User talk:Hydrargyrum/archive04

Request for Comment
Hi there-- I saw that you voiced your opinion regarding the usage of the words comedian and comedienne on Talk:Comedian. I started a Request for Comment on that talk page to sort out whether or not the word 'comedienne' should be mentioned in the first sentence of the article 'Comedian'. You can vote here. Thanks for your time! :) Newyorkadam (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Gettext Diagram
Hi. I spotted a couple of typos in the diagram you regenerated for the gettext page:


 * ‘msmerge’ (on the left) should be ‘msgmerge’ with a “g”
 * the second ‘msginit’ (bottom right) should be ‘msgfmt’

In both cases see the previous version for the correct text.

I downloaded the file to fix it myself, but with the text being paths it's nontrivial to edit. Do you still have the version with text as text saved somewhere? Thanks.

Smylers (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hypercorrections at The Great Gatsby
Hi, Hydrargyrum. I looked at to The Great Gatsby. You made several "corrections" using commas which aren't corrections at all but errors. For instance, you added a comma to "a mysterious millionaire who holds extravagant parties, but does not participate in them" but this comma is totally unwanted. You also added a comma to "a New York crime kingpin who was notoriously blamed for the Black Sox Scandal, which tainted the 1919 World Series" when this is also unneeded. Not all clauses need commas before them. Additionally, you also seem to really dislike the use the pronouns and self-reflective pronouns and tend to replace them with proper nouns. Overuse of proper nouns in an article can make prose choppy and boring to read. You also accidentally removed the period at the end of "Gatsby is said to have briefly studied at Trinity College, Oxford in England after the end of World War I". I have reverted your changes and will re-add the remaining positive changes. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * When you've been speaking and writing improperly for a long time, naturally, the wrong way will eventually begin to seem "right".

Let's eat Grandma.

Let's eat, Grandma.

Commas save lives. — QuicksilverT @ 16:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Web
Why are you changing "Web site" to website, when Wikipedia's own article on the subject, says that website is the accepted term in today's world. Languages evolve, no point in trying to fight it. Slacka123 (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Why are you repeating information from a page that I referred you to? Its etymology has nothing to do with your clinging to an archaic term. Call it devolved, call what you want, the languages has changed and you're living in the past.Slacka123 (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyedits to SAT
Hi, Hydrargyrum,

I'm glad to see you making copyedits on a batch basis (also the way I usually edit article text), but I had to revert, assuming good faith, because some of your edits to SAT introduced mistakes (for example, the old, obsolete name of the test). But please keep up the good work; just be sure to look before you leap, as that article recently changed name after the name of the test changed in the real world. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

More info. perhaps in DejaVu fonts
Hi there, I just saw https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DejaVu_fonts and changed the version number in the article. Do you have any idea who made the tables. Maybe some changes are needed or be added at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DejaVu_fonts#Plane_1:_Supplementary_Multilingual_Plane_.28SMP.29_Range:_10000-1FFFF_.2865.2C536.E2.80.93131.2C071.29 perhaps?

Shirishag75 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

John Anthony Walker
Hi Hydrargyrum. What is the meaning of "Financial gain" in the info box of John Anthony Walker. I know you just fixed it, but thought you might know anyway. Thanks. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But it really looks odd. Firstly, a reader is supposed to be able to look at an info box and make sense of it : born here, dies there, was this and that etc. That "motive" is entirely outside anything I have seen in any infobox.

Then, he is listed as: "Occupation - United States Navy Chief Warrant Officer and communications specialist, Private investigator", nothing about being a spy, that one could link to "Motive - Financial gain". Then to make matter worse, there is "Spouse(s) - Barbara Crowley (divorced)" between what he does/ did and the motive, which makes it look that the "spouse" was for "financial gain". I looked up a few other spies (very few have infoboxes), and none include mention of "motive". What do you think? Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Template rename
Hello:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ARemove_file_prefix&diff=620869767&oldid=615939411
 * (Hydrargyrum moved page Template:Remove File prefix to Template:Remove file prefix over redirect: conform to Wikipedia template "sentence case" naming convention)

