User talk:Felicity4711

Welcome!
Hello, Felicity4711, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

In light of the changes you made at County Cork, I especially want to point you to Manual of Style (headings): only the first word of a heading (as well as any proper names) are supposed to be capitalized. Also, for a long time only “straight” quotation marks and apostrophes were allowed on Wikipedia; there is some feeling that “curly quotes” should be allowed too, but you have to be careful when changing them inside links, because some links won’t work with a curly quote. I’d say the general feeling on straight and curly quotes is that it’s fine to use whichever you like in your own writing, but it’s probably better not to edit a page that consistently uses one type to make it use the other.

If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! &mdash;Angr ( tɔk ) 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. Your above statement of who you are is most appropriately put on your user page. This is your talk page, which is for other people to leave you messages, and for you to answer them. You can also answer people on their talk pages if you want to be sure they see your answer.&mdash;Angr ( tɔk ) 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply
I hope I’m doing this right, editing the page to reply to your comment&mdash;I guess I’ll have to re-read the manual to make sure! In the meantime...

I read the linked point about capitalisation and stand corrected, and will happily conform to the Wikipedia standard of header capitalisation from now on.

However, I’m fanatical about directed quotes and apostrophes; as long as Wikipedia allows them, I plan to fix every single one, one random article at a time. I just think that directed quotes and apostrophes look more professional, more like an actual published work; plus, aesthetically, non-directed quotes really, really bother me, and make me want to not use Wikipedia&mdash;which would be unfortunate, because I learn so much about so many things just by going through articles replacing quote marks!

Thank you for the welcome and I will certainly read the links you suggested. :-)


 * PS: I forgot to mention that I’m very careful to leave links that contain undirected apostrophes intact and use the | (pipe) so that the directed version is only the displayed version. :-)


 * Hi! Thanks for the answer. Another convention at Wikipedia is to sign comments on talk pages by typing, which leaves a link back to your user page as well as giving the time at which you left the message. Or you can click on the “signature” square (the second from the right) above the edit box. Now, as to apostrophes and quotes; the only reason I complained about it at all is that at this edit, you didn’t fix a link with a straight apostrophe in it. You changed Sheep's Head to Sheep’s Head (note the change from blue to red). In this case, the best thing to do is to make a redirect from Sheep’s Head to Sheep's Head. Do you know how to do that? You click on Sheep’s Head and in the edit box you type  . After you do that, Sheep’s Head will turn blue and clicking on it will take you straight to Sheep's Head.&mdash;Angr ( tɔk ) 08:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh my goodness, you’re right. I didn’t catch that one. If I understand your instruction correctly, I’d be creating a page called Sheep’s Head that would then redirect to Sheep's Head...is it simpler if I just say Sheep’s Head ? I’m happy to do either one. Felicity4711 16:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you did it exactly right! Now you can link to either Sheep's Head or Sheep’s Head and both will go to the same article. Making a piped link will work too. There’s also an easier way to insert curly quotes now. Instead of typing &amp;rsquo; every time you can just click on the quotes you need under “Special characters” underneath the “Save page” button below the edit box. Angr ( tɔk ) 18:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don’t unilaterally impose stupid “smartquotes” on articles which previously didn’t contain them
See Manual_of_Style AnonMoos 17:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect that was accidental. Felicity is probably using an external editor which automatically replaces normal quotation marks with typographer’s quotes. Now that her attention has been drawn to it, I doubt it will happen again.&mdash;BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-02-20 T 14:35 Z


 * Ack. After reading her comments above, I see that it was intentional, after all. Felicity, typographer’s quotation marks belong in printed material, not on the web. DO NOT REPLACE NORMAL QUOTATION MARKS WITH TYPOGRAPHER’S QUOTES IN WIKIPEDIA.&mdash;BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-02-20 T 14:38 Z


