needed] tag. I'll be sure to use it in future. Cheers. -203.10.77.190

np :) -Quiddity

Portal:Browse and Wikipedia:Browse are Not the same.

Portal:Browse and Wikipedia:Browse are Not the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chuck Marean (talk • contribs) .

Chuck

Please see Wikipedia:Talk pages#Etiquette, specifically:

Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile.

The usual method for archiving, a few days after discussion threads have ended (to give time for replies) is to just cut & paste talkpage contents to a new sub-page, eg Archive. I'll repost the previous message below to give you a chance to respond. Thanks. -Quiddity

"Cheatsheet, and portals Hi, re:your edit summary at wikipedia:cheatsheet: "I might want to look at the real Wikipedia:Cheatsheet"

You're more than welcome to place it in your userspace as eg Cheatsheet. But creating a redundant/near-duplicate page (it contains almost exactly the same info as wikipedia:quick guide) is potentially confusing to other users.

See my reply to you at Portal talk:Browse#intro for related comments. Thanks again. -Quiddity 20:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)"

I've been thinking of using the discussion section of my sandbox for that sort of thing, since it's not really a talk page.--Chuck Marean 19:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm not quite sure what you mean? Are you wanting to archive your talk page to talk sandbox? That would be fine too. But the normal method, practiced by the vast majority of wikipedia editors, is to archive talk pages to username/archive. And then provide a link at the top of their talk page to the old archives. See the last 2 points under "deleting": Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting...
I'll demonstrate here for you, so you can see what i mean. (You can move the entire page using the "move" button at the top, should you still desire to have it in an irregular place.) Hope that's ok :)
Also, it's best to use colons (:) to indent replies on talk pages. Partly for consistency with everyone else, partly for semantic reasons (using an asterisk is only intended for list items).
With over a million participants, it's good (and complicated!) to keep things consistent for clarity's sake. Thanks :) -Quiddity 20:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
To explain, My night computer doesn't get the editing tool bar. So I'm thinking of putting my notes on editing, or the quick guide or the cheatsheet, in the discussion section of my sandbox for convenience.
The archive is interesting. I hadn't thought of keeping letters. I suppose it's easier to find letters than using the history list. --Chuck Marean 23:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
just add additional colons for further indents :) -Quiddity

Thanks for telling about the Archiving & Community Portal. I'm still trying to navigate how to edit, so I can't do much with an article yet. Mostly I was looking for material to practice typing with. I'm not online as much as some people.--Chuck Marean 09:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC) --i.e.Responding to: "You don't have to archive everything immediately... I'm gonna repeat my comments...articles are what need the most help!..."

  • I'm going to clean my talk page. Also, if another editor doesn't like an edit of mine there's no need to revert the entire page. Other editors including yourself would agree, because you would be able to read whether or not the page was better.--Chuck Marean 00:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

tfd's

Read what? QuizQuick 00:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh ok. I was just listing the ones that I'm nominating for deletion before I put on the tfd tags. It's on there now :)QuizQuick 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject CSS

Hi, just thought I'd bring this to you're attention. It sounds like something you'd like.--HereToHelp 12:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

