User talk:Fabartus/Archive04

Top
Archived to here Fra nkB 20:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up categories
Hey Fab,

As you might've noticed, I recently cleaned up most of 1632 series related cats. A good rule to remember is: an article should be in only one category (there are RARE exceptions). Thus if, for example, '1632 series' category is a subcategory of 'fictional universes' or 'series of books' category, there is no need to include those categories in the article. Also, categories should not be used as see also: for example, Bean's Bar may be related to 1632 series, but does not belong in the '1632 series category'. 1632 Tech, on the other hand, would. Note that I suggested moving the 1632 editorial board article - your comments would be appreciated. Last but not least: don't add categories to redirects. Either write stubs and add cats to them, or don't leave cats full of redirects. Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Piotr:
 * In general, I can't disagree more. Depends on whether you are looking at it from the reader/customer point of view or the editors. Editors view is yours, Mine is per WP:Btw &mdash; the more links the customer can navigate and scan the better.
 * But just between you and me, I really don't care save the extra categories allows one to get to similar stuff really easily. So in the future, please ask me first. I wouldn't mind save you aren't addressing CONTENT, and it crimps my needs at the moment.
 * This housekeeping crap really doesn't matter until things are ready for prime time&mdash;taking the extra cats (per your interpretation) out just handicaps me, the only one working the project. You youngsters are much better at typing urls, and remembering long names. I watch my sons and marvel... growing up with computers may not ever give you an appreciation for this, just trust me on it. And I've been writing salable software professionally on and off since the late '70's&mdash; there's just some canalized thought habits that I can't master like others. Perhaps it's AD/HD related&mdash;it's one area I tested poorly on during neurological testing for same we participated in TWO studies as a family with three generations.
 * It's one big reason I don't do a lot of software in my consulting anymore&mdash;my short term memory for such minutia is not good at all, so I have to cheat and organize myself to suit my 'brain wiring', shrug&mdash;so give all the links possible while I'm working it.
 * I'll never get this done without a little leniency&mdash;that stupid Arsenal of Democracy article has already cost me two man-weeks!!!
 * Once I get things in a satisfactory state I usually solicit input, as I did in that fiasco, so give me a bit more time.


 * Take a look at Honorverse which consumed my morning edit window. Also 1634: The Ram Rebellion Section. The rest of the article is in 'planned revision' state pending additional feedback from Eric and evolution of the Gazettes. I lost an edit, but have an email image I can reconstruct that from now that Eric will be able to clean up a few small inconsistancys in the history of how it all happened. If you hadn't noticed, there are three slightly different variations extant, which is why the lack of progress. He was pressing to finish the book he completed on the 26th, and I'm hoping to hear from him again tonight or tomarrow.
 * Most impressed with your site: http://www.wodzu.tonet.pl/republika_prokonsularna/En/163xCoTNRP.html! But where's the email contact me link??? How are you going to get input and requests for more info? 
 * I'm not going to ask you about copyrights!!!

Best! Fra nkB 22:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories spam,Interleaved

 * Regarding categories, consider - where should one draw the line? We can add useful subcategories almost ad absurdum, until we get to Top 10. I prefer the simple and esthetic rule: add the least number of categories, and let interested people click on the link and see relevant families there.
 * 0. Getting rid of the redundant 1632cats (were two, iirc), is all to the good, btw. If you have (I believe you and wwood can CsD them), tidy up the list in the project talk.
 * 1. You need to 'dial in' that browsing is not a natural thought process to someone introduced to the web after we were jaded adults. Call it most people over thirty-three, give or take. My wife and I never think to look up something on the web FIRST, it's LAST... only after exhausting yellow pages, newspapers, or considering a trip to the library.  We do more often NOW, but it's still unnatural&mdash;my teens who immediately type in a search topic if we ask some question&mdash; urgent or casual
 * e.g. Just last night while entertaining we watched a DVD, and I wondered aloud: Who is that player on the 2001 St. Louis Rams with number 87.
 * Why? He said: "Tonight a dynasty is born!" before superbowl XXXVI&mdash;He just was wrong about which team!  (Too much testosterone!)
 * 2. It's an editorial judgement&mdash;somewhere between sparse and absurd of course&mdash;The criteria I try to apply is whether the category leads to other articles that are related or relavant in some way&mdash;but not necessarily obvious and not appropriate in 'See also' section. This is particularly useful in world history contexts, but also in science and technology articles.
 * e.g. 'David Weber books', 'Eric Flint Books', 'Books available as ebooks' 'could all be linked as see also's, but the system is already auto-collecting those, and NOT putting them in 'see also' in essence warns the reader he's not going to look at an article.


 * 3. Last but not least, cats aren't all that visible to the 'customer' who is stuck with the default skin.  I'm probably going to put together an RFC or VP post or something to scream that point one of these days. I was a user-customer for a couple of years, then an editor for over another before I ever saw them down off the page bottom. As articles get reference sections, that's only going to get more pronounced as a problem.
 * Regarding Honorverse Art Gallery, it was something I was doing a few years back. Now, 1) I lost access to that server and cannot update it and 2) I am slowly moving all content to The Honorverse Wiki. As for the copyrights, the site had been advertised on the bar several time and drew no complaints, and I've even talked to David Mattingly (whom I helped with his wikipedia entry), and he was ok with it. Legally speaking, I am assuming fair use but if anybody wants me to take anything down, I'll (except I have no control over the old site anymore - but I am pretty sure I could request it to be taken offline completly. When I am done with the move to the wiki, I'll do it anyway).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just tweaking your nose, BUT DIDN'T Say a word about the honorverse art gallery. where's the link? Reread my post&mdash; I was referring to the proper intro I gave the honorverse article per MOS. The link was 1632 webpage... I doubt that maps are 'fair use', however I won't tell if you don't.
 * Oh, that. Why not fair use? I believe 'fair use until proven otherwise' and 'fight copyright paranoia' :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories spam,Interleaved2

 * Guess you don't mind me posting 'blurbs' then in the Gazettes! Good to Know. Fra nkB 13:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Best! Fra nkB 10:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (Post to User_talk:Piotrus to see user_talk:fabartus)