 * Typographer’s quotes belong anywhere that they’re possible. The lack of directed apostrophes and quotes on the net is a flaw that is finally starting to change. I care how apostrophes and quotes look. I wouldn’t have bothered creating an account on Wikipedia if it didn’t offer directed apostrophes and quotes. Felicity4711 09:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If you’re going to do this, at least use the Unicode characters ‘ “ ’ ” instead of the HTML entities. android 79  14:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can do that if that’s what everyone would prefer, but it was my understanding that the Wikipedia standard was [ampersand] rsquo [semicolon]. This is as opposed to [ampersand] [octothorpe] 146 [semicolon], which is what I would consider to be “HTML.” Felicity4711 00:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, those are both HTML entities. Please use the Unicode. android  79  01:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I’ll consider it. Felicity4711 02:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, are you using a script or other wise (semi-)automated process to do this? android 79  14:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope! Doing it all by hand. :-) Felicity4711 00:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Before you continue, I would suggest that you make sure that there is not widespread opposition to this change. Since typographer’s quotes don’t appear anywhere on a standard keyboard, the only way to enter them into articles is through HTML entities (very annoying) or with the special characters box (slightly less annoying). Please post a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style describing your plans. android  79  01:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there is some opposition, though I don’t know whether I’d call it “widespread.” The fact that typographer’s quotes don’t appear on a standard keyboard is part of why being able to enter them in other ways, such as HTML, the special characters box (extremely inconvenient to use), or combinations of keystrokes in Windows and Macintosh, is so important. I’ll consider posting a discussion. Felicity4711 02:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: I’ve posted to the existing discussion on directed versus non-directed quotes. Felicity4711 03:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don’t add smartquotes to articles. Many people don’t know how to add them, and others don’t feel it’s a good use of their time. This makes for an inconsistent look within articles. There is also the danger that people will use them incorrectly. HTML entites make it especially difficult to read an article’s source. There may not be an explicit rule against smart quotes, but most Wikipedians don’t use them, and I’m guessing that most Wikipedians don’t think they should be phased in. Rhobite 02:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don’t see how the fact that most people don’t know how or can’t be bothered to add directed quotes means that I can’t. I do know how, and I consider it a worthwhile use of my time to make Wikipedia more aesthetically pleasing and professional-looking. If we’re going to stop using markup because it makes the source code harder to read, let’s talk about not doing tables and charts instead of picking on directed quotes! I’m guessing that the fact that directed quotes are possible on Wikipedia means that some Wikipedians thought they should be used. Felicity4711 02:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It makes the source code harder to read and edit if you use HTML entities. It makes it harder to edit when you use Unicode. “More aesthetically pleasing and professional-looking” is an opinion that not everyone (including me) will share. Why don’t you take this discussion to a larger audience to gauge editor opinion on the issue? android  79  02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK then...if we’re going to stop using markup because it makes the source code harder to read and edit, let’s talk about not doing tables and charts instead of picking on directed quotes! :-) As I said in another post, I’ll consider starting a discussion on the MOS talk page. [nod] Felicity4711 03:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: I’ve posted to the existing discussion on directed versus non-directed quotes. Felicity4711 03:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you at least use unicode, then? HTML entities make the source unreadable, with no apparent benefit. Tables, on the other hand, are absolutely necessary to articles, and any unreadability in the source is a necessary evil. Rhobite 22:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I’ll try to use Unicode. It’ll depend on what terminal I’m on when I edit. Cluttered source code for tables is a necessary evil to you; cluttered source code for directed apostrophes and quotes is a necessary one to me. Felicity4711 03:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Al Leong
Thanks for adding They Live to the Al Leong article. I went back and watched it again, and noticed Al for the first time.&mdash;BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-02-20 T 14:35 Z


 * Did I add that? I don’t remember. Well, you’re welcome! :-) Felicity4711 09:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Net Follower
You appear to have attracted a net follower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bblackmoor who has made it their task to follow behind you and undo changes that you make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bblackmoor The user posts links to the Wikipedia Manual of Style to give the appearance of an official Wikipedia correction, but the Manual of Style link given has no relevence to the correctness of their action.

The user’s talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bblackmoor contains his manifesto in which he claims “the vast majority of the human race should not be allowed near a computer, much less be allowed to use one to edit an encyclopedia.”

Good luck.


 * [sigh] Nothing good ever lasts. Well, thanks for the heads-up...Reading his talk page, I notice that he claims to have stopped editing Wikipedia except for two pet articles, and that he considers Wikipedia a waste of time since a persitent crank can simply lurk and undo someone’s changes. Kind of ironic, considering that he’s following me around reverting all my changes. Felicity4711 09:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn’t follow you around or anything of the kind. After you replaced correct quotation marks with typographer’s quotation marks in one of the few Wikipedia articles in which I still maintain an interest, I corrected a few of your other misguided edits as a general service to Wikipedia. I hadn’t given you another thought until today, when someone brought your continued...“vandalism” is too strong a word, but not by much...to my attention, and pointed me toward the administrators board where the complaints about you are being collected.&mdash;BBlackmoor (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK then. As a service to Wikipedia, I’ll just have to check periodically to make sure my directed quotes haven’t been changed to non-directed quotes as part of your continued...“vandalism” is too strong a word, but not by much... Felicity4711 02:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Curiously enough, the anonymous coward who posted this warning about Felicity4711’s alleged “net follower” has never made any other edit on Wikipedia. That strikes me as a little odd. A little creepy, even. It would seem I have my own “net follower”...&mdash;BBlackmoor (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So some anonymous coward posts something about you once on my talk page and you have a “net follower,” but you change multiple articles, explicitly to undo my edits, and I don’t have a net follower? Heh. Felicity4711 02:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Directed Quotes: Why They Matter to Me
Directed quotes are 90% of the reason I bothered to register for a Wikipedia account. Directed quotes make the difference between actual, professional publications and something someone churned out with no care for how it looked. A “professional” publication that doesn’t bother to have directed apostrophes and quotes is an insult to one’s intelligence; the author is, in effect, saying, “I didn’t bother to make this a look like a real publication because I don’t think you’d have the sophistication to know the difference.” It’s frustrating that, after having to grit my teeth and do without directed quotes on-line for such a long time (for example, Usenet), they’re finally here, thanks to HTML, and they’re still not being used, even on professional Websites. I’m willing to permanently sacrifice time out of my finite, mortal lifespan and put them in where other people didn’t know how or didn’t have time, because the trade-off is that Wikipedia looks professional, is something I can be proud of having contributed to, and is something I would want to read. If the rules of Wikipedia changed so that directed quotes were not allowed at all, I’d delete my account and would only read Wikipedia by first downloading the text of the Wikipedia entry, then opening it in Microsoft Word and globally replacing all the apostrophes and quotes with directed versions before I started reading. Not being able to use directed quotes (in the world in general, not just on Wikipedia) is like being a second-class citizen. There’s something better, something more true to the experience you want to have, but that’s only for the other people who are lucky enough to belong to the ruling class. You only get non-directed quotes, because you don’t matter. You’re not important enough to have the freedom to choose. Felicity4711 03:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why attempting to force the broad general use of “smartquotes” is not advisable at this time
(1) They’re a pain from the point of view of article maintenance. People editing the article after you may not always use them, and this will result in an inconsistent mixture of quoting styles, which somebody will have to eventually come along and fix.

