User talk:Psantora

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please leave a new message.
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Psantora.
This is the user talk page for User:Psantora, where you can send messages and comments to Psantora.
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
User talk
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
2005-12-03-2007-07-25


Contents

[edit] NFL template

Thank you for your recent edits to Template:NFL. However, it seems that when the template is collapsed, the text goes onto two lines and looks rather cobbled. Do you know of any way to fix this? Pats1 22:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean collapsed? When the width of the page is smaller or when the "hide" button is pushed? Lets discuss this on the talk page for the template.
When the show button is pushed. Pats1 02:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Protocol support

Can you add columns for OTR, Xfire, Zephyr?

RobiH 15:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is already too crowded as it is, plus some clients have missing information. Start a discussion on the talk page and figure out which protocols (like QC or whatever) should be dropped before new ones are added... PaulC/T+ 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved Skype out to "others". Can you add a column for OTR? RobiH 23:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Amiestbetascreenshot.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Amiestbetascreenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NFL on Christmas Day

Hi there. I was the admin who assisted you in restoring the above deleted page. Can you please explain your rationale for the recent move from the userfied article in your userspace? I'm not seeing a whole lot of justification for that. Thanks - Alison ☺ 23:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I did what I said I would do. I wanted to turn the page into a redirect and add relevant content from there to NFL on Television#Christmas. I moved the page back to its original name, but only so the history would be there for interested parties. The page is a redirect currently. Is this a problem? (That was a quick comment!) PaulC/T+ 23:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but the page was a redirect before you moved it back. Why was it so vital to have the history visible, when the deleted history was already there? It's just kinda weird, is all, as it now looks like you wanted the article history 'undeleted' - Alison ☺ 00:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, something like that... was there a better way to go about doing that? I wanted the history 'undeleted', but I used some of the content from the old article and added it to the redirected page as well... I'm still unsure of what the problem is... PaulC/T+ 00:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You didn't state that in the DRV/CR. Nor did you answer my question there (and your edit comments are getting kinda defensive). I just wish to know, as your 'restoration' of the edit history is not in the spirit of the AfD. You have ostensibly restored a deleted article and instead, edited into a redirect. Naughty, and makes me want to apply WP:CSD#G4 - Alison ☺ 00:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You sure you meant to do this just now? - Alison ☺ 00:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, isn't that what I was supposed to do when I was done with the content in my user space?(Oops, wrong page... yeah, I meant to do it on my userspace redirect, fixed it... thanks for the heads up! PaulC/T+ 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)) Here is a quote from my request, with emphasis:

I'd like to merge the content to this section on the NFL on television article. It would be nice if the article's history was restored and turned into a redirect to this section as well.

I'm sorry if it was unclear, but I specifically stated "merge and redirect" in the request. I wasn't really sure of the best way to go about doing this and stated as much in my request as well. I am defensive because I feel like I'm getting the 3rd degree and being watched/wikistalked for doing exactly what I stated I would do in the request. I'm sorry if this is coming across as hostile, I'm just not used my every action being questioned 2 seconds after I do it while I'm in the middle of trying to finish the task... I was simply trying to implement/expedite Rossami's request from the previous deletion review. Now, what question are you talking about ("Nor did you answer my question there")? PaulC/T+ 00:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • (ec) Yeah, I must have missed that from the DRV/CR. My mistake, or I'd have had second thoughts. Sorry. Regards wikistalking - well, I'd the article on my watchlist, as I do and, as one of the few admins who will provide restored deleted content I'm more than a bit paranoid. If content I restored in good faith ends up back on-wiki (as yours effectively has), I can get into trouble for it. Especially if it went through AfD, as did yours. Nothing personal, just following up is all - Alison ☺ 00:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding "Indeed, but the page was a redirect before you moved it back." It was? I could have sworn NFL on Christmas Day was a redlink until I moved page there. It was a redlink when I made the original request and I didn't see anyone add the redirect afterwards... The fact that it was an empty page is what prompted me to find the AfD and deletion review in the first place... I noticed a note about it on the NFL template talk page... PaulC/T+ 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Funny. I was seeing a redir. Anyways - it doesn't look like there's much linking it, other than {{NFL}}, which should probably really be changed - Alison ☺ 00:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the confusion then. I'm not trying to skirt any rules, this just seemed like the most efficient way to apply what Rossami proposed, which made a lot of sense to me.. PaulC/T+ 00:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] poo