Would or  still clash with this convention? (Not sure about the first, but imagine the second should be acceptable as it uses quotemarks..?) Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"Web site"
The word website is typically a single word and there's no reason to alter it. See website, website, and website.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sez who? A few lazy journalists who got "C" grades on their high school writing assignments? It's called the World Wide Web, a proper noun, and in English proper nouns are still capitalized. — QuicksilverT @ 18:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Says dictionaries and the Associated Press style guide and The Guardian?  This isn't 1995 anymore. It's no longer "e-mail" anymore.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Tim Berners-Lee invented and named the World Wide Web. Perhaps those sources you quote never bothered checking and/or were too lazy to hit the shift key on their keyboard. — QuicksilverT @ 22:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the history of it. I was 11 when it was invented and lived through the creation and adaption of "website". The spelling has changed. The predominant spelling is "website", as evidenced by the AP style guide. There is no reason to alter a spelling in an article to suit your particular preferences without any solid reason. Just like we leave BC and AD alone if that's what the original editor used, so too should that go for other spellings that fall outside of WP:ARTCON.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If it irks you so much, change it to suit yourself. Remember, your name will be attached to the edit, so you'll own it.  I'm not interested in spending any more emotional capital on this issue. — QuicksilverT @ 07:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Two Steps From Hell
I have again declined your speedy deletion request at Two Steps From Hell, since you do not present a valid reason for speedy deletion. Please use the WP:Redirects for discussion process and make your case for the change there. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment By the way, I don't mean to get to caught up in process for the sake of process. I am a bit more cautious with this article due to the very heavy number of edits by many users. I would prefer just to take those seven days, get a consensus at RfD and then do the move. I have been around long enough to see the trouble that can come from unilateral page moves. I just see it as better being safe than sorry. Safiel (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't make heads nor tails of the WP:Redirects for discussion "process". The template keeps spewing garbage and the "instructions" are opaque as mud.  Fuck it.  Leave the article with a bad title and I'll just sit back and laugh while Wikipedia grinds to a halt in bureaucratic manure. — QuicksilverT @ 07:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have initiated the process. There is a template on the redirect now that will take you to the discussion page. Safiel (talk) 07:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Alatna Valley
You made with this edit summary: templates in lead section break tooltip preview. Can you explain that to me? I've not heard of this so could use an education.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia suppresses display of templates in tool-tip previews of articles, as when a user hovers the mouse cursor over a link. This makes sense in the case of large templates, such as Infobox person, but when it is done with inline templates that display text in a sentence, instead of seeing the text, all the user sees is blank space or a strange discontinuity in prose. For the lead sections of articles it is best to replace such inline templates with the text that they generate. Further down the article, beyond the area displayed in the tooltip preview, leaving inline templates in place doesn't matter. — QuicksilverT @ 20:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't experience that. In both your version and the version preceding it, I see tooltips for every link in the article; I don't see blank space or a strange discontinuity in prose.  Where is this suppression documented?  You left  so how is it different from ?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know where it is documented, if it is at all, but the effect is clearly visible with browsers that support tooltip previews. I generally use SeaMonkey, Firefox or Opera, since I now work almost exclusively on Linux systems and do not have access to Microsoft Internet Explorer.  MSIE isn't standards-compliant and doesn't work correctly in many cases, and I've read that MSIE users, especially of the older versions of the browser, don't see tooltip previews in any case.  As for missing  in my edit, that was an oversight. I usually make the edit when distances or elevations are missing, information that is critical to extracting useful information from a quick preview.  To see what I'm talking about, see a tooltip preview to an article with inline templates from another article that links to it.  For example, hover your cursor over this link: Mount Adams (Washington).  When the tooltip preview pops up, notice the text that reads "... located in a remote wilderness approximately east of Mount St. Helens."  Compare that to the article, where it reads "... located in a remote wilderness approximately 31 miles (50 km) east of Mount St. Helens."  Note that the second time you access a link by hovering, the popup may be collapsed, but you can reset it by clicking the " " link in the cream-colored box. — QuicksilverT @ 21:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Is this mw:Beta_Features/Hovercards we're talking about? If so, that doesn't work for me at all (chrome latest and presumably greatest).  I still see tool tips that are similar to those one gets with abbr template.  If we're talking about hovercards then I think it is hovercard's problem to fix; Wikipedia articles and editors needn't adapt because of hovercard's inadequacies.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not Hovercards. Until you brought it up here, I had never heard of it.  When I checked my Preferences, under the "Beta features" tab, I saw that it isn't enabled in my account.  It's "Navigation popups", found under the "Gadgets" tab in the user Preferences.  This feature has been around for a while and is quite stable.  I can't remember when I enabled it in my account, but it seems like 5 or 6 years ago.  When I disable the feature, I still get a pop-up, but all it does is echo the title of the article without a preview.  If Navigations popups aren't active in your Preferences, click the checkbox to activate it, save the settings and reload this Talk page to test the effect on the Mount Adams link, above. — QuicksilverT @ 22:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I get it, thanks. I guess I think that the limitations of Navigation popups should not be imposed upon the rest of Wikipedia.  Until and unless inline templates are proscribed at MOS:LEAD, they are permissible and shouldn't be removed.


