User talk:9258fahsflkh917fas/Archives/2009/12

Unicode characters and browser fonts
I'm lost now. I've followed the options to change fonts and Firefox has five settings: There's also the option to "allow pages to choose their own fonts". This option was ticked. When I unticked it the page was displayed in Times New Roman. The integer symbol was better, but not as good as on Google Chrome. Google Chrome has several font settings too: Both Google Chrome and Firefox have the Default Encoding set to ISO-8859-1. With the Firefox option of allowing pages to choose their own fonts activated the same font seems to be used on both Firefox and Google Chrome. Dr Dec (Talk)   12:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Fonts for: Western
 * 2) Proportional: Serif
 * 3) Serif: Times New Roman
 * 4) Sans Serif: Arial
 * 5) Monospace: Courier New
 * 1) Serif font: Times New Roman, 16
 * 2) Sans-Sefir font: Arial, 16
 * 3) Fixed Width font: Courier New, 13
 * First, let me explain the Firefox font settings. In point 1 above, you select a group of languages, and then for each group, you can select the four fonts sub 2–5. The selections for different groups are independent. Points 3–5 specify the font used for the CSS generic font families "serif", "sans-serif" and "monospace", respectively, and point 2 tells whether to use 3 or 4 when the web page does not specify any (valid) font at all. I don't know anything about Chrome, but naming of the parameters suggests that they, too, give values to the three standard generic CSS font-family properties. The default character set setting is irrelevant to fonts.
 * Now, I do not quite understand your situation. You said that you see a good character in Chrome but a bad one in Firefox, that the "allow pages etc" option in Firefox was ticked, and that with this option activated Firefox and Chrome appear to use the same font. These three statements together are contradictory. — Emil J. 13:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, if I let Firefox choose its own font then the displayed font, at least to my eye, is the same as the displayed font in Chrome. Here are some screen shots of the default views; the fonts look identical to me.

Here's the really wierd thing too: both edit boxes have the font Courier New as the font. The text I'm typing now is in Courier New. The Chrome Z appears perfectly. When I cut and paste it into the edit box of Firefox it appears as a blob. If it were a font issue and the Z appeared correctly in Chrome then it should appear correctly in Firefox, because both edit boxes use the same font: Courier New. It's just really, really wierd. Any ideas? Dr Dec (Talk)   18:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, now I understand what you mean. However, that the same fonts are used for normal English text does not imply that the same fonts are used for any other text. Don't forget that web browsers (decent, i.e., except MSIE) do silent font substitution when a particular character is missing in the current font. Apparently, ℤ is missing both in Courier New and in whatever is the font selected by Wikipedia, and the two browsers choose a different substitute font for this character. What you have to do is to find the real font which Chrome uses to display this character. One way to do that may be to use a character selector utility (or something of that sort, I don't know how Windows call it) or a text editor or a similar application to display the character, and try all available fonts until you find the right one (but beware that the application may also do font substitution). Whether one character is worth all this trouble is up to you. — Emil J. 18:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. That makes sense; thanks! As for your last point about whether a character is worth all of the trouble: I might give it a go. It's like mathematics; we often learn many new interesting things whilst in the pursuit or something else. I might learn a lot of cool things whilst trying to solve this little font problem about this little letter. Thanks again for you time. Dr Dec  (Talk)   18:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Dr Dec/SAbook3
Hi, Dr Dec. I found your page User:Dr Dec/SAbook3 in Category:Service_award_templates. I would recommend deleting your page because it merely reproduces Template:SA-mostexcellentgrognard and is contaminating the templates category with a user-space page. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise that it would be listed with all of the other templates; I thought it would just be a private user page. I don't use it any more; so I'll delete it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The templates aren't quite the same: the alignment is different. Mine is set to go on the right of the page. Do you know a way of changing the alignment of a template? I asked at the help desk and they told me to change the source code &minus; which I did. Dr Dec  (Talk)   13:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Vera