I do like the babel box. :) I will add more to it later. Thanks for fixing stuff :) and the welcome. :) Almw113 02:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I have someone watching my userpage for vandalism... :p Why are you online at 10 PM on friday? (gtalk?) PaulC/T+ 02:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{·wrap}} and {{•wrap}}

I left a message for you at Template talk:Nowrap begin. --David Göthberg 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I replied there, with some example code that should reproduce the problem. PaulC/T+ 02:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] School page moves

Before you move any more school pages, please tak a look at the naming conventions for school articles. Thanks. Katr67 20:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] iPod classic article

Well, I've gone ahead and begun to add content for all generations of HDD-based, "full size" iPods to the iPod classic page. It's a rather daunting task, but hopefully there will be sections for each generation of iPod (if it's necessary). I've added a request to merge both the iPod (5G) and iPod photo articles into the iPod classic. An unrelated sidenote, I see you use a dvorak layout! Nice to know I'm not the only crazy one :) -- MacAddct1984 00:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reddit

Per WikiRage.com, the article reddit received heavy editing today by unregistered users and may benefit from a good review. Per Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Timeline of iPod models

I think it's a bad idea to wikilink every word in a reference in this template. While this is a wiki, I seem to reall there being a manual-of-style page somewhere about avoiding excessive linking as it impedes readability. I think it makes sense to wikilink words in a reference if they are relevant to the reference itself and not already linked elsewhere in the article. So it makes sense to link MacTracker so people can learn what it is, but Apple, Inc has earlier and more relevant links higher up the page, and database is merely a label and not intrinsic to the source. —dgiestc 22:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. I didn't realize it before, but I accidentally rolled back your edit when I just meant to remove the extra space before the references... I'm not sure how it happened, but it looks like it is correct now. You are right, there is no reason for the database or Apple Inc. link... My apologies... -PaulC/T+ 05:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:MySpace

For the time being, I have reverted your edit to the page in question. After having done so, I checked other pages, and found them to be in tact, unchanged, not '"at" → "on"'-edited. On that note, I'd like to ask you why you changed "at" to "on". I hope to hear from you soon. Qwerty (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Amiestreetscreenshot.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Amiestreetscreenshot.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chris B • talk 21:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:TonyfadellPR.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:TonyfadellPR.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey You know Paul Scaturro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davron (talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CopyrightAllianceScreenshotLogo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:CopyrightAllianceScreenshotLogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 12:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Japanese Electronics Industry

Hello, you recently changed Template:Japanese Electronics Industry. There is now a dot before the template box, with code {{·}}. Is this intentional? The dot shows in articles where the template is used. Arthena(talk) 18:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR for Macintosh

Macintosh has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
That's the templated message, anyway. I'm not the one who nominated it—I'm going to try to improve it—but I thought you might like to know.--HereToHelp 01:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Apple-iPhone.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Apple-iPhone.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lokal_Profil 14:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SatyrBot & Alan Alda

Hi, Psantora! At the time of the bot's edit (see [1]), Alan Alda was in the Category:Second City alumni, which is on the WikiProject Chicago's list of cats for the bot. Tenuous, I agree. You might mention it on the project's talk page, and/or remove that cat from the list the bot runs. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:SatyrBot#Alan Alda and WP:WPChi?? for the entire thread. PaulC/T+ 04:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BCDSlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BCDSlogo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IceKarmaॐ 03:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template: Timeline of iMac models

Psantora, could you give your input on the iMac timeline? For fear of an edit/revert war, a third opinion would be greatly appreciated. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your cropped image

Looks a lot better, and your minor edits and reference fixings are great too. Thanks for your contributions. Cirt (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

Happy to help! ~ PaulC/T+ 01:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Public Universities in France

Discussion moved to the template talk page. ~ PaulC/T+ 17:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Cgsister

Template:Cgsister has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wyoming Results

See Talk:Wyoming Republican county conventions, 2008 ~ PaulC/T+ 00:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section Layout and MOS

Hi. I see that you recently edited the headers in Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_presidential_primaries. Perhaps you'd be interested in adding to the discussion at Talk:Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_presidential_primaries#Section_layout? Thanks. Wdfarmer (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republican Convention in FL

This discussion is regarding Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008#Florida.