 * At WP:Tools/Navigation popups is  which has a default of   but if set to , and if one believes the documentation, would at least show the templates as wikitext.  You might try that.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;&#125;&#125; to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Talkback
Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't eliminate non-rendered newlines in wikitext
Regarding the bulk of this edit: Most of your edit amounted to eliminating newlines in the wikitext, particularly in the citation templates and at sentence breaks. Some editors prefer the wikitext with such newlines, as we feel it makes the text easier to read in the edit window. Others prefer no excess newlines, I guess so they can see more in the edit window at one time. The page rendering is not affected either way. There is no guideline one way or the other (and there's at least one essay arguing on each side), but it IS generally accepted that one should not come into a page and change the style of existing wikitext for no other reason than to match one's preferred style. Such edits also increase the server workload, clutter the change log, and increase other editors' workload as we pore over the diffs trying to see if there were any other changes; in fact, vandals have sometimes hidden their substantive changes in this way. Thank you for your understanding. Jeh (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The same applies to eliminating blank lines after section heads, as you did here. Jeh (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Stop ragging on me already!!!! I generally leave non-rendered newlines alone when they make sense, except in the case of articles such as Wi-Fi where it is/was a totally inconsistent mess.  I'm less concerned about server workload than my workload in attempting to edit articles where the layout is so messy that it is difficult to discern article text from footnote text, even while using gadgets such as the syntax highlighter. — QuicksilverT @ 19:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of "those who don't know the rules of punctuation"...
Regarding the Rafflesiaceae article, please double-check any modern usage guide, including the Chicago Manual of Style. Commonly used Latin words and abbreviations should not be italicized. Also, MOS:ITALICS is a fixed Wikipedia guideline which also makes this clear specifically about this particular abbreviation. --Tom Hulse (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you know what a subordinate clause is? Judging by your comment above, it appears you do not. — QuicksilverT @ 07:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a cogent thought to make about italics & Latin, or is that just your random thoughts about grammar?--Tom Hulse (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See, for example,, , and . If it is necessary to re-read a sentence or passage two or three times to extract the information, due to lack of punctuation, I will change it,  In this instance, your zeal to adhere to the MoS, which is a guideline, not gospel, wiped out the primary reason for the edit I made.  Please analyse copy-edit changes made by other editors more carefully before reverting them "wholesale". — QuicksilverT @ 18:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Frage für Nutzung der Bilddatei
Hallo Hydrargyrum, ich will ein von dir erstelltes Bild für ein Youtube Video benutzen. ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testbild#mediaviewer/File:SMPTE_Color_Bars.svg) Diese ist dennoch mit einer Creative-Commons Lizenz geschützt. Was für Angaben muss ich in der Beschreibung des Videos angeben? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrymano (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Entschuldigung, hab mich beim Urheber verklickt. Danke trotzdem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrymano (talk • contribs) 15:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Tarkanian
Thanks for copyediting Jerry Tarkanian. On a side note, I don't suppose you are a proponent of WP:NOTBROKEN? Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As for redirects, If I feel up to it, I fix them as I come across them, incidental to other copy-editing. In many cases the links are broken, because the redirects are put there as a work-around for improper terminology, capitalization, punctuation, spelling, or accessibility; when these issues are fixed, the link no longer references a redirect. Sometimes I remove links to redirects entirely, because they constitute overlinking. I am aware of the "policy", but it has become evident to me that some policy-making groups at Wikipedia are working at cross-purposes, i.e., "the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing". On the one hand, after moving an article, they want us to fix up links in other articles that reference the moved article, but on the other hand we're told that redirects are "not broken". Which is it? It can't be both. Moreover, we're supposed to believe that redirects "don't cost anything", but only someone who doesn't understand how computers work at the hardware level would make such a claim. Finally, for logged-in users of standards-compliant browsers, Wikipedia supports navigation popups. It's a useful feature that redirects partially break, and the WP:NOTBROKEN policy may have been strongly influenced by persons unaware of this feature or insistent on continuing to use their favorite non-compliant browser. Incidentally, "WP:NOTBROKEN" is a redirect, not a direct link. — QuicksilverT @ 15:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.
 * AFAIK, Moving_a_page only suggests fixing double-redirects, but I think a bot takes care of those anyways. Otherwise, it says: "one should not change inbound links in articles to bypass the redirect". I do use popups, and haven't found a problem with redirects preventing the target page from popping up. Even the popup subpage at Tools/Navigation_popups/About_fixing_redirects argues it really is "cheaper" to not fix the redirects just for the sake of fixing them, but I can respect if you disagree on the actual cost. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Isomerization
Hi Hydrargyrum, thanks for replacing the png-file in the Texas City Refinery explosion article (and other improvements). I wonder if you could also generate a German version of the svg-file, so that I can replace it in the German article as well. Thank you. --Linksfuss (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * — Done. See File:Pentanisomerisierung.svg, which I just uploaded to Commons.  You can add a German language translation of the description in the Summary, if you like. — QuicksilverT @ 21:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! will add the German translation to it. --Linksfuss (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The official logo was replaced with a random graphic by User:Dismas on 2015-05-06. Change was reverted and orphan tag was removed from the File:Princess Cruises logo.svg page 2015-05-07, as there is no evidence that Princess Cruises changed their corporate logo.