International spelling

Hi, re: your edit at community portal, changing humor to humour. Please don't change international variations of words to your own country's preferred variant. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and the table at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) for details. Thanks. :) -Quiddity 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me with this query but after having read those guidelines again, I stand by my edit. I was using the form which is used in the United Kingdom, which for neutral articles (neutral from dialect or region) is the more pure and commonly used. I do not believe that "humor" is the international variant, but rather the americanised variant, and this is the way it is viewed by most. Unfortunately I fear that if I revert it, this would cause a small edit war, which I don't want, so it will stay in its americanised form. Benjaminstewart05 18:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, i absolutely agree that it's the americanised variant (i'm from the UK originally, am Canadian currently ;)
But i'm going by the final point "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." Which i'm interpreting (i'm fairly sure accurately?) as not having a piped link that differs from the article title. We've got WP:COLOUR, they've got Category:Humor. So it goes. ;)
You're welcome to revert, i won't re-revert (but anyone else might). Thanks. -Quiddity 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok that's fine, it will stay, its not really that important to be honest, just a pedantic thing :). I won't revert - seems a little pointless. Benjaminstewart05 20:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
On the above, wonder who wins the population war? <g> Y'all talk funny on the other side of the big pond anyways! <g> 'Sides, standardized spelling is a myth invented by the O.E.D. and spinster school-marms who aren't getting enough! There ain't no such thing, and never has been! The truly educated all know it, 'cause they know the history of trying to establish such has been a string of unbroken failures. Fact! // FrankB
New Biz
Be a Pal and see Talk:Commonwealth English (Note my documenting removing 'OR' template and exchange with JackLumber—should look familiar! <g>) and see Philip Baird Shear's post on my talk about shot-gunning these danged 'in your face' templates. My question to you my much pluged-in friend is whether there is any discussion/proposals anywhere (Meta?) to do something to control these things, either in application (One man's bad attitude can taint the wikiP page for months.) or in terms of 'pre-emptive deletion' when not documented and explained on talk pages (as is clearly indicated), and along with Merge proposals, whether there is any discussion of some sort of timeline (90 days strikes me as extremely reasonable, even overly generous), before being able to do the same with those. (I've been seeing a fair number of related 'Apples and Oranges' articles which someone tagged and the idea is so silly, apparently no one comments... but the merge-to/merge-from just go on forever. Absolutely need a timetag in my estimation.)

Anyway, what have you seen? Thanks! // FrankB 05:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You can definately move them down a page, into the "references/notes" section anytime. They should theoretically remain in the article until the problem they indicate has been fixed (sources added, or wikified, or such). But misapplication by people with malfunctional-subjectivity, often means they can be removed immediately ;)
As with any generalist template, there are many "edge" cases where they may not be entirely appropriate, but are close enough (in some people's interpretation) to be useful.
If they are immensely disruptive to a page they can be moved to the talk page. Though i've only seen this done with template:mergedisputed tags.
According to Template:Unreferenced's usage guidelines, it can be legitimately placed on anything not tagged with a "stub". And technically, almost every single sentence in articles could (and some say should) be sourced, per WP:NOR and wp:cite. But that's obviously ludicrously impractical.
So, i figure, the smart folks who initially made the template, did so so that the kind of people who add it everywhere, would only be adding a template, instead of endlessly repeating on talkpages "Where are the sources? this is un-proven!" and starting flamewars.
(interjection: yup, you made me ramble again!)
(Mergists are better than deletionists at least!). F'rinstance, earlier today i dropped merge tags on Binaural recording and Dummy head recording. It had been mentioned on one of the talkpages already, so it should be an obvious choice, and i'm just hoping that someone active on the page will see that as an impetus to finally merging the two. I added them both to my watchlist, and if anyone complains or removes the tags i'll go fully elaborate the case for a merge. I was just reading the articles out of curiosity, so won't attempt a merge myself; It would be better if someone who already has a mental structure of the subject did it. Anyway, thats when/why I drop "cleanup" templates at the heads of pages sometimes :)


With the Commonwealth English article, it'd be nice to have more references listed, but it sure as hell doesnt need two templates to denote that! I'll remove one.
My copy of "The Story of English" doesnt have any references to C.E. in the index, so i can't help with the article or the bibliography sadly. sorry ;)
see also my addition at the end of your thread there. ;)
and, anytime. -Quiddity 07:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You might find these handy for dropping on pages. I'm trying to just use templates now when i feel like biting someone ;) Template:Summary and Template:Editsummary. -Quiddity 07:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
OIC! Didn't see the second T, despite the hint from P.B.S.! Good job removing that. Again, no talk comments! I'm off to bed. I'm not really involved in that article there either, just ran afoul the undoc'd template, though I did refresh an edit from a month or so ago. Thanks. FrankB 08:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Shed light on this niggle