The provided reference states wta by district and state-wide. If the situation has changed, the reference is unclear about that resulting in a solely state-wide wta contest. Can you find a different source which states clearly that FL is a wta state-wide contest without it also mentioning that it is a district-wide wta contest? —XSG 18:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Green Papers reference does include WTA district and state-wide language, but it is in two different scenarios. The "Alternative" plan is if FL's delegates aren't sanctioned by the RNC. In this case, the delegates would follow the original and normal plan of WTA by district delegates. The "Soft/Hard" plan is what is currently slated to happen. That is WTA state-wide, according to the source:[2]
Soft/Hard Total Plan. This plan assumes the delegation is sanctioned.
Tuesday 29 January 2008: All 57 of Florida's delegates to the Republican National Convention are allocated to presidential contenders in today's Florida Presidential Primary. All 57 delegates are to be allocated to the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary statewide.
Assuming there are only going to be 57 delegates, the state-wide scenario is the only possibility. If you allow for the possible full 114 delegates then the WTA language should be changed to include districts in addition to the state-wide bonus delegates. Does that make more sense? ~ PaulC/T+ 20:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as to say it makes sense to me, but I've seen enough credible and clear sources discussing it that I can at least accept it. —XSG 22:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] maps on Results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries

Image:Map-chart-bleed.PNG
Results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries

FYI, the following image is how the article looks on my screen, and why I am making attempts to reformat the way the maps appear on the article. Kingturtle (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird, you don't have the long table of contents? Thanks for responding to that random IP below. ~ PaulC/T+ 16:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] comment invited

As an occasional past editor at Template:United States presidential election, 2008,
your comment is invited at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Revisited: Proposal on minimum standards for listing on template
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, it looks like by accident this edit deleted all the updated delegate totals. I reverted the edit (and foxed the Edwards delegates. Maybe you can go back and try whatever it was you were trying to do again, without deleting the delegate totals this time. Oh, and the SC delegates are listed on the CNN scorecard.--Margareta (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it was intentional. It looks like Bobblehead explained the situation on your talk page. ~ PaulC/T+ 16:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrible editor

Why the hell did you add a fact check to film section of the wing commander article? you are a terrible editor, the reason why the wikipedia has a poor reputation for information!! 220.253.39.126 (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Wing Commander (franchise)#Film
WP:RS and WP:V, also WP:NPA. ~ PaulC/T+ 15:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

RS and V? haha!! How asinine can you get!! You deserve personal attacks, because your editing is stupid. 220.253.43.62 (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republican Primary County Map

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know how to edit images. The image Image:2008RepublicanPrimaryResultsByCounty.jpg is a better version of the county map in the 2008 Republican Presidential Primary Results article. I found results for individual Washington counties as well as individual Kansas counties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headforthehills7 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the Washington and Kansas county information? I'll do what I can to add it to the png image currently in the article, but there needs to be source information. ~ PaulT+/C 05:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries

I was surprised by your recent edits to Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Overview of results changing the 'Estimated superdelegates' and 'Estimated pledged delegates' rows to calculated totals rather than data from the sources specified in those rows. Why are sources listed for those rows if they're simply calculated values? If those rows should in fact be calculated totals, then that must mean that the "Green Papers" web site is the defacto source for delegate data for this article. Who decided on this source and why? I appreciate your helping me sort this out as it affects a related article I've been working on with several other editors Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I can tell, the delegate data for each of the states in that table is pulled from each state's results table later in the article, which have their own sources. The Green Papers source is only to specify the number of delegates at stake in each contest and the date, at least that is all I use it for. I go with whatever numbers are present in the table and calculate up because otherwise it looks sloppy. I agree that the delegate numbers in the table need to be sourced better. Ideally, The Green Papers would be a good source for this data as it calculates based on party rules in each county how each delegate gets allocated, but the information is still in the process of being updated and there is incomplete county-level results information from Super Tuesday states. ~ PaulT+/C 17:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I was making the error of assuming the Green Papers citations applied to each row's entire contents, not specifically the number of delegates at stake, but now it makes sense to me that the citation applies only to the information immediately preceding it. I've not heretofore been familiar with the Green Papers site, but now that I've checked it out, it seems like a terrific resource. My only lingering qualm about using it as a source is whether or not the site fits Wikipedia's criteria for reliability. It's hard to tell from the Green Papers site, but it seems like it's the work of just one guy.
As to the question of whether the 'Estimated superdelegates' and 'Estimated pledged delegates' rows should either be calculated values or agree with the cited sources:
I don't see much discussion or consensus on the article's discussion pages. Based on your history of contributions to Wikipedia, particularly Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, I'm placing a higher degree of confidence in your input to that article than my own. I've therefore gone ahead and removed the citations in those rows and replaced them with footnotes explaining how the values are derived.
This, of course, means that the numbers on Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 won't match the numbers on Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, which has been a great source of confusion among editors of these pages. I'm still not sure how to resolve that issue, but I invite you to join in the discussion at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Sources for candidate results to help us figure it out. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Navbox subgroup