Overall, regarding cats: I guess sometimes I am too strict. But, as (my) rule of thumb, cats should short names and fit in one line at the bottom of an article. Exceptions are ok if we there are not related, but if the articles should avoid having the same cats several times (in a subcat and then it's overcat, for example) unless we have a really, really good reason for it. And yes, cats are not as exposed as they should be, and personally I wish there was an easy way to expand cats into subcats.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Danged Browser hotkeys -- I just can't edit in Firefox - I just lost an answer when it was all but done! I hit CTRL instead of shift too often!
 * 'Well, Pilgrim', I did think removing 'Eric Flint books' and 'Books available as ebooks' was a bit over the top in your GG#4 edit. (Looks like you need to browse your Honorverse articles and add the DW books and ebooks cats therein as well.)
 * But I can certainly agree that the 'Series' and Sequences and milieu (Fictional Universes) probably really only belong in the Main articles, unless the pipe trick is used? If so, do they all appear as partof a single entry assuming pipe: '1632 series', or does each of the ten add to list?
 * One reason I was putting them everywhere was to explore that sortof little technicality. I'm really a tyro at Cats overall. You and I aren't really that far apart on 'logic'... we just have different working styles, and are at different places in the learning curve (like the above question--You probably already know--I have to test)
 * Bottom line, as far as I'm concerned all these articles are at the draft stage, somewhat beyond bare stubs, but in need of polish and cross-integration.
 * Hope to make a big dent in that effort today&mash;I haven't been to the bar in five or six months&mdash; so one place you can really help me if you have time is generating a firm list of works in the pipeline, with updates to the series talk. If you want, integrate with the new version of 1632 in section edit mode (The link is below the big article list). I'll be finishing that sometime today after I get the GG's all to 'first base' and reconstruct the 'TGGs' edit (lost w/o saving) I emailed Eric for feedback.
 * I was waiting a couple of weeks for someone to step back in, shall we say, then got bogged down with trying to reconstruct lost edits, life outside wiki, and that damn AoD article RHaywood pushed me on. If I'd have thought to create as a Sandbox page, that wouldn't have happened and would be a back burner project. But you live and learn, and getting burned like that is one of the best teaching tools, so to speak.
 * Anyway, this isn't getting anything 'Done'. Later! Fra nkB 13:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (w/See Post to User_talk:Piotrus to see user_talk:fabartus)

Re:templates - I think it's ok - count the 's' letter.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories3
Hmm. As it is getting more and more likely that we are going to see a non-Flint 1632 book, I guess we can put EFb cat to the individual books, instead of a cat. But I wonder if we can classify GG's as 'his books'? He is only the editor, isn't he? Ebooks, on the other hand, are diffferent: aren't all 1632 available as ebooks and won't they in the future? Thus I think we can safely remove it from all articles and simply classify the entire series as ebooks. Sci-fi as a millieu is going to be deleted and merged (see cat page for the link to the discussion and voting). Fictional universe belongs in the As... Shard multiverse category (btw, on the cat deletions page it was suggested that this cat should be renamed Ring of Fire - you may want to comment there - agains see the various cats page for link to their relevant discssions (not all of them have them)). Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, big fella! -- let me break this in pieces Grrrrrr <B>Fra</B> nkB 16:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)(w/note on Talk to see subsect 'user talk:fabartus')
 * 1) ...EFb cat to the individual books ... should be done for all authors IMHO, we as readers find one we like and again, remember WP:Btw. Where's there a conflict? One gives a list by author, the other by universe, etc.  Show me a guideline, any guideline that says an article belongs in only one category. I agree that building a heirarchial tree inside the category pages themselves makes sense, but you're philosophy is handcuffing one of wikipedia's strongest features&mdash; one which sets it apart and way ahead of printed encyl. IMHO. Frankly, if it weren't for cross referenced linking I have better things to do with my time. The alternative is a lot of wasted space as See also sections, or F**** the customer-reader. Long See Also's are contra-indicated, and won't be half as strong as something which auto-lists these.
 * 2) Ebooks, on the other hand, are diffferent: aren't all 1632 available as ebooks and won't they in the future? &mdash; yeah, but only for Baen, and that's not to say he won't die tomarrow (He's sixtyish plus, iirc.) and someone running his estate won't change the policy some day.
 * 3) It also leaves out a whole shitload of works from other publishers such Flints two newest Alt-Hist's (which may or may not be eBooks someday--don't know, don't yet care, haven't read the first yet tho' have it, just know his website said he finished the second on the 26th.)
 * 4) But it also leaves out other ebook published works like the thousand or so on www.Fictionwise.com or www.Fiction.com, not to mention how many other publishers are following Baen's lead, or may soon.
 * 5) Thus THAT category is specific to allowing the reader to cross browse and read wikiarticles where there is an eBook that he might then go sample. It says nothing about 'Free'. Baen is just one mid-sized publisher, and not even in the top ten genre publishers.
 * 6) Sci-fi as a millieu is going to be deleted and merged (see cat page for the link to the discussion and voting). &mdash; that's radical... I'll check it out and scream as necessary.
 * 7) Fictional universe belongs in the As... Shard multiverse category (btw, on the cat deletions page it was suggested that this cat should be renamed Ring of Fire - you may want to comment there - agains see the various cats page for link to their relevant discssions (not all of them have them)). That would be premature... either -- Eric is reworking that and reconsidering his marketing as I pointed out how poorly his inconsistant series naming coverage has got to be hurting sales... and drew contrasts to Dave Webers Barnes and Noble, Amazon and Baen lock-step consistancy, even down to the sub-series names (Crown of Slaves, etc.) Can't say he'll choose 1632verse as I recommended (With ROF as 1st alternate), but he's got two other Assiti Shards Universes in the pipeline, I believe one of those is in production at Baen (Washington goes to Rome, iirc). Heirarchially, the 1632 series cat is but the first sub-cat of Assiti Shards, but all Assiti Shards aren't and won't be 1632verse articles. Until he picks a path, we'd be well advised to stand pat so as to not create extra work.
 * 8) I'll check out cats deletion pages... If I can find it. Can you drop the link here? This is not my day for articles apparently!

Turret_entry
Hi Fabartus! I saw your new entry on the Turret disambiguation page, but your entry redirects to the architecture turret article: it appears that there is no weapons turret article, or at least your entry didn't get there? I've reverted it for now, hoping you can redirect it to the article you were thinking of?


 * weapons turret, A gun mount that swivels, usually mounted on a navel warship, or other weapons platforms like planes, tanks, heicopters, etcetera.

Sandy 19:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * oops, sorry Fabartus ... I now see that the one article (Turret) covers both the architectural meaning, and the weapons meaning (that's goofy), so I did not revert your edit, rather clarified it. I guess someone should sort the two out, but I don't know enough about either.  Sandy 19:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * on turrets
 * Well, that WAS my attempt at clarifying it... the terms a derivative term adapted to the new technology... Splitting the article seems pretty silly since it's small, so disambiging in such a way so that people looking for a weapons turret instead of an archetectual feature seemed the best course. Your change looks fine though I liked mine better as being bold, as I'm a bold fellow.