(2) There are technical issues. Some web-browsing software (older versions, it’s true, but still used by many people, and by no means antediluvian) won’t display “smartquotes.” Some web-browsers will display them correctly when a user views an article, but won’t handle them correctly when a user tries to edit an article. More generally, adding “smartquotes” to an article in many cases transforms it from using only 7-bit ASCII characters or 8-bit ISO 8859-1 characters into using Unicode characters with a variable-width UTF-8 encoding, and this drastically increases the number of things that can go wrong. It’s not really desirable to unnecessarily force an article to use Unicode when its subject matter doesn’t require it.

(3) Many people seem to disagree with you. You may find this deeply wounding and traumatic, but I’m afraid that part of participating in Wikipedia is dealing with such disagreements. You may think that “smartquotes” add “professionalism,” but many people who were around the Internet during the first half of the 1990s have deeply negative associations with on-line computer use of “smartquotes,” since back then they were a proprietary Microsoft thing, whose implementation by Microsoft did not conform to any publicly-recognized character-set standards, and which kept messing things up in on-line forums by intruding into contexts where most users would not see them as they were intended to be seen (but instead as empty boxes, blanks, or strange diacritic-accented characters). AnonMoos 10:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (1) Noted. Ideally, I would be that someone, but I couldn’t promise it.


 * (2) Noted.


 * (3) I don’t find disagreement intrinsically wounding and traumatic; I’d expect some resistance/debate on Wikipedia. However, it goes both ways. If I have to acknowledge other people’s styles, then they should have to acknowledge mine.


 * Since I myself used to browse the Web with Lynx in the early 1990s, I understand how those negative associations could develop. Even today, using Firefox, I still see empty boxes, boxes with numbers and letters in them, and strange diacritically-accented characters on some pages. But the fact that directed apostrophes and quotes are more possible than they used to be is part of what inspires me to encourage their usage. Felicity4711 03:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Punk-frogs.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Punk-frogs.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. 06:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I think I’ve got it fixed now. Felicity4711 02:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please pause for the moment
You’ve gone on a roll today imposing your idea of what quotes should look like on dozens of articles, without discussion. It’s quite clear from your talk page that this style is controversial and many disagree with you; at the very least you’re making the source extremely difficult to read and edit. I also get the feeling that you’re deliberately avoiding doing this on high-traffic articles in an attempt to sneak this in “under the radar.” A discussion has been initiated at the ANI; I think it would be a good idea to pause what you’re doing and discuss your plans there.—Merzbow 23:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I’m used to HTML source code being somewhat harder to read than plain text, such as when I write &amp;#146; to get a directed apostrophe in, for example, my LiveJournal, so it hadn’t occurred to me that other people looking at source code would be unused to it. As for the choice of articles, it’s much less sinister than trying to sneak it under the radar. I’ve been hitting the random article link and editing the shortest articles first, since I know I can get through them in one sitting and therefore won’t have to stop halfway through and leave the article an inconsistent combination of directed and non-directed quotes. I guess the fact that I’m using the random article link is why I’ve ended up on some relatively obscure articles. :-) Felicity4711 14:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I’ve given you some support with a plea for sanity on the ANI—you are not entirely alone in your views (though you may be more passionately committed to them than most). Doremítzwr 03:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :-) Felicity4711 14:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I admire your zeal for wishing to improve the standard of wikipedia, but wiki works by consensus, and there is a consensus against using HTML for quotes. If you feel this consensus is wrong, then this should be addressed before you carry on using HTML. As it is, your work is only going to be changed back, as has already happened with Monochrome painting. This results in a waste of your time and that of others. Tyrenius


 * What should be stressed is that the administrators are only opposed to html smart quotes; they are perfectly happy for you to institute unicode smart quotes. I’m sure that this is a satisfactory compromise for everyone concerned. Doremítzwr 19:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is indeed. I’ll be sure to use Unicode quotes from now on. I had resisted doing so before only because I do a lot of my article-editing on a Linux box on which there is no keystroke (such as Alt+0146) to produce typographical characters as there is Windows. To get Unicode characters on that computer, I have to keep a text document on the desktop that contains the special characters, then copy and paste them into the articles as I edit. This is more of a hassle than simply typing &amp;rsquo;. However: as I said, I’ll be sure to use the Unicode quotes from now on. Felicity4711 14:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at this screenshot of the article Calvin Trillin that you edited. It shows how the directed quotes appear on the latest version of Internet Explorer for the Macintosh when the user has logged in in Japanese. The quotes appear twice as wide as they should because IE has rendered them in a two-byte Japanese font. I suspect that similar or worse problems occur on many currently used Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and other non-English operating systems. Is this how you want these quotation marks to appear to the tens or hundreds of millions of people who use those systems? Tomgally 22:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose not. I hope using Unicode directed quotes solves this problem, however, because as much as I don’t want Asian users to have to look at weird spacing, I also don’t want Western users to look at undirected quotes. Felicity4711 14:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Unicode directed quotes in Japanese Internet Explorer for the Macintosh look the same as the HTML directed quotes: twice as wide as they should be. On Japanese IE for Windows XP, they look fine. Tomgally 11:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case I’ll be sure to use Unicode ones from now on. Felicity4711 02:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read Tomgally’s message carefully: “The Unicode directed quotes in Japanese Internet Explorer for the Macintosh look the same as the HTML directed quotes: twice as wide as they should be.”&mdash;Jeandré, 2006-07-18t19:26z