Perhaps, then, pluralize {{Navbox generic subgroup}}'s name - or even replace it with {{Navbox subgroups}} as {{Navbox generic}} was replaced by {{Navbox}}...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the /doc page, navbox subgroup is still under construction. (Though it doesn't look like it is under active development currently.) I don't see the rationale for the "s". Articles and templates for the most part are singular, while categories are plural. Discuss the change on the template's talk page to see what other people think, but I don't see any reason for it. ~ PaulT+/C 16:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, it's a minor niggle, yes, but the rationale is this: I'd say most instances of subgroups occur with more than one subgroup beside a single overarching group. It's only a matter of a single "s", though, so I don't reckon there's any great loss if it's not pursued. Meanwhile, however, combining {{Navbox generic subgroup}} and {{Navbox subgroups}} as {{Navbox subgroups}} might be worthwhile for the sake of consistency with {{Navbox generic}}'s replacement with {{Navbox}} (i.e. remove the "generic"). Thanks for your reply and the neat {{talkback}} template, Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{wrap}} in {{nowrap}}?

I left a response for you at Template talk:Nowrap begin. --David Göthberg (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uncommitted in Washington Primaries

Hi Paul. It's been nice working with you on Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. I am puzzled by a row you added to the Washington primaries table. There was no uncommitted option on the Washington primary ballot (though there was a blank for "write-in"), but the source for the table's results doesn't show uncommitted numbers anywhere that I can see. Where did you get those numbers from? Thanks. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How odd, I thought I added this source to the table... curious that the numbers don't match up to the official source. Let's go with the wa.gov numbers... ~ PaulT+/C 06:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it. Thanks for the info and thanks for already updating the article. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows

Thanks for your past comments and contributions at Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Right now there is a significant vote taking place at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows about whether or not to overturn a previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should represent individual nominating events. The vote ends at the close of March 19, 2008 (UTC). The vote contains the negative-option that if there is a tie or fewer than 4 total signatures the previous consensus will prevail. I invite you to visit the talk page and submit your vote on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The vote has completed. The result was to uphold the previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should summarize nomination events, not aggregate state results. Thanks for your participation in the vote! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for fixing my curious Babel template problem

Thanks for helping out! I don't think I would have figured that out by myself. ;-) — Northgrove 02:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Apple celeb

This discussion was moved to the talk page of the template in question ~ PaulT+/C 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:IT_giants

Salsesforce.com is not a company on the level of Amazon, AOL, eBay, Google, Microsoft, or Yahoo!, despite you adding it 3-4 times to the list since december.


SSDDR (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Systems science (and maybe elsewhere)

Hi again.

Are these now superfluous, i.e. the occasional rightside collision problem with {{·}} has been solved? Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am not aware of any rightside collision problem with {{·}}. Can you please point me to the discussion? ~ PaulT+/C 04:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's in various places, e.g. Wikipedia:Line break handling (and/or talk), Template:· (and/or talk), Template:Navbox (and/or talk) and/or similar places related to navbox template formatting. However, it should be much easier to view a template using {{·}}s in a browser window whose width you then reduce gradually. Sooner or later one or more of the {{·}}s should approach a little too close to the template's righthand border and sometimes even touch it.
It's not a devastating problem, but, if the rest of a template's formatting has been sorted out, it becomes noticeable. At least, that's my experience. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
We've had this discussion before... again, I've read those talk pages and I haven't seen any discussion that points out problems with {{·}} not wrapping correctly or not as intended. There are many instances where {{nowrap begin}}/w/end templates are very helpful and should absolutely be used--I helped with the testing of these templates--, but they are not needed with {{systems science}} and {{Apple celeb}}. Can you please point to a specific discussion that outlines the problem you think can happen when using {{·}}? ~ PaulT+/C 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, here's one now. Have you tried the experiment I outlined above? (In any case, as you've been working with templates and {{·}}, I'm sure you must've seen what I've described -- unless, perhaps, it's something confined to Firefox on a Windows XP PC (my usual work computer)...?) Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
PS Please use the talkback template again as I may be offline soon. Thanks.
I stumbled over your discussion here. As perhaps both of you know this "expanding out of the box" bug is a Firefox bug. So first of all you need to use Firefox to see it. Since we talked before I have learnt more about it and written down parts of it here: Wikipedia talk:Line break handling#Firefox bug. And yes, {{·}} actually does provoke the bug. However, the width of the text you add after each nowrapped string matters. And since {{·}} is fairly narrow (only one non-breaking space and a dot) it only shows the bug a little. That is, the dots usually do not flow outside the box, they just touch the box border. So if that should be considered a problem or not is a matter of taste. Personally I usually don't convert lists to use {{nowrap begin}}+{{·w}}+{{nowrap end}} that only has that minor problem, but I also do not convert lists back to {{·}} just to get the simpler {{·}} code, since {{nowrap begin}} etc renders better.
The bug only becomes a serious problem when one has nowrap protected strings followed or surrounded by several other characters. Like for instance nowraplinks protected links with text around it, like this: [[Some link]] (2008){{·}} or "[[Some link]]"{{·}}. Those two texts have 9 and 4 characters respectively outside the link before the real space. That's enough many characters to expand outside the box and become a real problem.
--David Göthberg (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks as ever for your input, David. I hadn't clocked that ultimately the problem is a bug in Firefox. I don't know whether or not the Firefox developers are aware of it and planning to address it, but if so, that'd be good news as I agree {{·}} would be preferable. I hardly know anything about the world of software development, so I'd be grateful if either of you could point me toward what looks the most appropriate place to make enquiries; there seem to be various possibilities (forums, webpages, perhaps even irc?). Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean you want to report the bug to the Firefox developers? I have thinking of doing that for some time too. So I took a quick look over at bugzilla.mozilla.org and searched for "nowrap", it turned up at least two bug reports that clearly is the exact same bug:

And there are several other "nowrap" bug reports that seem related. I am going to get myself an account over there so I can write comments at those bug reports telling them they are both the same bug. And also link back here to Wikipedia:Line break handling and it's talk page.

But even if the next version of Firefox is fixed we still have to handle the bug for the next two years or so. And we have the problems with wrapping in several Internet Explorer versions which means we need to use {{nowrap begin}} etc in many places anyway.

By the way, I will copy parts of this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Line break handling#Firefox bug.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Here's to two or so years from now. In the meantime, I think {{nowrap begin}}--{{·w}}--{{nowrap end}} should continue to be used, as a bot or bots could be tasked to replace it once this bug is sorted out and most users have upgraded. What do you think, Psantora? Thanks, David, for the bugzilla research. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so now I see the bug with {{·}} on Firefox, but in order to work around this bug, would there ever be an appropriate use for {{·}} (whether inside or outside navboxes)? I'm not sure that there is anymore and, if that is the case, should we temporarily redirect {{·}} to {{·w}} and include the {{nowrap begin}} and {{nowrap end}} templates (or redirected templates so it will be easier to locate and remove once this bug gets fixed two years from now) as default for the {{navbox}} group code? This would preclude the need to replace existing {{·}} code in navboxes and the need to move them back once the bug is fixed. We would also need to come up with an alternate solution for uses of {{·}} outside of navboxes. ~ PaulT+/C 17:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, people tend to come to the same conclusions and ask the same questions. Sardanaphalus asked the same thing some weeks ago. See my response to that at: Template talk:Navbox#Incorporating improved linewrap handling code
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup. {{·}} is still very useful outside templates, and, if/when the Firefox bug is history, can be preferred within them again. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Table Mobile operating systems

Hey, I moved my message here to the discussion page InternetMeme (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Palmsource logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Palmsource logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] <br> or <br />?

I just saw that you did this edit. I hope that was just a prank to mess with me, right? If not, here goes:

Which should we use? <br> or <br />?

Let's examine this step by step:

1: Writing the XHTML code <br/> without a blank is even against the recommendations of the World Wide Web Consortium, instead it should be written as <br /> since then HTML parsers can understand it too. HTML parsers will simply regard <br /> as a "br" with an unknown parameter "/", while they will regard "br/" as an unknown tag name. So we should definitely not teach people to write <br/>, but possibly <br />.

2: The "HTML" codes we use here at Wikipedia are not XHTML markup nor are they HTML markup, instead they are "HTML wikimarkup", since MediaWiki processes them just like wikimarkup.

3: Wikipedia mainly uses wikimarkup. The reasons for that is simple: Most people that edit Wikipedia are people who never have made a web page, so they know nothing about HTML, XHTML or CSS. So for them (and even for us old webmaster geeks) it is easier to use wikimarkup.