Best wishes, <B>Fra</B> nkB 22:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (+See answer note to User talk:SandyGeorgia)


 * Thanks for the note ... yes, I see what you mean. The entire entry left me scratching my head, but the article is too short to worry about anymore :-)  Sandy 22:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:GG
What? We don't need more then one article about each GG and one for the entire series. That's enough. I just merged two articles which were virtually the same. Fab, please, take it easy, read manual of style and try to understand we mean well but there are certain standards we all have to follow.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 05:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Np.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 05:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They were the same as in identical, as the 'S' one is copy. I was editing the other, and had left it earlier in the day for other matters, but you redirected it. Confusion resulted. I'd just been about to insert the image.


 * The one ending in 'S' is the Main, the non-S is the first title 'as published'. Note on 1632 talk I left questions whether to leave as is or change to conform to the others. Adding Insult to injury, Baen and Eric both seem to have gone to western numbers and abandoned Roman Numerals. Shrug.


 * TTFN, I'm going to bed. <B>Fra</B> nkB 05:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm, etc.
I'm not absolutely sure that I've understood your question, so if this makes no sense, forgive me.

It's not currently possible to make redirects target specific sections. Links in articles should in any case be to articles rather than to redirects, and so links to redirects should always be changed when found.

Now, that probably misses your point; if it does, could ypou rephrase your question and I'll try again? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that's just ducky&mdash; and you are directly on point. Somebody merges an article, then you can't use a redirect name to reference the old contents in it's 'section' in the new place via the old redirect to it; so we all have to know the syntax of the particular new sub-section title and the merged into article title, and manually put them together with '#' and hope to connect remembering 'punctuation' and even spaces, et. al. plus do a pipe trick to display  the syntactical name or term needed in the current article.
 * That is indeed what I've been seeing, and yet another reason to oppose the 'evil dark forces' of mergest bent. <G>+ Sigh!
 * Well, at least I wasn't doing anything wrong syntactically. Shrug. Me thinks I'll live.

Thanks for checking my six! <B>Fra</B> nkB 14:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC) (W/see answer on user talk:Mel Etitis 'here'.)

wikimania article
replied on my talk page .. Brassratgirl 07:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

eBook Categories
I've replied here. SeventyThree(Talk) 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm, etc.
I'm not absolutely sure that I've understood your question, so if this makes no sense, forgive me.

It's not currently possible to make redirects target specific sections. Links in articles should in any case be to articles rather than to redirects, and so links to redirects should always be changed when found.

Now, that probably misses your point; if it does, could ypou rephrase your question and I'll try again? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that's just ducky&mdash; and you are directly on point. Somebody merges an article, then you can't use a redirect name to reference the old contents in it's 'section' in the new place via the old redirect to it; so we all have to know the syntax of the particular new sub-section title and the merged into article title, and manually put them together with '#' and hope to connect remembering 'punctuation' and even spaces, et. al. plus do a pipe trick to display  the syntactical name or term needed in the current article.
 * That is indeed what I've been seeing, and yet another reason to oppose the 'evil dark forces' of mergest bent. <G>+ Sigh!
 * Well, at least I wasn't doing anything wrong syntactically. Shrug. Me thinks I'll live.

Thanks for checking my six! <B>Fra</B> nkB 14:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC) (W/see answer on user talk:Mel Etitis 'here'.)

wikimania article
replied on my talk page .. Brassratgirl 07:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

eBook Categories
I've replied here. SeventyThree(Talk) 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Appalachian Plateau
You added the fact, expert, and disputed templates to Appalachian Plateau. Other than that add, there has only been one edit in the last seven months. Where's the fire? Anyway, please explain on the article talk page or here. GRBerry 20:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Requested 'in progress' post was 'finalized' and saved about the time this request was made. <B>Fra</B> nkB

I have good news
and I have bad news... I've managed to get one under the other but to make it work, I needed to remove the brown box. (and the blue line)..

If you want to move the box somewhere else the code is -

<div style="align:left; width: 54%; padding: 1em; border: 1px green solid; color: black; background-color: tan" > Fra nkB says:   [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=fabartus&dbname=enwiki_p Hi! and WELCOME!] <font face="Charlesworth" color=brown> The current time is: (UTC) on July 29, 2024      If there is a need for speed, duplicate your post in an email (gives me an audible alarm even when I'm off Wikipedia) "fabartus–at–comcast.net" '[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Fabartus&action=edit&section=new  Click HERE'' To Bottom Post! ]''' Please take a moment (if you are new visitor) and read about my prefered message conventions below!

Hope this helps, I've never seen an html guide on WP. Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 08:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can do without the quote 'more', but I'll work on it all in the sandbox &mdash; about time I made HTML a mastered tool instead of a vexation by most anyone's thinking. <G>
 * Thanks for the assist. Both of you.

<B>Fra</B> nkB 16:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

eBooks/ebooks/EBOOKS!
AFAICT, the ebook discussion hasn't been archived yet - so stay tuned. I added an extra 2¢ there just now. Good luck on the, ahem, camera thing...been there, done that, don't ever wanna again. And the fictional universe thing is just the reason why I became a librarian - some people do sudoku, I tinker with access points and categories (my "user contributions" attest to this...). Cheers, Her Pegship 21:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Your message on Image problems
Questions on Mel's talk:
 * 1) All the sudden I can't get frame, or perhaps remember the 'proper syntax' for putting a frame around an image such as: Cheat_River just added. Any ideas? What's so nit-picky all the sudden?  Was I just lucky before?
 * 2) By the same token had an image 'over stepping' the nearby text along the top border last night. Can they take a padding (Margin is inside, yes?) command and in particular one focused on specific problematic border like a ' ' or is using that techique nesting the image 'the part of the solution' I need condsider in personal computer (2nd image, is left justified if you take a peek.)?
 * Hadn't thought of 'that' to try until just now!

Thanks, <B>Fra</B> nkB 20:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you had a problem with framing an image; I assume that you added "frame" to the image tag, and that should have done it. On the other hand, "frame" is generally not a good option, as it results in an outsize image; "thumb" is the better option (and preferably without then boosting the image size, which defeats the purpose of allowing the reader to decide whether to see the thumbnail or a larger image).
 * His replys:

I'm not sure about the second problem (I couldn't see a problem with the image); perhaps Extended image syntax has something that might help? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the 'Images 101'&mdash;I've been wondering if there was a guide somewhere. It turns out I now believe my 'picturesque' upload is on the wrong side of the mountain so my reasoning (and label and name) are probably off, but I'm going to confirm either way, and hopefully just upload the right picture. I'll phone the NFS office tomarrow to see what's what.
 * On the 'thumbs Vs. frame', I was assuming they weren't mutually exclusive and your answer clearly implies that they are. I think I was mis-remembering the effect the command had, thinking it only put a neat looking border around the graphic.


