User talk:Lentower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is Lentower's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Lentower.

Contents


[edit] TOCright

Moved from Talk:Leonard_H._Tower_Jr. (I now know that the discussion better belongs here, then in the Main WP encyclopedis. A newcomer on the learning curve.) - Lentower 20:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • All articles should have a TOC and the default should be a TOCright as the first entry on the top of the page. Looks better in all browsers I've used, less distracting, less white space on the first screen, and a more consistent experience for the user. Wikipedia culture seems to be into (too?) many fine distinctions. And not enough knowledge of good typography and how to approximate it across many screens/browsers/window_systems. -Lentower 04:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TOC Comments moved from AfD

  • BTW, all articles should have a TOC and the default should be aTOCright as the first entry on the top of the page. Looks better in all browsers I've used, less distracting, less white space on the first screen, and a more consistent experience for the user. Wikipedia culture seems to be into (too?) many fine distinctions. And not enough knowledge of good typography and how to approximate it across many screens/browsers/window_systems.
    • -Lentower 04:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no point to a table of contents if an article has only one section. Why would you need a box to navigate between sections if there's only one section? --W.marsh 04:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • One of the four reasons above. And you never have to worry about adding it later. Yes I know that the ugly regular TOC gets added when the number of sections threshold is reached. But it's ugly.
    • -Lentower 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
And the current version isn't ugly? Your reasons are really all subjective or nonsensical (how does doing something quite unusual provide a "more consistent experience" for users?) Anyway it currently looks ugly in IE and FF, overlapping on top of the AfD box, and there's no point to it, as I said above. --W.marsh 04:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The overlap isn't ugly. Another point to it for those with small screens or using text only browsers in small windows - a clue that the article is not long. Somewhere on my web sites and somewhere on the GNU +/or FSF web sites are some web site style guidelines. Suggest you have a look.
  • Another reason is this page. The first section is likely to get long longer then several screens. So the TOCright tells people there is a second section. Does the automatic TOC insertion catch this case?
    • -Lentower 04:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
But right now it's pointless, as the only section is the external links... when there are multiple sections, add the table of contents however you want. Right now it is like adding empty image boxes just so you'll be ready in case someone uploads images on day. --W.marsh 05:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Empty image boxes are a different case. Not a good analogy.
    • -Lentower 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It's the exact same thing... adding a pointless box that will do nothing until some other content is added, which may be years in coming for all we know. --W.marsh 14:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resume new discussion on TOC

I strongly disagree that all articles need TOCs. The specific TOCright here renders poorly (at least in Firefox), wastes screen real estate that may be important on small displays or for people using screen readers, and it's redundant when an article only has one section. More importantly, Wikipedia has developed, through consensus, a number of defaults with respect to style and formatting that it is usually unwise to change unilaterally -- even though it is possible -- without further discussion and consensus. --MCB 05:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • There are at least two discussions here. So let divide them.
    • -Lentower 08:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TOCright better then TOC?

[edit] When to add a TOCright?

[edit] NPOV and the Hurd

Hi. Please read the policy on Neutral point of view. It's not appropriate for Wikipedia to describe the Hurd's design as "solid," since that is a value judgment that we are not qualified to make. If you like, you can quote people who claim that it is solid (or people who claim that the design is poor), as long as you properly attribute that claim to them. What you can't do is make the encyclopedia say that it's solid or poor. Nandesuka 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I thought that by citing the FSF article on the Hurd design, I was quoting a source. My concern is that the wording as i found it, and after my edit was changed, saids that it was poor design that lead to the slow development of the Hurd. It was not - but I do not wish to be a quote on this matter. Could you change the wording, so the design is not blamed for the slow development? For that matter, why is Wikipedia making the claim that the Hurd design is why the developement is slow, without an adequete quote? Isn't this a violation of NPOV? Can you change the wording to fix my concerns? Obviously, my attempts are not meeting your approval. -Lentower 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Employee field in template

That Richard Stallman is an unpaid employee of the FSF is no reason to modify the template to "vocation" intead of "occupation". If anything it's argument for not using templates at all.