Hi! Re: Talk:Tacitus#Use_of_the_term_.27Knight.27, how about an informed opinion? FrankB 18:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Egads! ummm... 4 years of highschool latin (years ago) gave me some grammatical and vocabular grounding, but not much historical background!
knight, equestrian, noble, all make me think of monty python. "He must be a king, he hasnt got shit all over him!". But that's from Holy grail; the Life of Brian would be the closer era, but i dont remember any horsemen in that one...
sorry! ;) -Quiddity 19:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Furthermore, Re: your initial question: "On the above, wonder who wins the population war? <g>"

"It is estimated that just over 400,000,000 people speak English as a first language, worldwide. 68% of these live in the United States. Also estimated that 350,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 more speak it as an additional language. So, at least 750,000,000; at most, 1.4 billion. ..." —ExplorerCDT 17:56, 11 Dec 2004 ([1]

So yes and no. ;) (man this site is endlessly fascinating. i am so lost) -Quiddity 04:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Pet peeve

You probably shouldn't edit other's comments for grammar mistakes. I understand perfectionism about spelling, but those are actual quotes from another person, and shouldn't be edited in this way. For example, even though Buzz Armstrong probably meant to say it this way, we don't quote him as "One small step for a man..." Λυδαcιτγ 01:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

lol, np. It jumped into my eye just before i hit save, so i fixed it. Darn meddlesome genes... thanks ;) -Quiddity 01:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Gud, yer around tonight!

re: 03:41, 8 June 2006 + 03:56, 8 June 2006 <g>

Do you know anything much about templates? If so (On the Commons) Can you figure out how to get the template WikiPcatM (and also WikiPcat2M) (see diff to WikiPcat, ...2, 2M using the category) to take an arguement other than the given pagename. These are Modeled on w:template:commonscat. If you aren't good with template code, just send me an email, and I'll lay this on a guru I know who is probably wiser than we, and so sleeping now! <g> // FrankB 04:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No

Please, stop trying, and leave me be, lest in my mind you continue to lower yourself to Tony's level on my Respect-o-Pad. Search4Lancer 19:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

But HELL! At least you said PLEASE! And I commend you for that. Search4Lancer 20:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

joanna newsom freak/psych-folk

Fair enough. :) --Leo44 (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sandboxes

Done. :) Thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia tidy! Best wishes, Xoloz 19:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Links on "Five Temperaments"

I have to agree that some of the external links you rm'd from Five Temperaments were advertising; thanks. OTOH, one seemed to have some merit w.r.t. to the history of the system. Please see Talk:Five Temperaments. Chonak 06:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like your take on this

I've been 'bugged' by my hot button issue of the default skin hiding categories from the user for around two months, and this related thing punched the button pretty much dead center as the same point has been nagging at me as is made by the originator. Seems to me a VP listing ought be made on both, as it were, by at least a mention 'synopsis' with link, and the common debate on kept this page. This seems preferable, as both VP:Technical and VP:policy are certainly apropo venues for a link posting, and I think we've all seen some of the bad effects of the current trend. This point made by the originator is sparse, but on point and imho, important. By keeping the discussion there, it can be similarly referenced on other BB's (Meta for one), and there are a few others. I'm much too focused on wikiEditing to keep up with all the discussion forums, so where should it go, should it be given a seperate venue (Yet another 'proposed guideline'!), or what? In sum, seems to me the 'Internal links' section with such a category template would solve both problems with minimal edit dislocation.

My confidence is high that a structural problem in presentation is present under current standards (editorial guidelines), but my crystal ball shattered some years back <g>, so I can't measure it's severity there and it's hard to gauge it's exact magnitude using anything but inductive reasoning. Personally, I rarely visit the nether regions of a web-page, and admittedly tend to attribute that to other 'oldsters' as well. I guess the key question is: If one is reading casually, what reason have they, 'our customer-readers' for looking lower down past the references? Advice? Best regards! // FrankB 15:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SCAG

Thanks for letting me. It's been deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

SCAG

SCAG was not the justice court which due to the large amount of displeased people, I was going to put on MfD. Geo.plrd 21:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill Hicks: A Slight Return

Hey, I noticed your entries on the Bill Hicks talk pages. I added a point about a play thats running in London currently that I think deserves a mention at least or its own page at best. Would you care to take a look? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filthish (talk • contribs) .