 * re: the second problem: It's 'now' straight for me today in even the five or six back versions, so I hypothesize it may have been a manifestation only in preview mode??? I was editing in Firefox (I just checked), and it's usually the better behaved graphically speaking. I'm pretty sure I didn't look it over after closing the edit, so we may never know. I suppose I can go test.
 * Really nice tidy job, kudos!&mdash;I think 7/8ths of your changes were because tech-jargon frequently uses the caps, and I tend to write that way as well after 30+ years of immersion. I really ought to look into taking a community college English course or two. They're cheap over here and I can use a good refresher on 'papers' standards in generic acedemialand. (Maybe you should just follow me around and 'Tidy Up' my expansions. <G> Want a new job? <BSEG>)
 * I like the History Title where you put it! I was a bit bothered that the 'Intro' had grown off to the side of the target article, but by 4 am the mental agility wasn't present anymore&mdash; especially after hitting the edit conflict with the vandal as I was trying to complete. Warn that SOB, OK? The prev had a juvenile naivety I had to put in perspective. I probably should have just added it to my To-Do and gone to bed&mdash;it took a lot longer than I'd figured when I started due to some collateral adds and edits the effort spun-off.

Thanks again as always, 'Images 101' will undoubtably be a great reference! <B>Fra</B> nkB 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you do so many fix-ups so quick&mdash; are you using AWB to keep up with such and your immense watch list? Seems likely, I'll have to dust that off and take it for a spin.


 * There's a good picture tutorial :) -Quiddity 02:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Without checking, I'm prettyu sure that "frame" and "thumb" are mutually exclusive, yes.
 * 2) The moving of the "History" headign was, I must admit, prompted purely by considerations of where the ToC appeeared; when I looked to see how to rejig things, I just noticed that the previous two paragraphs were also historical. The section could probably do with a bit of a reorganisation, though, as my simplt sticking the two paragraphs at the beginning might not make perfect sense.
 * 3) I don't use AWB (tried it; didn't like it). It's just plain cmmon-or-garden obsessiveness... --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Color_Suggestions
I wanted to make a few suggestions, having wandered via a circuitous route to Talk:List of fictional universes, that you tone down the contrast, ornamentation, and amount, of div shading and typographical highlighting.

Using colors has a number of problems, not the least of which are colourblind users, but also older technologies that display things in a vastly different way from what most modern users see. Plus there are the subjective aesthetics ;) a proviso of which is that if one person starts doing it, everyone will, and you can see how that would be bad! The single principle colour theme, throughout wikipedia, eases clarity for everyone. (You are, of course!, utterly welcome to indulge a love of colourful nested boxes on your own userpages :)

ditto for using  and , but as applied to blind users with screenreaders, whose software might rely on depth of indenting for vocal context when following a thread. (or just normal users, who use the indenting subconsciously to help follow context.) And semantically it's better to only use  for actual lists.

See Colours and Accessibility for detailed information, and phrased better than I. :)

A final consideration, is that in the decades-long tradition of online discussion, bold or oversize or CAPITALIZED text, are all seen as methods of, quite literally, SHOUTING. And hence considered quite rude. Only shout in a discussion, if you would literally be shouting whilst having the same discussion in a coffeeshop :) (ie, not often hopefully!)

Basically, minimalism/simplicity is better.

I understand your desire to clarify text on long talk pages, and highlight your own contributions, but sensibly shuffling threads, and changing ===header=== levels, and adding double-blanklines for page-breaks, and similar, are methods that everyone can follow along with more easily.

(Eventually there will develop the next-generation mediawiki, and we'll have some kind of built in clarity-of-thread design, as in common forum software. Be patient!)

I hope all this helps. I've seen you around a lot, you work hard around here :) -Quiddity 02:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks - sometimes it feels like most of it is talk to someone. I'll take all that in again when refreshed, looks like a couple of good links (and haven't a clue (yet!) on the 'coded' keywords above, and my talk and that talk:list of fictional universes are the only one's where I've used graphics... Seeing the scope of that and the lack of discusion made it seem good to 'freshen' the context in the new begining, as it were. My comments to Mel about the English 'lessons' above probably fall right in line with your other points. Part is probably AD/HD and coping with distractions... what others see as over-emphasis is sort of an outline of key themes that otherwise get lost in the verbiage&mdash;in my proof reading mind, at least&mdash; you might say it's an attempt to get everyone looking from the same perspective.


 * Didn't and don't know much about Accessibility issues, save at arms length, so thanks for the 'news' about indents changing contexts for those worse-off.


 * Before closing this, I cleaned that up some, see if it's better now using the black and killing centering.


 * Thanks for the input and compliment too. <B>Fra</B> nkB (w/post on  user talk:Quiddity to see user talk:fabartus)

Quiddity-2

 * The ), and moved all the duplicated styles (and some styles which should have been duplicated but weren't) to it. This was so successful that the developers added support to it directly to the software, removing the need to do the  by hand.

Now, unicode and unicode fonts. MSIE is the only "modern" browser (in fact, it's the least modern of them) which cannot use characters from a font other than the current one. All other modern browsers search other fonts for a character if it isn't found in the current one. This is not a problem for common characters, which can be found in almost all fonts; when a unusual character is needed, however, you must force MSIE (and only MSIE) to use a font which is known to have the required character. To do so, a CSS hack needs to be used (in this particular case,, which all browsers but MSIE interpret as a override to the previous declaration setting the fonts). For easier editing, the list of fonts (used to set the  just before the hack) was moved to a separate template, unicode fonts.

Some time ago, however, a security fix was made to MediaWiki, which removes the blank comment required by the hack (which could also be used to bypass the filters and execute some JavaScript when the browser being used was MSIE, leading to a cross-site scripting vulnerability). This change caused the templates to break (it also affected the similar IPA and Polytonic). A fix was quickly made by moving the  rules (both the one with the fonts and the one with the hack) to MediaWiki:Common.css, which is not filtered by the sanitizer (and in fact not filtered at all; however, it's only editable by administrators, which reduces the potential security issues). Since templates aren't parsed on that message (some messages on the MediaWiki: namespace use normal wiki coding and thus allow template transclusion; some allow raw code but as a side effect do not allow template transclusion), the list of fonts was moved to it, deprecating unicode fonts and IPA fonts. Both templates still remain since they have the history of the changes to the list of fonts, together with (on the talk page) the related rationale; they can also be used by hand in these rare situations where you want to force the fonts even on non-MSIE browsers.

The requirement of announcing changes to these important interface files to the Village Pump is much more recent, and is aimed at reducing live experimenting and ill-thought interface changes, after a period of controversial changes (including things like reducing the size of the list of references to 90%, for instance) had to be reverted after complaints.