A Working Man’s Barnstar for your instituting directed apostrophes and quotation marks

 * Thanks! Felicity4711 13:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You’re entirely welcome. Doremítzwr 20:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Repairing Felicity4711’s damage to Wikipedia
It has become obvious that Felicity4711 is going to continue to damage Wikipedia despite being asked nicely by numerous people to stop this destructive behavior. Since, yet again, the Wikipedia administration is failing in its responsibilities, it falls upon the rest of us to undo her damage. The easiest way to work together on this, I think, is to work chronologically from past to present. I started with the Inseminoid article, which she damaged on 2005-09-18, and have repaired everything up to 2005-10-21 20:02:22, Blaxploitation. It was actually easier than I expected, because about half of those articles had already been repaired. So do not be put off by the apparent size of the task--Wikipedia’s other editors have already put quite a dent in it.&mdash;BBlackmoor (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Repairing Bblackmoor’s damage to Wikipedia
It has become obvious that Bblackmoor is going to continue to damage Wikipedia despite being asked nicely by numerous people to stop this destructive behavior. Since, yet again, the Wikipedia administration is failing in its responsibilities, it falls upon the rest of us to undo his damage. The easiest way to work together on this, I think, is to work chronologically from past to present. Felicity4711 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There’s no damage to repair; stop being ridiculous — the both of you
BBlackmoor — an amicable compromise was reached concerning this issue on the Administrators’ Noticeboard, where it was decided that HTML directed quotation marks and apostrophes were not be used, as they make the source script unintelligible and cause display problems for a significant number of users. However, Unicode directed quotation marks and apostrophes were not disallowed, as they do not negatively affect the source script (which it could even be argued to positively affect) and cause very minor display problems for a very small proportion of Wikipedia users. The decision reached on the noticeboard represents no failure of the Wikipedia administration in its responsibilities; arguments were advanced by both camps, and consensus was reached. This is how Wikipedia is governed; thus, you ought to accept and respect the decision made on the noticeboard. Stop being intransigent.

You’ve matched Felicity4711’s zeal for instituting directed punctuation with a comprable zeal for using solely primes. Though both efforts are, in the grand scheme of things, fairly inconsequential, yours is the misguided one; " & ' may look like a quotation mark and an apostrophe, but they are, in point of fact, primes, representing ‘inches’ & ‘feet’, respectively. You may argue that the differences are negligible; however, so are the differences between a háček (as in ǎ) and a breve (as in ă) — but they are not interchangeable, so why should primes and directed punctuation be?

Felicity4711 — being an echo is not helpful. I did not reply when I first noticed BBlackmoor’s post here, as I believed that I could expect a mature response from you. You should have shown that BBlackmoor was acting contrary to consensus by citing the recent discussion on the noticeboard and/or citing the policy at Wikipedia’s Manual of Style. Unfortunately, all you have done is bring yourself down to his level.

—Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologise. I’d hope to show Bblackmoor how it felt to have one’s contributions called “damage” by reflecting his own flame back at him. It was an echo of sorts. It certainly wasn’t literally meant as a critique of administration, FWIW. Felicity4711 02:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don’t worry about it. I just wanted to prevent a pointless flame war (though perhaps I was a little harsh on both of you). In all fairness, if BBlackmoor goes around converting your unicode directed punctuation into primes, he is doing damage. However, none of his other contributions (of which I am aware) can be considered damaging in any way — the few articles he continues to edit are of exceptional quality. What he must realise is that Wikipedia is run by consensus, which, though being flawed in many ways, is such a fundamental element of its modus operandi, that noöne should expect to be able to change it. It is always difficult to accept consensus when it runs contrary to what one believes, but accept it is what one must do. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Silverwolf
I think it is great that you added the stuff about the computer lettering in Silverwolf. I remember that striking me quite a bit as well back when I was reading some of them. I did not know the font was Geneva from Apple (I became an Apple user in 1999, so I loved this tidbit). I always thought they did it to save money and wasn't sure if I liked it or not, though it was certainly an improvement over some of the lettering I saw in other independents now that I think of it. I do think your addition is a little long and some of it sounds a little unencylopedic, and I might edit it a little some time in the future if you don't mind. Malnova 01:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By 1999, the font Geneva had changed quite a bit in its journey from bitmap to TrueType, so it’s understandable if you weren’t struck by the resemblance right away. :-) Yes, you’re welcome to tighten up my addition. :-) Felicity4711 02:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Straight Quotes
I reverted your quote mark changes to “Turbo Teen” because in my opinion slanted ones look like crap on some computer screens (like mine) and I think they’re stupid to begin with. I edit pages with my web browser which adds straight quotes by default&mdash;if you use a word processor like Word it defaults to slanted ones. In an attempt to keep the page consistent when I edit, I change them all back to straight quotes. This isn’t an argument to fight over because Wikipedia has no official preference between the two as both are acceptable (see Manual of Style)&mdash;however I try to maintain consistency in articles I’ve written/contribute to&mdash;like “Turbo Teen” and I appreciate that they not be changed. Thank you Cyberia23 19:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Straight quotes look like crap on all computer screens and I think they’re stupid to begin with. I also try to maintain consistency in articles I’ve written/contribute to which is why I change straight quotes to directed quotes whenever I edit any article. I appreciate that directed quotes not be changed to straight quotes. Thank you. Felicity4711 02:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems we’re deadlocked then. Cyberia23 21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True. I’ll see if I can avoid your articles until they’re the only ones left without directed quotes; there should be so many other articles for me to work on that that will never happen. If I do one of yours without realizing it I apologize in advance. Felicity4711 10:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That’s like saying you won’t kill my cat until it’s the last one in the neighborhood. Thanks I guess. Seeing theres several million articles here—good luck with that...I guess asking you to stop is pointless. But just to let you know that what you’re doing is completely unnecessary and I’m not the only one who thinks so as I’ve read some of the other comments for users against what your doing. I’d say go ahead with your mission if Wikipedia declared directed quotes the standard and all the other must be changed, but officially they don’t care. So why bother? I can’t believe you made an account here just to address quote marks. Is it that boring in Canada? Cyberia23 05:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your rude reply makes me realize that life is too short for compromise. I regret having offered you an olive branch, and from now on, I’ll put directed quote marks in any damn article I want. There are indeed millions of articles&mdash;precisely the reason I had figured I could avoid yours indefinitely, in case you hadn’t comprehended that&mdash;and I’m willing to work on them one a time. Even if Wikistalkers follow me around changing them back, it doesn’t affect the timetable, since I’ll probably never be finished anyway. It’s not unnecessary; it’s making Wikipedia something I can bear to look at, and bringing Wikipedia up to the standard of a professional publication, as it deserves to be. That’s “why bother.” Felicity4711 02:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you don’t own this place&mdash;you don’t make the rules&mdash;an we don’t have to adhere to what you think is right. I’m probably filing an RfC about this. Cyberia23 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don’t try to own this place or make the rules. All I do is follow the rules, which allow directed quotes. Based on your above comments I should also file, on grounds of incivility and personal attacks. Felicity4711 07:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, since you know the rules you’d know a “Personal Attack” is based on verbal threats such as vulgar name calling, harassment, and an intimidation. So show me where I’ve done that to you? Yeah, I like to be a smart ass but theres a difference between being sarcastic and openly making threats. Of course you’re probably one of those people who consider anyone speaking out against them a “personal attack” right? An RfC, by the way, is not a personal attack&mdash;it open a discussion about the issue to get everyone’s opinion on the matter. I’m not putting you on a slab with it. If you think I’m attacking you by all means, file an RfC against me. You can do the work for me...Just make sure you explain your crusade to purge Wikipedia of improper quote marks because you personally don’t like them and expect editors like me to out of our way to maintain your personal standards. Cyberia23 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You’re confusing legally actionable threats with flaming. I don’t claim you made physical threats. You were just rude. “Incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress.”
 * “I reverted your quote mark changes to ‘Turbo Teen’ because in my opinion slanted ones look like crap on some computer screens (like mine) and I think they’re stupid to begin with.”
 * “That’s like saying you won’t kill my cat until it’s the last one in the neighborhood.”
 * “What you’re doing is completely unnecessary.”
 * “I can’t believe you made an account here just to address quote marks. Is it that boring in Canada?”
 * “You’re probably one of those people who consider anyone speaking out against them a ‘personal attack.’ ”
 * “You expect editors like me to out of our way to maintain your personal standards.”
 * You began by being rude and escalated even when offered deference to your wishes. You want to be able to get away with “being a smart ass” and “sarcasm” on Wikipedia, but call for arbitration when your attitude is reflected back at you. Felicity4711 22:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your very first reply&mdash;where you copy and pasted almost word-for-word what I had said, but switched certain words around, seemed smart assed to me to begin with. I believe you did this to mock me from the get go which implied you didn’t care about my opinion and you rather insult me. I would have left it go with my “I guess we’re deadlocked” comment because I can see you’re adamant about your quote marks after reading that you started an account here EXCLUSIVELY to deal with them. However, your next response, your so-called “olive branch” solution—to leave what I do alone, until they’re the only ones left—is utterly ridiculous.

I may have been out of line comparing it to “cat killing”—Instead, I probably should have compared it, hypothetically, to watching you invade the surround countries, but promising that you’ll leave my nation alone until mine was the last to conquer. You think in a hypothetical war situation that would be an acceptable deal? Anyway, I don’t believe you’d check every article’s history that you were about to direct quote to make sure I wasn’t listed in there somewhere as an editor.

I’d like you see this screenshot which shows what your direct quotes do on some computers: They look retarded. Don’t ask me why they show up that way, because short of reinstalling Windows I’ve tried everything to fix them. You could just say “well thats your problem” and maybe it is, but I’ve seen it happen on two other PCs and it’s the reason why I freaking loath those stupid quote marks. The only computers I’ve seen it work fine on are Macs&mdash;which I don’t use.

But whatever, I know this is really a stupid argument to begin with so I’m done talking to you. You can change what you want and I can revert what I want and neither of us would be right or wrong. I already checked finding that bringing a discussion up about quote marks is pointless as we’re not the first two to butt heads about it, and the RfC would probably get rejected. I still think you’re wasting your time and could provide better constructive editing here in other ways. Cyberia23 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your very first reply&mdash;where you copy and pasted almost word-for-word what I had said, but switched certain words around, seemed smart assed to me to begin with.


 * That’s because your first post, where you said directed quotes looked like crap and were stupid to begin with, was smart-assed. I reflected your attitude back at you. If having someone say back to you what you said to them hurts you, that’s kind of a clue that what you said was hurtful, isn’t it?