Thanks again, guru

  1. re: Forgot this one, but I see I had one convert! Thanks for the words of support. But please pile on! <g>
  2. re: this technique — Neat! Now how am I supposed to invoke that from the command-line with my memory? I'll add to bookmarks, but if there is another technique, do tell! Wish you'd email me! Best! // FrankB 23:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. umbrage! great word :)
    I try not to comment on things i dont know enough about, and I don't have the time to investigate (or mentally juggle) where Template:Commonstmp fits into the overall schemes of things. Sorry ;-)
  2. I've got it on my userpage, under #Tools. You should do a spring-clean of your user page when you return from wikibreak :)
    and i'd never finish typing replies if you knew my email address ;-P -Quiddity 02:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please join in

Wikipedia:Locations in fiction, fictional locations, and settings is a proposed policy on how to list fictional locations and to differentiate between a physical place and a setting (ie. universe or world). Please join in and give your thoughts. PS. Bring some friends!
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 05:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Scrabble and long words

Not overly sure how I can prove the book exists, if ISBN links and lookups are not canon, hope this helps a bit. 81.153.236.181 15:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

statistics

keeping thread at Geo's page.

NewUser needs input

Newbie User_talk:Rdengrove#2 contacted me[2] about a large rewrite he did on Mephistopheles, and I plead 'ignorance', save for superficial passing familiarity. If you've got some knowledge in the area (or perhaps, instead on or about 'Faust'), or just want to be 'welcoming', see if you can lend a hand. Thanks! // FrankB 16:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no time either. sorry -Quiddity 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This wasn't about time... but base knowledge. I'm less than a student in that topic. Shrug! Thanks anyway, Have a good weekend! See you after that $#@@*&*%@#(*#&&# #*^$#(&# American holiday! <g> // FrankB 04:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

207.118.142.208 report on WP:RFI

No, there is no easy way to remove 'bad' edits when they are interspersed with good ones. We can rollback obvious vandal only edits quicker, but ones that are to do with quality of content are better done by people who know the article. Use the article history to compare versions and edit an old (better) version with the edit summary 'rv (reason)'. Petros471 20:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

K. np. thanks. -Quiddity 21:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we close an RfC?

I see you have asked for a response following my comment. Is it possible for the person who initiated an RfC to close it with the comment: "no response received"? Also, is there anything somewhere about what can be done when someone seemingly refuses to respond to messages and seemingly ignores them? I would like to get involved with the Tip of the day area again, but I feel I can't until that RfC is brought to a conclusion, even though I only commented on the discussion page! Thanks. Carcharoth 13:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Color tool table

Hi, what do you think of the table I put on the Color tool page? Is that better? Thanks. (Bjorn Tipling 21:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

Chuck Marean

FYI: Help_talk:Editing#Harassment_by_User:Quiddity. --mtz206 (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment

The reason for the multiple policy lists and the complete listing at the bottom is so that a user at this page can easily navigate to what they want, as each section is for a specific, different thing. Someone who wants to respond to an RfC is going to click on that item in the table of contents, and then find that there are no RfCs to respond to. Conversely, the sections on making an RfC should not conclude by saying "scroll down to the bottom somewhere with a bunch of other parts unrelated to what you want." Having multiple policy lists is not clean, but it is good for having each section be self-contained once the user gets there. When creating this page, I considered splitting the list up into parts relevant to each section, but decided that ultimately all of it is relevant, except perhaps for the user civility one for policies, as policy pages tend to have more serious editors. I am open to suggestions, but I think that the list for each section must remain, and the policy lists aren't bad either. —Centrx→talk • 03:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