The only thing needed to make work on Commons is to add the required classes to commons:MediaWiki:Common.css; however, this has already been done (looks like someone copied the whole page from here), so it should already work. There's no need to copy unicode fonts, since its main purpose is historical. I believe that just copying space from here to there should work (and if it doesn't work, it won't be the fault of ).

The main cause of the confusion is not the lack of documentation, but the amount of incomplete and obsolete documentation; some of what's discussed does not apply anymore, and changes are only documented in a obscure comment in a related talk page, or in the huge history of the technical part of the Village Pump, or even outside the wiki (on both the mailing list and the IRC channels). Sadly, I don't see that documentation problem changing anytime soon.

Hope this helps. --cesarb 02:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: sig
Ah sorry for the confusion. I've copied the formatting off your signature (they say immitation is the highest form of flattery?) I don't want a fancy signature at all - just one that is functional and allows people to get to my user and user talk pages. I hope it looks OK - it reads sensibly with JAWS, with the 87 linking to my talk page. As for your original comment, thanks for placing the explanation on the user page as well; I was a little afraid of doing that because it's a major change to a page in userspace, but since she was indefinitely blocked I probably should've applied WP:BOLD! Thanks, Graham 87 09:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

'and correct' is incorrect!
perhaps you'd prefer 'a correct' to 'an correct', but such trifles pale in comparison to what 'and correct' does to the meaning in that sentence. Please fix! (I don't revert)


 * Oops. It does indeed mangle the meaning of the sentence. I've fixed it now. My apologies!

Haven't ever seen 'et-cetera' in 45 years of avid reading either. Hmmmm, apparently we're both correct, but that's an odd form of it and hence you shouldn't be changing something you also know to be an alternative and correct formulation to some other you prefer. If someone writes behaviour (behavior), or other words commonly spelt (spelled) differently it's impolite to force your prejudices upon the other parts of the English speaking world. There is and never has been a standardized (standardised) spelling&mdash;outside of elementary school, where alas, many teachers mistakenly believe there is such&mdash;'tis but a myth in the minds of the uninformed!


 * Absolutely. I agree that there are many many English words that have multiple correct spellings, and I've no problem with that (as long as it's consistent: it annoys me to see mixed American and British spellings within an article for example). It's just that I know the etymology of the word/phrase, and it (incorrectly) led me to belive that 'et cetera', or 'et-cetera' was the correct spelling. Thanks for pointing that out to me though; I've learned something new today! Cheers, CmdrObot 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, Grasshopper, but
 *  'No day is wasted when one learns something new' &mdash;Polgara
 * On the Commonwealth vs North American English spellings...    If we all go around fiddling with sections, such alternating or at least dis-synchronous spellings will inevitably creep in. Since I've read a ton of British writers of history and SF over the years, I frankly have trouble knowing whether my usage is one or the other origination unless I really think on it... which makes no sense as the message matters, not the form, so I just use whatever I put down without typo's.


 * Better for the stress, and the productivity.    (My health-nut brother, a researcher in aging matters, in top physical shape, just had an emergency heart procedure despite innumerable lectures and his own exemplary example of things like commuting to work 3X a week by bicycle (over the short 38 miles of commute!). If all that exercise and healthy diet didn't help him, the rest of us should by rights be doomed! But stress...)     The job stress is a trump card. This is a real eye-opener to me and a shock to everyone that knows him at all! Moral: reduce stress always!


 * Have you seen one of the so called 'Manglish' (Mangled English) humor emails that circulate from time to time where the letters are really switched around in the words, yet the paragraph's are entirely understandable? If that works (scientific fact, not just a trick joke in some carefully contrived text) in the brain to extract the comprehension, I'm sure not gonna waste my time worrying about an 's' vs. a 'z', and extra vowel, etc.    Maybe once we get WYSIWIG editing we'll all have the same spell checkers. I rarely resort to one, so I'm sure my composition behaviours includes many commonwealth English spellings. Some days I'm lucky to get the syntax in links correct! Shrug!
 * ('See this' msg post to CmdrObot)
 * Cheers! // <B>Fra</B> nkB 16:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Response and now an update
Hi Frank, Just to let you know I had responded to and have now updated Whaaatszzzz UP? at the Commons. Best wishes, David Kernow 12:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * xpost Dave,:I've at least partially responded, and altered your fine Barnstar quality work as I'm sure you've noticed by now, but alas, I believe one answer or post to you is still deep in a chain of edits stack that is resisting mightily my desire to back down to save your answer... just know that it involves nine wiki's and I'll get back to it ASAP! // <B>Fra</B> nkB 17:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll
You voted under 'Votes in support of Principle II' but your comments seem to say that you support 'Principle I'. Am I misreading your comments or did you really intend to support 'Principle I'? Principle I has the state name first. Vegaswikian 23:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I could have phrased things better... that was a long read... so was in a hurry. I've been all over the place between five sister projects doing interwiki connections, and ran into a code bug that's killed my progress.    If I had it right, the common name starts the article title, so requires the parenthetical disambig [assuming there are collisions],  and also assuming one does not use additional articles like '... of ...'.      I'd favor that, but it's hair-splitting versus '... (Massachusetts)'. A one char difference in length.


 * All due respect to all the participants, but this kind of debate only goes on because someone won't compromise, so I'm not going to get too excited by someone being emotional and acting out over nits. Redirects handle how many ever permutations one can envision... End story, time to edit somewhere else.


 * If I have the logic wrong, let me know, ASAP, and I'll fix my vote, but II seems to comply best with NAMCON conventions overall, and putting the object early in the title makes the best sense for searching readers.

Hope that helps. Best regards // <B>Fra</B> nkB 23:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (xpost to Vegaswikian.


 * Well, if you are voting to support the object being first then Principal II is the correct way to vote. Your comments just confused me.  I'll watch this page for a while so I'll see any of your replies here.  No need to xpost.  Enjoy.  Vegaswikian 00:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should just keep my big foot out of me mouth! At least I seem to have picked the category consistant with my reasoning! <G> I guess I'll revisit to see what seems vauge and contradictory! Best! (Happy watching!) // <B>Fra</B> nkB 00:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

About that Mann
Could it be World history : the story of Mankind from prehistory to the present by Hugh Thomas? The first edition was published in 1979 and titled History of the World; it was also published in 1979 under the title An unfinished history of the world, in 1982 as A History of the World, and again in 1996 under the first title I listed. Cheers! ♥ Her Pegship ♥ 04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A History of the World, Harper & Row, 1979
 * A History of the World, HarperCollins, 1982, ISBN 0060142812
 * An Unfinished History of the World, Papermac, 3d rev. ed., 1995, ISBN 0333627997
 * World history : the story of Mankind from prehistory to the present, HarperCollins, Rev. ed., 1996, ISBN 0060174773 - See the Amazon description for a review from Library Journal (of course!) which leads me to believe this is a 1996 edition of your long-lost 1979 volume.
 * Unfinished History of the World, Gardners Books, 2003, ISBN 0333712684


 * Xpost Pegship + Flowers!