4: So far I have seen the documentation for MediaWiki talks about "HTML in wikitext" and never mentions "XHTML in wikitext". Also up until recently all documentation listed <br> as the code for forced line breaks. But some months ago some XHTML enthusiasts went around and edited a lot of the help pages to show the <br /> or even the <br/>.

So which should we use? <br> or <br />?

Well, let's first ask another question: Which markup should we use for bold text?

  • '''Bold'''
  • <b>Bold</b>
  • <span style="font-weight:bold;">Bold</span>

I think we all know that the wikimarkup '''Bold''' is the recommended one. Mainly because it is simpler to use, especially for the majority of editors that don't know HTML and CSS.

The same goes for <br> vs <br />. The HTML wikimarkup <br> is easier for the majority of editors to use, and it is shorter.

Sure, we have a "teaching opportunity" to teach people to use the <br />, but there is a very high risk that they instead will use the <br/> and that would be a bad thing. And believe it or not, many beginners have problems telling "/" and "\" apart. So they might even try to use the <br\>...

So again, the <br> is easier for the majority of editors to use, and it is shorter.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that lengthy explanation of <br> vs. <br />! I didn't expect to see that on my talk page! Regarding my edit, I originally just wanted to strike out the three templates I took a look at and updated earlier today, but when I saw all the <br>s, it was just as easy to do a "replace all" to convert them to <br />s. To be perfectly honest, I didn't know the history behind the extra space is used, I just assumed it was (more) correct markup. I didn't realize it was due to XHTML "enthusiasts" as you say. I'll assume that it doesn't really matter from here on out (unless you would like to enlighten me further) and I won't make those changes. ~ PaulT+/C 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Aside: Is there a significant difference between <br /> and <br/>? Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. HTML and XHTML are two different kinds of markup. Older web browsers only understood HTML, while some modern special applications (XML parsers) only understand XHTML. The old HTML browsers think that a <br/> is a tag named "br/", which is something they don't understand since they only know about <br>. But they do understand <br /> since then they see the tag name "br" and a strange parameter "/" that they usually simply disregard. While the special applications that only understand XHTML understand both <br/> and <br /> but not <br>. So that is why W3C nowadays recommend <br /> when making web pages since then all kinds of browsing/parsing software can understand it.
But here on Wikipedia the only two things that are going to read the tag are humans (most of which are editors without HTML and XHTML knowledge) and the MediaWiki software. And MediaWiki nowadays understands all three forms of the BR tag, and converts it to whatever format it wants to output the wiki web pages. Currently MediaWiki outputs XHTML web pages so it outputs <br />. From what I read older versions of MediaWiki only understood <br>, but support for some XHTML tags was added so it would be simpler to cut and paste text from other free web sites.
--David Göthberg (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Other article moves

“DVD Player (software)” might refer to other software DVD players.

But that’s far from how wrong “Software Update”, or even “Calculator (software)” and “Address Book” were.

And the only other article that I think needs renaming is Dictionary (software), to avoid confusion with other software dictionaries (on which there is no article, but, as long as there are articles on application software at all, there should be one). What should it be then — Dictionary (Mac OS X) or Dictionary (Apple software)?

--AVRS (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Divesture vs demerger

Hi there Psantora,

Apologies for reverting some of your corrections to the "Telefónica O2" article. Specifically on "divesture" vs "demerger". Wikipedia itself has an definition article for "demerger" but not for "divesture". I think that "divesture" is probably used in North America more so than in Europe (which is the region which the subject of the article is affiliated with). Also, given that the company "mmO2" was formed on the London Stock Exchange from BT Group, which was also listed on the London Stock Exchange (which I also believe is the most popular stock market in the world in terms of the number of companies traded), I think it makes sense for the article to use the financial language of the stock market that the subject of the article is most closely affiliated to. Do you agree? Best regards - Jminhas

Jminhas (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to echo Jminhas' comments, "divesture" is not a term used in the UK (and probably not in Europe), whereas demerger is probably more widely known. That, and you probably meant "divestiture" (again, not a term used in the UK as far as I'm aware). ~~ [Jam][talk] 12:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:AppleInsider.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:AppleInsider.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback granted

Your account now has rollback privileges. Please only use the tool to revert simple vandalism or test edits, or the right will be removed accordingly. Happy editing to you. Keegantalk 06:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North Dakota

I noticed that you updated the Wikipedia Commons version of the Republican Primaries County Map some time ago, adding North Dakota's results. Would you happen to still have a source for the by county information for North Dakota? I have had the hardest time trying to find it. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)