Is it now written properly? The book is quiet famous over here and also written in English. 94.210.222.154 (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the reference. But doesn't it repeat itself a bit: "Venue Vera has a long tradition as a prominent underground spot and desired place for touring indie bands to play. A known long existing indie venue in Groningen is Vera". You could drop the second sentence. Dr Dec  (Talk)  11:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Rapidshare search engine
Respected Sir, I am the author of RS Search article. I have just got your PM and i dont understand why you are harassing me with threats. I see you contribute a lot to the Wiki community, but i dont understand why you dislike my article. I am not even spamming, right? I wish to contribute a lot in Wiki and Bam!! you discouraged me in my very first article :O Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybias (talk • contribs) 12:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As the original author of the page, you may not remove the speedy deletion template, as outlined by the speedy deletion policy. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert
No it's cool. It says "Reverted TO edit 35.... by Rich... " Rich Farmbrough, 16:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Ahhhhhhh! Phew. Dr Dec  (Talk)  16:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Closure
It was a bold move, simply pointing out the mootness. Should the proposal be closed by a vote started from the opinion that it is scary? Made by someone who has not done any of the work to get the process going? The voting to close should be done by the group discussing the possible RFC, not a group of people brought in from outside who don't like it. Snow it down if it makes it to RFC, sure, but for now let the process continue and be closed by the main participants. It's not an AfD, RfA or any other such major discussion, I was within my abilities to archive a portion that clearly was a distraction. I am uninvolved, and have no strong opinion. It is merely my contention that the discussion should not closed by a motion motivated (enough "movement" going on in this paragraph?) by fear of the consequences of what future votes may bring. Again, Pixley can't tell Hooterville it can't propose a statewide referendum on something, that's out of order. Sswonk (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agreed with what you said: the motion to close was a moot point. But so was the closure of the closure motion! I'm not sure I understand you totally, but you seem to have said that you wanted to ring-fence the motion before outside voters could come in and bias the result. But isn't that the idea of a discussion? If de-adminship were a bad idea then most of the, for want of a better word, outsiders would have supported the closure motion (by virtue of de-adminship being a bad idea). Likewise, if it were a good idea then most of the outsiders would have opposed the closure motion. Leaving it open to the wider community is the best way: five !votes to ten (or whatever) isn't a powerful consensus; 70 to 90 might be better. Dr Dec  (Talk)  23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well we may be consigned to not understanding each other here. My point is, it is a draft RFC, and a talk page of that draft to boot. Can't the wolves at the door wait until the farmer opens it, i.e. makes the actual RFC (or decides to keep the door closed and doesn't go RFC)? What is the point of allowing an annoying, time consuming outside complaint about thinking the RFC is "scary" stop the decision to actually propose it via a vote from outside? If Hooterville wants to propose this, let Hooterville do so and then vote it away or quickly snow it if opposers can. That in my mind is the fair thing to do. I am not interested in opposing the opposers or fighting to re-archive, and was just making a procedural point. I disagree that what I did was moot: it served it's purpose, but I think at this point, on this topic, both of us should move on. Sswonk (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am an adult, and am able to communicate without the aid of a series of analogies. I'm become dizzy with all these wolves is Hooterville and the farmers and their doors in Pixyland, or wherever. Besides that, I understand what you're trying to say. I'm not sure I agree though. This draft was trying to do something quite radical. And where do you draw the line; when does it stop being a draft? You secretly gather support while you refine your arguments. It all seems far too clandestine for my liking. Dr Dec  (Talk)  00:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That got me smiling. Re: being an adult, so was Lewis Carroll, and so was George Orwell; the animals and TV fiction weren't meant to dumb things down. Got your point, thank you. Sswonk (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: My Math Question
Hello Dr Dec. Thank you very much for your reply. It is just what I was looking for. Have a happy new year. --Mayfare (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and the same to you :o) Dr Dec  (Talk)  18:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)