 * re:Could it be World history : the story of Mankind from prehistory to the present by Hugh Thomas? The first edition was published in 1979 and titled History of the World; it was also published in 1979 under the title An unfinished history of the world,...   Me thimks I'd give you a kiss if in reach... though the twin-title's in '79 are fairly confusing.


 * How I got to [A. Thomas Mann] from Hugh Thomas is one for the neuroscientist's to take note of...    Hmmm, maybe you transposed something to '79 or I just misunderstood?    A History of the World (1979)     Armed Truce (1986)     Ever Closer Union (1991)     Conquest: Montezuma, Cortés and the Fall of Old Mexico (1994)     World History, The Story of Mankind from Prehistory to the Present (1996)     I loved that book, the 'the story of Mankind from prehistory to the present' subtitle is a very strong indicator you got it targeted dead on right. You just made my frustrating night (I've been stuck over in Wiktionary with misbehaving templates)!     I don't know if you've ever read Connections or Works of Man, but this is sort of a combination history of society as impacted by the desemination of ideas (and hence technology), as well as a lot of side discussions of things like public health impacts (plauge can ruin your whole tech base!), attitudes, and of course, politcal developments.      it totally by-passes the typical history means of connecting by events, and focuses more often at a ground-eye-view on life by the common man. Things like when the fork was adopted by the nobles, then the lower classes, the horsecollar and agriculture (enabled the renesaince!), the evidence of when chimney's finally came about (Lost tech in the fall of Rome!) and loads of other facinating tidbits. SO THANKYOU VERY MUCH, Maam!


 * I'll track that down post haste! Even if I have to pay through the nose. (I really can't recall who I loaned it to, which means I've had to hold a 'good mad' very in for a long while! GrrrrEAT NEWS! // <B>Fra</B> nkB 05:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia email - An answer of sorts to your post
A reply has been posted to both User talk:Edward Z. Yang and Template talk:Indent. Please direct further queries to those pages. &mdash; Edward Z. Yang <sup style="font-family:serif;">(Talk) 01:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006
The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

sandbox
I have moved Interwikitmp-grps see also to User:Fabartus/sandbox. I have no idea what it was but it did not seem to belong in the (Main) namespace. -- RHaworth 06:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved Wikquote:template:SP to User:Fabartus/sandbox. Ditto. -- RHaworth 07:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Xpost w/Thanks on User_talk:RHaworth // <B>Fra</B> nkB 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Re your latest above, thanks for your suggestions here; they've been absorbed or pruned in the week since you left them, not least the TOC which I've had to remove and create a DIY in its place – see August 23/24 in the edit history for rationale. Apart from finalizing the notes at the top of the page, another issue awaiting resolution is the page's name; specifically, whether to use "divisions" or "subdivisions". If you have a moment, you may wish to add something here. Best wishes, David Kernow 14:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also
Thanks! The list is a natural spin-off from the table – both now use "contemporary" rather than "current" to take the edge off needing to be very up-to-date. Re your email "Magnus Manske's Push for Commons", thanks for forwarding and your glowing first paragraph; that's what means far more to me than barnstars or the like! Re the map categories at CfD/Speedy, I'm not sure if they qualify as speedy, but I should spot them if they are moved into the main discussion area and vote accordingly. Thanks for the alert. Yours, David 01:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maps at CfD/Speedy
 * /List of contemporary terms for national administrative subdivisions: Looks like it would make a useful template properly bent folded spindled and mutilated! Keep up the good work!

regarding dynamic pulldown box
Quoted from Exodio: "Cool job that, Kudos!... wondering why is subpage and not in template space. If there are other sister projects (?Wikisource?) where is used, there are link-tagging-templates available for all sister's. Cheers! // FrankB 02:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)"
 * Thanks - I stole that from the general list, and is my first attempt at adapting a pulldown box. It makes sense now to me to do as a Template - if i get a chance I will alter that. I will look into the link tagging item. Cheers --Exodio 04:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Imminent deletion of Wikiquote templates
''I'm posting a note here about this issue because you don't seem to be monitoring your en:Wikiquote account or any of your template creations there. Several dozen of your templates have been nominated for deletion. Their purpose is not adequately explained, a casual inspection doesn't make clear what need there is for them, and their creator's entire Wikiquote activity seems to be copying this material from other projects. That combination of unused infrastructure creation and lack of general quote activity usually begs deletion on Wikiquote. I admit I'm reluctant to spend the time I suspect is necessary to analyze these templates without any support from their creator. Could you at least supply us with some rationale for their existence, and pointers to where this cross-project effort is being discussed? Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)''

I'm afraid I'm totally swamped in RL so any and all wiki's, and even email are going unlooked at the moment. Do what you will. However, the benefit of cross-linking the newer sister's and bringing in common tools and some common 'tool' categories is and should be self-evident&mdash;it empowers the greater pool of editors in the large 800# sister to make meaningful contribs with minimal learning curves if familiar tools are available.

Admittedly, many tools in some of the wiki's are less important&mdash; when category and template analysis and management are small side tasks (Wikinews and Wikiquote being most applicable there), but the infrastructrure and interwiki linking is hardly adversely affecting anything. When in doubt, if something seems 'broken', import the new version from en.wikipedia. I'd planned on completing the evolution and documenting the newer simpler system the end of last month, and BAM, life intruded.

When I next have time to wrap my head about the problem(s) [it is a system after all], I'll be writing it up on Meta-Wiki, as I've also been asked to bring it up to the communications committee there for possible interlanguage adaption, I presume. Adverse reactions have been nil, save for a capitalization clash on wiktionary&mdash;their naming conventions favor the lowercase form.

Any examination of the merits of the system templates themselves should be to look at the Wikipedia versions, as I'm certain the versions off Wikipedia are (mostly) a version behind&mdash;there was a major revision/upgrade last time I worked them. System elements are identified in by being offset/sorted under '!'.

If you'd be so kind, drop me a status report if things get torn up. I don't have the time now to do wikitalk infighting. Thanks for the heads up! (Crosspost: Jeffq + 'here' on his T-page).