np. I'll revert self. I also tried moving the "Responding to RfCs" section to the top (as it is listed in the ToC) but it didnt seem dramatically improved, so I'll drop that change too :) -Quiddity 04:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I put it at the top in the TOC because the user should first be encouraged to respond, and I put the section at the bottom of the text so that someone blindly coming to RfC to resolve what they think is their "dispute"—not someone who is likely to go to Respond—would still be faced with possibly reading what RfCs are for, possible alternatives, etc., without finding an easy list right at the top. —Centrx→talk • 04:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about putting a single policylist at the top next to the table of contents, as the relevant policies are already mentioned in the text of each section. However, aside from encouraging people to read them, all these policylists mean that the text is lengthened to be long enough to be a good-sized "section", though some are still short. I was also toying with the idea of having it lead to separate subpages, this is already kind of what is done with User conduct, but overall this would mean creating 2 or 3 subpages and could be excessive when the reasons for it are mostly aesthetic. —Centrx→talk • 04:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

1st: Sounds good. Looks good. Done :)
2nd: I'd suggest it leads to diluting through overuse. hyperbole comparison: propaganda saturation.
3rd: As a mergist, that's inconceivable to me ;) -Quiddity 06:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia: Manual of Style (tables)"

I solicited discussion on my addition to the MOS at the MOS talk page. As there are no objections, I will re-insert its link. There is no "ratification" for Manual of Style additions, just informal agreement. HQCentral 23:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone disagreed ;) I'm watching the page though, so i'll see anything at its talk page. Thanks for the heads-up. -Quiddity 07:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

MfD

First of all, there seem to be some incomplete listings, such as Wikipedia:Community Portal/Things to do. I'll get back to you in a few minutes about the other issues. Ardric47 01:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the pages in question, and so far haven't seen any reason to change my "votes". Ardric47 01:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I continued this at the CP talk page, because of possible "larger concerns". Ardric47 02:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

RfD's

Thanks for pointing that out (can't believe I missed it!). I've changed my vote. —Mets501 (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Community Portal Clean Up

Sorry I haven't responded to any of your conversations recently, I was away in the Lake District so had no access to a computer. It looks like most of the pages that needed deleting have been and nearly all the ones which have been dealt with. When I get some spare time I will go through the remaining pages and check them. Lcarsdata (Talk) 17:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Geo.plrd

Thanks for changing the link. I borrowed Essjay's Userbox code, so I have some of his userboxes on my page. Sorry for any inconvenience. Geo. 20:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Overstating the case

You've been exaggerating your descriptions a bit in your posts. "MPOV", "6 months", "edit war". Please tone it down -- I would really appreciate it. And thank you for restoring the 4-month stable version of the browsebar. I'm taking off again - don't have as much free time as I used to. Please watch over the browsebar. Thanks. --Go for it 07:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume good faith for all your new accounts' contributions. However, this one hasnt even attempted to regain the offended editors' trust, after ignoring the rfc on wikiquette.
Overstating the case?! Implying that I'm stalking you [3] was restrained? I'm trying to use language you will pay attention to.
Yes, 4 months, not 6, my bad, but 4 months is still a long time around here. Yes, both of you should have suggested the changes on the talk page first. WP:DISCUSS... --Quiddity 08:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Marean

In case you're up for a challenge, Chuck Marean (talk • contribs) is again exerting his unique editing style. Feel free to help try to get through. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Æon Insane Ward has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Æon Insane Ward 20:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign

I don't have that much time either, but all the essential elements are now in place (programmers, project page, announcements). Now the project should pick up momentum on its own. Once the community has hammered out the details, the programmers already involved can easily implement it.