 * I believe you did this to mock me from the get go which implied you didn’t care about my opinion and you rather insult me.


 * Your choice of words in your first post implied to me that you didn’t care about my opinion and would rather insult me, so my reply made us even.


 * I would have left it go with my “I guess we’re deadlocked” comment because I can see you’re adamant about your quote marks after reading that you started an account here EXCLUSIVELY to deal with them. However, your next response, your so-called “olive branch” solution—to leave what I do alone, until they’re the only ones left—is utterly ridiculous.


 * I don’t see why. We both agreed that there are millions of articles and there was no chance of my finishing all of them except for yours. However, since you don’t appreciate the effort, I’ll gladly withdraw the offer and edit any damn article I want.


 * I may have been out of line comparing it to “cat killing”—instead, I probably should have compared it, hypothetically, to watching you invade the surround countries, but promising that you’ll leave my nation alone until mine was the last to conquer. You think in a hypothetical war situation that would be an acceptable deal?


 * On a planet where there are millions of countries and it is impossible for me conquer all of them except for yours, yes.


 * Anyway, I don’t believe you’d check every article’s history that you were about to direct quote to make sure I wasn’t listed in there somewhere as an editor.


 * No; that would take forever. Instead, to make sure I kept my word, I read your User Contributions list and made a mental note of the articles in it. So there.


 * I’d like you see this screenshot which shows what your direct quotes do on some computers: They look retarded. Don’t ask me why they show up that way, because short of reinstalling Windows I’ve tried everything to fix them. You could just say “Well that’s your problem” and maybe it is, but I’ve seen it happen on two other PCs and it’s the reason why I freaking loath those stupid quote marks. The only computers I’ve seen it work fine on are Macs&mdash;which I don’t use.


 * First of all, even in the screenshot you provided, the directed quotes look better than the undirected quotes. Second, I edit Wikipedia on both a Windows computer and a Linux computer and have never had a problem viewing directed quotes. Third, I think can help. The problem on your end is that you’re using a Wikipedia Skin that uses a sans serif Web font such as Verdana. Such fonts are ugly in and of themselves, and also have ugly punctuation (both non-directed and directed). If you go to “My preferences” and select the one of the following Skins&mdash;“Classic,” “MySkin,” “Nostalgia,” or “Simple”&mdash;Wikipedia will appear to you in Times New Roman, in which the directed quote marks look much better. Also, increasing the font size (Ctrl-+ in Mozilla/Firefox, if you use that; or via the menus in Internet Explorer) will make the fonts appear smoother and may make the directed quotes look more co-ordinated in appearance with the rest of the text.


 * But whatever, I know this is really a stupid argument to begin with so I’m done talking to you.


 * Good; then I can assume this will be the last time I hear from you. Felicity4711 21:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100% with the people who keep telling you to STOP PUTTING PAGE LAYOUT SYMBOLS IN WIKIPEDIA. --148.128.243.8 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Date links
Please don’t use piped links on dates&mdash;it prevents date preferences from working. older ≠ wiser 02:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Felicity4711 03:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Space Age Bachelor Pad
A “” template has been added to the article Space Age Bachelor Pad, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also “What Wikipedia is not” and Wikipedia’s deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  tomasz.  12:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Felicity, I’ve made an attempt to save this article. I agree with you that it should be included in WP. Also, I went out of my way to avoid using any apostrophes or quotation marks in my rewrite...don’t wanna set you off! ;-) --Bigscarymike 02:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hee hee! Thanks. :-) Felicity4711 07:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bill’s House
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Bill’s House, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Care-Takin’ Care of Business
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Care-Takin’ Care of Business, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Girl, You'll Be a Giant Soon
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Girl, You'll Be a Giant Soon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gone with the Windstorm
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Gone with the Windstorm, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hank’s Back (AKA The Unbearable Lightness of Being Hank)
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Hank’s Back (AKA The Unbearable Lightness of Being Hank), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It Ain’t Over ’Til the Fat Neighbor Sings
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article It Ain’t Over ’Til the Fat Neighbor Sings, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Now Who’s the Dummy?
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Now Who’s the Dummy?, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Spin the Choice
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Spin the Choice, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Style copyediting
I have reverted your recent changes to Satellite of Love (Mystery Science Theater 3000) because many of them do not follow the guidelines laid out by Manual of Style:


 * Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation. (WP:MOS, "Inside or outside")


 * The exclusive use of straight quotes and apostrophes is recommended. (WP:MOS, "Straight or curly?")

Your changes also included removal of spaces around em-dashes, which the current version of WP:DASH seems to claim as the official position. This is not in keeping with long-standing policy which had accepted em-dashes with or without spaces, so long as one style was maintained throughout the article. But I haven't monitored such changes closely enough, so I won't oppose your restoring this particular style unless and until I find this change to be unsupported by earlier consensus.

However, I applaud your insertion of non-printing space between headings and paragraphs. I believe it's much easier to spot headings when this is done, and do it myself when I am editing articles for other reasons.

I would also encourage you to use edit summaries more often, even (and maybe especially) when your edits are minor or stylistic. This is an important tool in long-term article maintenance. Thank you for listening. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding punctuation inside or outside quote marks, and directed (curly) or non-directed (straight) quote marks, I disagree. While putting punctuation that is not part of what is being quoted outside of the quote marks is more “logical,” it is nevertheless typographically incorrect. Commas and periods always go inside the quote marks because it looks cleaner that way. This is standard typographical procedure, not just my opinion. Similarly, directed quotes are the professional standard and should be used whenever possible. Since we no longer have to live with the limitations of DOS, and can use directed quotes, we should do so, to keep Wikipedia looking as clean and professional as possible.