Thanks // <B>Fra</B> nkB 15:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also apologize for my delay in responding to your last message. (I have been on a partial wiki-break for the past few weeks after an exhausting session of Wikiquote maintenance.) I'm afraid we did delete the listed templates (although two with obvious merit were restored later), and we also discussed a related template, lps, which did not achieve consensus due to a lack of participation. See q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Template:WikiPtmp and 36 others and q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Template:Lps for the deletion discussions. I was rather withering in my comments in the latter because I quickly and easily discovered a links template that does a much better job of the many separate L*s templates that you have been promulgating across projects. I have little patience for folks who get excited about a technology and try to spread it around without first discovering if it's already been done, and done better.


 * Your stated goal of making editing easier for Wikipedia editors makes some assumptions that you don't justify. First, it assumes that all these editors will follow your lead. The ones who are already experienced usually (A) already have ways to make their work quicker without making editing cryptic for less experienced editors; (B) know to look for, and how to find, existing, well-used templates before they start creating oodles of complicated, cross-linked, inadequately tested or documented templates; and [hopefully] (C) realize that each new template requires one or more responsible editors to provide ongoing maintenance to its users, not just plaster them across projects to see if they stick. Second, it assumes that there will be some effort in the various projects to communicate and explain the use of these templates, which is manifestly not the case here. Third, it assumes that one should make work easier for Wikipedians at the expense of clarity of function for less-wiki-experienced editors from other projects, when just the opposite should be the case: that all Wikimedia projects should put the burden of complexity on those most able to handle it — the experienced editors, not the newbies. Fourth, it assumes that the sister projects will agree with your goals. While I'm sure they all would like some measure of cross-project synchronization, there is a disturbing blindness of too many experienced Wikipedians to the fact that all sister projects are much less complicated and much less populated, so adding cumbersome complexity does active harm to both the editors and the maintainers of these projects.


 * Your goals are laudable, but I don't believe you realize the work you are creating for others in mass-copying these creations. I also caught you in a misuse of one of these templates, so you yourself demonstrated why these templates are ill-advised. (See my "P.S. to deletion" comment in the WikiPtmp deletion discussion to see how your understanding of Meta is inaccurate). I would ask that you do quite a bit more research before proceeding with this ambitious project. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

digital book scanning technology
You made a note suggesting renaming the digital books page to the above. I'm about to merge that page, which is clearly the consensus, but I'll keep it if you have any content ready--I'm not happy leaving it empty altogether--pls answer on the e-Book talk page. DGG 08:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

''Sort of! <g> I've been wiki-absent with RL and am on a sick morning&mdash;I've even been ignoring email for up to a week! <boo-hiss!> But then again, librarians are some of my favorite people.''
 * Xpost fm DGG:

Don't see what you did in e-books or with the merge needs anything from me, but wanted to acknowledge your post in mutual return of your courtesy on the heads up. I'd be inclined to leave the Baen paragraph, but I'm admittedly partial&mdash;I added it in the first place when I first learned of the differences in the philosophy's of the ebook publishers. The only one that is making significant money at it is Baen, as you can read in the 'Prime Palaver' archives (no longer an active feature) of the Baen Free Library. Do try to remember that being digital, the dead-tree standards of not repeating info DON'T APPLY to our milieu... and repetition is the mother of learning. (Ask any teacher!) <g>

You might want introduce yourself to your collegue Pegship to check it over. The text of the lengthy debate on e-book vs. e-book naming, pretty much should suggest the standard for all e- stuff, or so I would opine... the point was raised during the debate and an attempt was made to pull in a lot of outside input from posts on divers literary related talk pages, so it got a good hearing from a wide body of editors. Best regards // <B>Fra</B> nkB 16:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC) (cough, cough!)
 * I've known her since I started, and we do discuss a lot. She, in fact, earlier suggested removing the Baen paragraph (and I excerpted and kept some of it.)
 * Deciding between e-whatever or ewhatever is a recurring problem, and usually outside use is evenly divided, and if relevant, the producers of the material generally use different forms. The form without the hyphen makes for easier searching, here or elsewhere; reading is a more individual thing, but personally I recognize terms faster with the hyphen, screen or print. I'd think it better to have consistent use throughout WP, but there will inevitably be a few exceptions with fixed forms.
 * You are right about the dead-tree standard in one sense: there is no penalty for repetition. I don't think you are right altogether: less-immediately relevant material in a long article makes it longer, and less likely to be read through. Being able to put it separately has been one key virtue of all hypertext.

Glad to get to know you DGG 20:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fictional list
Howdy :) I seem to recall you helping save the List of fictional universes article, or something related(?), and was wondering if you might have any comments on or interest in list of fictional books which is at AfD. ttfn :) --Quiddity 18:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Howdy back... I'm time tight and overdue in real life (I've been MIA this month), but will check into it tonight. Almost posted yer talk, til recalled how good you are at the watch list! <g>. TTFN // <B>Fra</B> nkB 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Have a nice cup of tea and a sit down
Good to hear from you again. I see you've been taking my name in vain...<g>. Cheers! Her Pegship 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Burroughs
That seems to be the case. I have reversed the two pages.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! M a  rtinp23  20:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ans on Martinp23. // <B>Fra</B> nkB 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - no problem. About the sig - I keep meaning to get round to it, but forget.  Thanks for reminding me - I'll try to do it later!  M  a  rtinp23  17:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Done it :) M a rtinp23 21:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006
The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

On Advocacy request
My problem Panarjedde has been harassing and following my edits. He's always reverting something. As far as I'm concerned, he gaming the system and I can't assume good faith with him anymore. As far as the joke, it was their long before the advocacy request. (You know I didn't bring the Advocacy request up?) Kingjeff 18:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

All I would like to see is some good faith edits from. He currently is looking for a technicality to delete Image:Ottl ima 010805.jpg. If this was a good faith nomination, I might not have even put up an arguement. Kingjeff 18:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:EuropeNationsByReligion_1097_Shepard's_europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:EuropeNationsByReligion_1097_Shepard's_europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pertinent post on abu badali:Seems to be a petty act because of comments I made on the image (in a press pack!) about the soccer player. See section above and next section too.


 * The source on this was very obvious. Try adding things to the project, not just wasting other's time. 


 * *EuropeNationsByReligion_1097_Shepard's_europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_shepherd_1923.html)   --> Specifically:  http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg


 * This is really picyune and petty action on your part&mdash;and 'Oh-so-transparent' inthat I tramped on your strict anal interpretation on the Fair use Images for deletion yesterday&mdash; proud of yourself? Don't be! Try figuring out why we do or care about somethings&mdash;it may help you make informed judgements and decisions instead of blindly applying a guideline. Like that soccer player image, this is fine in the USA hosted en.wp where both are in full conformance with US law.    Thing I wonder, is whether your heart is in providing information or in being a rules mechanic. If the latter, try studying law and let the rest of us get on with the project. Sheesh! // <B>Fra</B> nkB  20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion for review
Deletion review/Log/2006 November 9. I've put this photo up for review. Kingjeff 16:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: You need to get a life AND Personal edit summaries
The source on this was very obvious. Try adding things to the project, not just wasting other's time.