There's a new mock-up, in case you want to see it. --Nexus Seven 03:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! jkm 06:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Help Contents

Hello. I just wanted to say thanks for accepting my suggestion about the help for signatures. I really do think it will help other users and appreciate being able to contribute to the community. Regards. --Brian G (Talk) 03:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

opinion

As an editor of Lists of topics, I'd like your opinion at Topics redesign. Thanks. --gatoatigrado 15:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

For consistency, and so that the page name actually indicates its contents, Wikipedia:Browse should be renamed to Wikipedia:List of major categories. Likewise, Portal:Browse should be moved to Wikipedia:List of portals. Just a thought. --Nexus Seven 23:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Go ahead and propose it on the talk pages. --Quiddity·(talk) 01:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, there are some who might be attached to those pages formatted the way they are. So I've come up with another solution, and have created 2 new pages instead. Check out the ref bar to see all the pages in matching format. --Nexus Seven 02:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Didnt the topics redesign begin because we had too many of these pages already?! -Quiddity·(talk) 05:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly. It was an effort to reduce lines on the sidebar menu, because it didn't look like we could have 2 items on a line. But a developer has contacted the project and said he could put a box below the sidebar with no problem, which opens up the question whether the other design features we wanted are doable. I wrote a summary of the project for him, and hopefully he'll respond to the other design ideas on the project talk page. --Nexus Seven 18:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Watermark rendered by id=EnWpMpBook2

I noticed an old discussion you responded on this matter and thought of asking you: do you know the reason it no longer appears systemwide? the source file still exists here. it was on our mainpage at ka:... drop me a line whenever you get time and/or if you know anyting about it. Thanks in advance. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 16:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

this is the discussion - User_talk:The_Joker#Background. The url you quoted where that image should be retrieved from seems to be no longer available... - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

You sent me a a "Welcome!" message. Thanks, but I do not know how the message system works in Wikipedia. Apparently a "message" is a new entry on my "talk" page. Should I respond to your "talk" page (as here) or should I respond by commenting on your message in my "talk" page? I assume your message is a generic "welcome" and was prompted by the various edits I have done over the last few weeks. I did in fact look at the references you gave (thanks!) before beginning to edit. So far, my edits have been primarily syntactic. did anything in particular prompt your welcome message? Arch dude 02:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Probable notable editor welcome procedure?

Howdy. I'm wondering what to do concerning newuser User:Jrosenbaum editing the Jonathan Rosenbaum article? They were good npov/cleanup edits, and he's a professional writer, so (assumming it is he) it'd be really nice to have him welcomed but not overwhelmed, but I'm not familiar with all the username policies/procedures for possible notable editors. All I could find linkwise was Wikipedia:Autobiography#If Wikipedia already has an article about you, and Template:Notable Wikipedian (which seems highly privacy-invasive to me (unless they place it themselves)), and I didnt want to just dump those links and a normal welcome template on his page.

Plus I just finished reading his book on Dead Man, and would inevitably go all fanboyish on him, or over-proslytize that he join the wikiproject:film, or something! ;-)

Thanks for any help :) --Quiddity·(talk) 02:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? Or suggestions on where/to whom I should mention it? (admin noticeboard? someone intelligent from the welcome committee? PR dept? you're the third person i've asked who didnt answer ;) --Quiddity·(talk) 05:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I apologize for not responding to your original inquiry. For some reason, the "You have new messages" banner didn't appear until you posted the follow-up, so I didn't notice it until now.
I'm not terribly knowledgeable in this area, but I've seen people address this sort of situation by attempting to verify through an official channel that the user in question actually is the person implied by his or her account name. (Otherwise, it's customary to issue an indefinite block and politely request that the individual select a different name.)
In this instance, I'm inclined to believe that this most likely is Jonathan Rosenbaum. Perhaps you could contact him via the Chicago Reader for confirmation. If you are able to do so, a standard introductory message would be appropriate. We shouldn't give celebrity contributors special treatment, nor should we shy away from welcoming them in the usual manner.
Again, I'm no expert on this subject, so it might be a good idea to take this to WP:VPA or the aforementioned WP:AN. I hope that I've been of as much assistance as possible, and I apologize again for the belatedness of my reply. —David Levy 06:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Much much thanks. I've taken it to VPA. :) --Quiddity·(talk) 18:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Quiddity/Archive2! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- ~~~~
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