Your Web browser concatenates large Wikipedia articles when you edit them. Perhaps it's firefox? --71.161.220.178 01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accidental article truncation

Greetings. I noticed that you have (accidentally, I presume) truncated a bit over 90 lines from the Richard Stallman article, in this edit. I have added the information back to the article, but thought I might give you a heads up, as it is possible that this may be an issue with your choice of browser and/or any addons (the article is quite long, about 34kb now, and it might be hitting some browser limit). In particular, I believe there is/was a bug in Google Toolbar when used with Firefox, as the following warning displayed when editing large articles notes:

Attention, users of Firefox with Google Toolbar: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and appears to have been fixed; please upgrade to the latest version of Google Toolbar.

Regards, Capi 02:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of article

Len, it appears that the article about you was deleted by an administrator who misinterpreted the AfD results. (While it is true that votes and postings by brand new users who may have registered only to participate in the AfD are usually disregarded, there still was by no means a consensus to delete the article.)

I posted on the admin's talk page pointing this out, and asked him to restore (undelete) the article. If that is not successful, I'll bring it up on Deletion Review with a recommendation to overturn the deletion. Best, --MCB 06:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain

Hi Len, can you explain to me what's going on here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Len_H._Tower_Jr.&action=history

Thanks, Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's generally more common to correct links in the text than make redirects. Also, given that you profess to be a programmer, I am puzzled by the fact it took you four attempts to get it right. Furthermore, it's interesting that my nick entered each edit summary, when one would have amply sufficed. I'm beginning to wonder whether you really are who you say you are. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Image:Len Tower.jpg is GFDL, right? Did I get the date right? LossIsNotMore 09:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It was fun working on your article. I think you'll survive deletion now. I'm finished in case you were getting edit conflicts before. I hope you have been well over the years. I don't know if you remember me, but we last met in the late 90s at Lile's I think. LossIsNotMore 09:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I'm finished. LossIsNotMore 12:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Now for sure! I love this link (search for "GNU"). LossIsNotMore 12:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Call 650.793.0162 when you are next near Mountain View, please. Here is my daughter and I. LossIsNotMore 16:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template deletion

I just noticed on the talk page how your perfectly polite request was treated rudely, instead of answering your question. The page you need is Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, instructions are at How to use this page. Please let me know if I can help you with this. — Sebastian (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish more editors were so polite. Too many are rude, and not only bite newcomers, but old hands.
The FOSS Celeb template doesn't need deletion. There are better options for it. Hope to get back to that discussion soon. Thanks. Lentower 05:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Wan Wan warnings

looks like the wan wan page is on its way to being completely deleted. Ive spent quite a bit of time on valid research to further back up my point as I was unclear earlier on in the game as I was a newcomer that was being attacked. Have you read my article? if so what are your thoughts?Is there any way possible that you or someone can assist me on the research side of this, perhaps I am not making myself clear? Seems like everytime I put a sincere effort to add new research today the warnings keep coming in. your feeback and assistance is appreciated. Merry Christmas. -Ideaperson dec 25 2006 at 11:55 pm ET —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ideaperson (talk • contribs).

[edit] miscommunication

I thought you were saying reverse the page move, which I did. What you actually meant is revert the edits to the page, which I didn't understand you as saying. My apologies. It's just that you said "reversal" with no qualifier until just now.--Urthogie 00:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civic center of the MIT campus?

MIT Chapel says:

Kresge Auditorium, and the green that stretches between the two buildings were envisioned as and remains the civic center of the MIT campus.

Now, it's an odd thing... but that statement struck me as utterly out of accord with my own feelings.

I never regarded that unnamed "green" as a center of anything. It didn't have a nickname. It wasn't a place I went to lie down and lounge on a summer weekend afternoon.

And I lived at Burton House, which means that I walked through there as often as not. I certainly attended innumerable events at Kresge, and walked over it on my way to the Stratton Student Center (just the Student Center then).

Yet in my mental map of MIT, it's just a pure gap; empty space; much less meaningful than the Great Court (now Killian Court) or, for that matter, the unnamed space near the Great Sail, between the Green Building and the Hayden Library.

Just wondering. Does that/did that green feel to you like "the civic center of the MIT campus?" Dpbsmith (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] APO in Australia?

Have you heard anything of APO being in Australia? See my comment from earlier today at the bottom of Talk:Alpha Phi Omega. If not, should I drop Ellen a note? GRBerry 02:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/n/User_talk%7ELentower_78e2.html"