 * How do I add these points to the discussion on the Manual of Style? Edit the MOS page itself or go to its “Discuss this page”? Or is there a third way?


 * Also, thank you for being gentle and patient in your comment. Felicity4711 (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the process to make such a change is indeed be to discuss it first on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, as I see you have already started. But you'll find two important factors that are unlikely to allow this change:
 * Your idea of what is typographically correct is too parochial, as it starts out for pretty much every editor who takes up style issues on Wikipedia (myself included!). Most professional style guides in the U.S. do indeed make this point, but it is not what other countries' professional style guides say. Because Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, it has had to craft its own style conventions and compromises. Actually, all professional style guides make and enforce their own slightly different styles (e.g., abbreviations of "U.S."/"US", serial comma usage, capitalization, etc.), but this and the issue of what are quotations marks ("double quotes" vs. 'single quotes' or apostrophes, as we Yanks would call them) are two of the most visible differences between U.S. and British English that can't be split down any middle. (And that doesn't even consider Canadian, Australian, Indian, and other prominent English populations.)
 * And that leads to the other factor. Wikipedians made a fairly logical compromise many years ago that we'd use the British "logical quotation" style, but the American quotation-mark style (double quotes with single quotes for quotes-within-quotes), originally argued for technical reasons dealing with search-engine friendliness. This compromise has withstood thousands of editors' attempts to push it toward all British (the mother tongue) or all American (we host the servers and have had a disproportionate impact on the Web). You'll find that this is one of the most common arguments in the currently 109 pages of WP:MOS discussion archives (never mind all the child pages' talk pages). I myself participated in one of the many ongoing arguments (perhaps two years after the original compromise), and after studying all of the relevant discussions (something which many would-be style changes don't bother to do), found that WP has gone through several generations of editors who have thrown all their best (and often the same) arguments into the conflict, with the result being no change at all.
 * Of course, you're welcome to make a new attempt — some things do change over time — but this is a singularly difficult nut to crack. Besides, I suspect that the global reach of English Wikipedia may eventually have an impact on the professional style guides as they slowly realize there's little logic in keeping such a silly convention that happens to have been invented, if I recall correctly, by an obscure 19th-century teacher whose sole claim to fame was his publication of an arbitary list of rules which form the basis of American style guidelines, many of which have since fragmented among the prominent U.S. publishers (e.g., NYT, Chicago University, AP, APA, etc.).
 * Oh, and on the issue of "curly" quotes, nothing would please me more than to see the use of more meaningful and distinct punctuation than the infernal "straight" quotes we inherited from 1960s-era computer technology. (It's much older than DOS.) But the problem is not the character set, it's the keyboards. Until Microsoft or some other global technology power changes standard keyboards to include proper quotes and apostrophes without doing complex multi-finger sequences to produce them, we're not likely to change that annoyance, either. Wikipedia is supposed to be editable by everyone, and most editors probably are doing well to type faster than hunt-and-peck, never mind doing alt-num-keypad chords to produce commonly used characters. But I'm sure you can take a shot at that one, too, if you wish. (I haven't even tried.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Felicity, until the Manual of Style no longer favors logical quoting and straight quote marks, I ask that you not edit pages to impose other standards, as you did here and here. Ilkali (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Applause for attempts to improve Wikipedia!
Felicity, I would like to offer my appreciation, and gratitude, that there are others who believe in improvement (such flawed logic as “if it ainʼt broke, donʼt fix it” smacks of much irony and much hypocricy when such people are asked if they still use candles instead of light-bulbs ☺ — while I roll about laughing). I admire your unfaultering dedication to your beliefs, and committment to continue fixing the many errors which are abundent here, and not just in typography.

I have, on several occasions, attempted to improve various aspects of Wikipedia (content, typography, accessibilty, usabilty, quality/validity of code, etc.). I am most pleased to find someone who does not instantly dismiss such noble attempts to help Wikipedia ‘grow-up’. Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia (and its editors) have to want improvment before it will happen. Most do not even consider the possibility of trying to resolve the related (often merely technical) issues, in order to facilitate improvements — most are either surprised or silent when I suggest, often straight-forward, ways to resolve them. The search issue, although quite valid, is very easy to mitigate; use Unicode character normalisation. Google manages to do it.

Yet I find it amusing how most enthusiasts wonder why Wikipedia isn’t taken more seriously! Your mirrored responses were most entertaining to read, showing that the same principals apply in reverse if the names are substituted. It is a shame that other individuals are not so enlightened as to see that point.

An additional point about ‘correct’ vs. ‘common’ use, is that people destroying the semantics (be it in typography, or structured mark-up), by replacing quality work with what they think is acceptable (despite much evidence and history to the contrary, in such subjects) are actually corrupting the meaning of the original text, and thus is clearly vandalism. Just because things may happen to ‘look’ the same in a graphical browser, does not mean they are the same. You may find the following of interest, as a good example of many of the attitudes I personally encounter. Other examples (besides obvious basic ones such as “Latin Small Letter X”, vs. “miltiplication sign”) are contention over correct roman numerals (starting at U+2160, in the “Number Forms” block) instead of look-alike capital latin letters, which would be pronounced in a variaty of colourful ways by any screen-reader which didn’t compensate for such stupidity. Examples being “World War eye-eye” or “World War double-eye”, instead of the intended “World War 2” [as in “World War Ⅱ”, not “World War ‘II’”]. This is particularly important on military articles (have a look at the Spitfire article, which I tried to improve), although met with very hostile, narrow-minded, and posessive (of articles) reactions.