I was thinking about making an improved version of the above template. You are a lot better at colors than I am. I was hoping you'd mess around with this and make it look good. Then I can get started with the heading names and links. --Nexus Seven 06:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed your query concerning notables above. If you haven't already seen them, you may be interested in: Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article. --Nexus Seven 06:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those links.
I'll take a stab at the above next. --Quiddity·(talk) 08:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It was already using the WP:COLOUR greens, so i just used color-blender to make a midpoint, for the section header color.
Try the other color tools if you want to experiment yourself. Hope that helps. --Quiddity·(talk) 09:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I had a bright idea and posted your version to the original author's version (giving you credit of course), and here's the reply I got:

change is good

Hey thanks...I think it looks pretty cool. I was ready for a change. Cheers, Kukini 06:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if we might change it to hues of red. I really like having it on my userpage, as I like to be able to make changes to it based on my interactions with other users. I am thinking about adding a section to it specifying information about the importance of using edit summaries. Thanks for the contact on this issue. (oh...I never claimed to have created this template, as I didn't. I do love it though. I find it one of the most thorough on wikipedia. Kukini 22:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Leave it be as you fixed it. I do want to add another box to it where I would put this in it:

Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing.

What do you think? Kukini 22:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Transport template picture

This picture is on the template {{transport}}. I can't make out what this is. It sure doesn't look like any aircraft I've ever seen:

Image:Title transport.jpg

--Nexus Seven 08:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like maybe a caterpillar on the left, and a truck, or shipping container on the right.
Terrible picture, I agree. You should fix it ;-) --Quiddity·(talk) 08:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The catepillar on the left is an airplane engine with propeller (there's another on the right). But what is that thing sticking up in the middle?! --Nexus Seven 06:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
No no! the yellow thing on the left in the background makes me think of Caterpillar Inc. or Tonka
The red/blue thing looks like a shipping container.
The thing in the middle is a looking-diagonally-upwards photo of the nose of an aircraft (that those 2 propellers are attached to...) --Quiddity·(talk) 06:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Colour Table

Thx - It is pretty much a self created invention - I was trying to get some colors to appear right on 256 color machines - but some changes with new classes like wikitable, and infobox have made it less useful. I appreciate the link to color tool too - that will be useful - I use colorzila as well for picking colors. --Trödel 03:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost

Just so you know you are featured in the Wikipedia Signpost this week. ForestH2 t/c 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Eeeek! *hides*
I got edited out! *theatrical death*

Hey HTML Dude!

Glad you're up... Where does one find the class perameters for a sister project. Wikisource seems to not have bothered defining sisterprojects, so things like Template:Commonstmp (edit talk links history) and Template:Metatmp (edit talk links history) are screwing the pooch! Need it ASAP, if you know how to chase it down. Thanks. Reply here. I'll check back. // FrankB 04:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a clue, sorry. :( --Quiddity·(talk) 04:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks anyway! // FrankB 14:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You have e-mail.

I don't know how often you check it, so I'm posting this to let you know.  :-) —David Levy 06:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar breaks

Could you take a screenshot of the problem you're trying to fix with the pagebreaks at the sidebar drafts page? I cant seem to see/replicate the error you're describing, in my browsers. --Quiddity·(talk) 07:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The bottom border line is missing from a couple of the boxes, is all. Messing with the number of blank lines and/or <br>'s preceding the mockup fixes it for some reason. I never bothered to learn how to take a screenshot, as the procedure seems like a big hassle. --Nexus Seven 09:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contents

I've responded to your proposal on Wikipedia:Reference pages. Basically I suggested that you repurpose Wikipedia:Contents, as it is just sitting there, and it already has the name you want. Meanwhile, we can keep Wikipedia:Reference pages as a place to keep track of all the reference pages on Wikipedia (there isn't another page like it on Wikipedia, so removing links from it would kind of orphan those projects). --Nexus Seven 08:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Name change

After trying "Nexus Seven" out for awhile, I've found I just don't like it. It doesn't mean anything. So I'm switching to "The Transhumanist". --Nexus Seven 13:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as you stick to just one. (you made quite a few, i think ;) --Quiddity·(talk) 17:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../q/u/i/User_talk%7EQuiddity_Archive2_e0ff.html"