 * EuropeNationsByReligion_1097_Shepard's_europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_shepherd_1923.html)   --> Specifically:  http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg

This is really picyune and petty action on your part&mdash;and 'Oh-so-transparent' inthat I tramped on your strict anal interpretation on the Fair use Images for deletion yesterday&mdash; proud of yourself? Don't be! Try figuring out why we do or care about somethings&mdash;it may help you make informed judgements and decisions instead of blindly applying a guideline. Like that soccer player image, this is fine in the USA hosted en.wp where both are in full conformance with US law. Thing I wonder, is whether your heart is in providing information or in being a rules mechanic. If the latter, try studying law and let the rest of us get on with the project. Sheesh! // <B>Fra</B> nkB 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Being ok with US Law is far for enough for an unfree image to be used on Wikipedia. It must be ok with Wikipedia's policy on unfree material: WP:FUC. I don't know exactly which image you're talking about, but "soccer player images" usually fail the very first item of this policy, that says that unfree images can only be used when a free alternative can't be created. --Abu Badali 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, try to avoid edit summaries like this.


 * Best regards, --Abu Badali 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In reply, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Admin_Act_seems_questionable. That first paragraph is being interpreted way too broadly. If you truly believe that to be a right and proper interpretation of the implied 'reasonable amount of time' that should be in there, then the inmates are truly taking over the asylum, and wikipedia will definitely soon be seeing the last of me as an editor. I don't have time to bicker and quarrel over legal acts that benefit the project made in good faith. Any other action which diminishes that result by you is intolerable... including being a sea-lawyer or rules mechanic over trivial minor matters&mdash;perhaps in particular such acts.     And do keep in mind that guidelines are NOT POLICY.  I'm interested in a class product, and so should you be. See my comments on User_talk:Carnildo. Who in the hell has time for this picyune crap? And my edit summary was calculated to call it as I see it so do take a look in the mirror I provided you with that, and think about how your acts here impact other's time. Don't be a time stealer, but someone that adds value.  As it is, I traded emails, including one at length with KingJeff on getting GNU or PD images to replace that one so that everyone can be 'happy', if that applies in this juvenile exercise of ill-judgement and ill-will. In the iterim, the article is now going to be missing a photo that is defacto in the public domain for all intents and purposes. Doesn't that strike you a bit wrong that you can maintain an strict rules oriented action based on a rule which never had an existance as a rule, but is one guideline among many&mdash;many of which are in conflict? If you care so little for your own time, try feeling guilty about wasting mine. I have far too little free time for this nonsense. // <B>Fra</B> nkB  21:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

On the way to cross-post this, I rescanned WP:FUC... Someone has really taken things to a ridiculous level with that first sentence or two. I don't and won't ever give a fart whether any other languge's encyclopedia can freely translate ours... which is all that the mission statement (the intro as is were) boils down to in pratical terms. Let those working the other languages take care of themselves. We have enough to do worrying about getting the English version right. Removing content is not right, but self-defeating. // <B>Fra</B> nkB 21:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thought added while xposing above on Abu badali:

Humble pie
Gave Jimbo an 'earful' by email last night when I rechecked the language following the WP:AN exchanges... The template for POLICY, as this IS and I noticed FINALLY is too damn similar to the guidelines template. After three years, I don't look much in graphics boxes like this. In any event, maintain you either allow Fair Use or disallow all. KISS Principle and saves time for all. // <B>Fra</B> nkB 15:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Images and stuff
Ok, fair enough I undeleted Image:N05-1635 The Cannon Law-(HC).jpg as it was just a mishap during the merge. We generaly just look for file links to see if images are in use, guess that was not sufficient this time (though there are no actual links to the image from the page where it was actualy supposed to be used), sorry bout the mishap, but we generaly want fair use images to actualy be used inline in an article. Flying too fast? Well maybe a little, though situations like this are extremely rare (either that or people just don't bother to tell me), out of the 10.000++ orphaned fair use images I must have deleted in my time I only recall 2-3 other cases where simmilar things have happened, and it's easy enough to undo.

As for attribution for Image:The Galileo Affair Cover.jpg I'd say that's good enough. It defenently won't hurt to throw an ISBN and name of publisher in there, but personaly I consider the name of the book to be "good enough" as a source for book covers. --Sherool (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, Thanks. I figured I could count on you. When did Jimbo grow a spine and actually promongulate this new Fair Use policy? (I've been much too busy in RL since August--all but missing here!)    Nice to see him doing something firm and managerial that helps cut down the decision cycle and time demands. There may be hope yet for the project--sometimes I wonder why we do it at all -- despite the inconsistency in this allowing one kind, but not another (Pub Pics--See thread--amazingly he even returned my email in less than a month! <g>) class of fair use (and hard to get) images.     Enough chit-chat, RL calls! Thanks again. // <B>Fra</B> nkB  15:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not rightly sure when (if you refeer to the orphanded fair use thing I believe that was back around May 2005 when "non-commercial" and "permission" images where banned, shortly followed by the call to arms to get rid of all unsourced and untaged images), but it has been a long time coming, like this mail from 2004 suggest he's never been too happy with the fair use situation. The "crackdown" on replacable images are fairly recent (late September or early October I think) though the policy text have long said that fair use should only be used when no alternatives are available (wich was recently "sharpened" to "no free alternative can be created" (see IRC log posted at Wikipedia talk:Fair use). --Sherool (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:German1_shepherd_German_States_Before_and_since_the_French_Revolution_I_Baden_.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:German1_shepherd_German_States_Before_and_since_the_French_Revolution_I_Baden_.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:163xN03-1634- The Galileo Affair-cover-0743488156.jpg
"Fair use" images should not be in the template namespace in any case so I would have ignored that.Geni 13:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I remeber when I deleted it the the image was not in an article or in the portal namespace. Apearences in other namespaces don't matter since "fair use" images should not be there. If the reason for this non appearence was vandalism them I can bring the image back. I don't check what links here for "fair use" images because again it doesn't matter. The question is "Has it been included in an article in the last week?" if no then it should be deleted. Linking to it is not enough to merit inclusion in wikipedia. It needs to be included in an article.Geni 14:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich
Kingjeff 15:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Jeff-- too many projects now, and no time at all, at all! Best regards // <B>Fra</B> nkB 23:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)