Semantics are as important on the Web, and in quality-copy as any other medium. Most sane people would consider it wrong if I referred to an apple, when actually meaning the long, curved, yellow fruit, instead. Or in reverse, referring to a banana when actually meaning the spherical, green/red fruit. Semantics are the corner-stone of communication, which allow higher and higher levels of abstraction to be used. If Wikipedia is not attempting to communicate (effectively, at least, by not respecting established semantics), then I question what exactly its purpsoe is, and why it exists. Sadly, many people do not see the distinction between emphasis, citeation, and presentational italicisation. Yet to simply make all 3 italics-only, destroys any chance of finding out why they are italicised (is something being emphasised, or cited?).

I, personally, would go further than what Unicode recommends (which is almost certainly a compromise, itself), and use the actual apostrophe character (U+02BC, not U+0027) to avoid the problem of distinguishing between the closing of a quote, which uses single quote marks, and apostrophes contained within it (based on the problems encountered when using U+2019 as an apostrophe). They are rendered differently by correctly-implemented fonts; a correct apostrophe is narrower, and more vertical, so as not to interrupt the flow of surrounding characters. Other quite sane recommendations, such as the use of combining characters in combination with plain base characters, over the use of pre-composed, compatibility characters, are very often ignored. Example: according to Unicode, my name should be composed of Carr[U+0065 and U+0301] (Carré), rather than Carr[U+00E9] (Carré). Although personally it would have been better if the preferred/recommended methods would have other advantages, such as requiring fewer bytes to represent.

Yet another is that ease of editing won’t improve unless there is motivation to. If users are allowed to continue using the perversions which came from the typewriter, then of course the issues will remain difficult to resolve.

I find the very same problem with trying to use Unicode generally; people often complain that the ‘canʼt see the characters’ (due to their choice of font), and when I suggest to (otherwise intelligent) people that they should perhaps use a different font (offering suggested examples) if they wish to see the glyphs, they often state that many other people will encounter the very same issue. That is, however, the point; if people remain ignorant, because these corrupt characters still render correctly, and thus don’t actively demand better support of Unicode, then it’ll never happen, and the so-called ‘standard fonts’ will never be updated. To me it is really quite simple, which is why I believe Wikipedia does not want to be taken seriously, and wishes to remain a mere hobbyist project.

Your point about support for various ‘features’ in browsers is quite right (I have a background in standards-compliant web-dev too), such as some not having support for correct mark-up (like the abomination of a browser from the Borg of Redmond). If their browser cannot handle text (as in Unicode) correctly, then it has some very fundamental bugs. Even Web accessibility champions (Joe Clarke comes to mind) say that users are expected to have correctly-functioning equipment, and that authors should not have to compensate.

I find it insane that most any other publication has a formal editorial process, in which more experienced publishers/authors review work of others, to check for correctness. The fact that this is not the case on Wikipedia (and its many guidelines/policies conflict and contradict each other — such as “be bold in your edits” (yet conform to the rules) — as well as ignoring guidelines of the greater world, most of which have been well-established long before Wikipedia was even conceived. I sympathise with how you have been treated by some wikipedians, and the inflexible thinking of those with the power to make the much needed policy changes.

Your thoughts and comments are most welcomed and appreciated ☺. Feel free to correct my questionable spelling. Appologies for the rant-ish tone, but I feel this is within the domain of accessibility, which I am rather passionate about, having some personal experience with the matter, and some of the difficulties involved. — Lee Carré (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Another Barnstar for Felicity
Aw. Thanks. :-) Felicity4711 (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully support curly quotes.--Againme (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Space Age Bachelor Pad


The article Space Age Bachelor Pad has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * non-notable, neologism.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ridernyc (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Space Age Bachelor Pad
I have nominated Space Age Bachelor Pad, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Space Age Bachelor Pad. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ridernyc (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Space Age Bachelor Pad
I have nominated Space Age Bachelor Pad, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Space Age Bachelor Pad&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:PA060001-800×600.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:PA060001-800×600.JPG.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kelly hi! 18:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Your question regarding Nova Express
Ho, i stumbled over your question here, and since you didn't receive an answer, i went ahead and asked him. Regards, Gott (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Felicity4711 (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give A Picture is Worth a 1,000 Bucks a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into A Picture is Worth 1,000 Bucks. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Curly quotes redux
Hello. I reverted your edit to Sing Sing (song) as it introduces curly quotes. I see you've made many other similar edits recently, and from reading this talk page it appears that you're aware of MOS:CURLY and have willfully disregarded it in the past. I'm asking that you please stop doing this (as well as breaking MOS:DOB as your edit to Vernon Sale did). While I realize you strongly favor the use of curly quotes, I and others feel strongly that they should not be used here. In these cases, it would be best to seek consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style before making unilateral edits that are contrary to the current MOS. Nick Number (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you've reverted one of my edits and restored curly quotes. I again urge seeking consensus for a change to the MOS before making these types of edits. Nick Number (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Tom Ferguson (actor) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tom Ferguson (actor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tom Ferguson (actor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. schetm (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of John Maynard (actor) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Maynard (actor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/John Maynard (actor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. schetm (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)