em dash
Regarding at Also sprach Zarathustra (Strauss), please note that, as I pointed out in an, em dashes should never be spaced; see WP:EMDASH. I suggest you revert you edit, or remove the spacing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that, unlike the hyphen, most browsers break lines before the em-dash and en-dash, something a professional typesetter would never do, as it is unsightly and disrupts speed reading of text. Whether this is proper or improper, I cannot say; it is what it is.  The only way to control that is to force a no-break condition on text followed by such symbols.  As for WP:EMDASH, it seems evident to me that the guideline was created in a vacuum by people to satisfy their own biases, who never bothered inquiring how most browsers actually work and probably never considered the needs of site visitors, who outnumber editors at least 1000 to 1. Also, please note that Web pages are not a typesetting system — the formatting of pages is controlled by the browser, not the server. Use of non-breaking spaces is at best a compromise due to technological limitations. — QuicksilverT @ 17:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's odd that your edit didn't address your concerns about line breaks at all; you could have used spaced ndash, or its HTML equivalent, which would have complied with MOS:DASH. Your claim that that guideline was conceived in a vacuum is not supported by the frequent discussions with wide participation, including you, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. If you think the MoS should be changed, you should raise the matter there. Until then, I restored spaced en dashes at Zarathustra. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you are fixated on using en dashes when proper punctuation indicates em dashes should be used. Whatever.  You now own that change.  I have better things to do and there are thousands of other badly punctuated articles that need attention. — QuicksilverT @ 02:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Convert templates
I can not work out why you originally made and then reinstated this edit []. I can find no documentation and can't imagine why contert templates should not be used in this instance. Thanks Andrewgprout (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC) If you have "Navigation popups" enabled in your, you'll see a box appear on your computer screen with text from the lead paragraph of the article, and maybe a thumbnail of an image at the top of the article. It's a handy way to get a brief definition of the subject of the link without having to open the link in a new browser window or tab. Navigation popups suppress display of templates, because many articles have infoboxes at the top, so you'd only see what's in the infobox and not the more useful text in the lead paragraph. A side effect of this is that any inline templates in the text of the lead paragraph are also suppressed, so if the article deals with a mountain, and the elevation of the summit is in a template, you'll see a strange discontinuity in the text; distances between geographic features are missing; and so on. Instead of giving the reader all the information needed to quickly grasp the subject of the link, you're forcing him to open the link in a new window, which takes time and bandwidth and distracts from reading the original article. The easy way to fix it is to insert  just to the right of the left double-braces in Convert templates, which converts the template to its output when the article is saved and makes it easier on Wikipedia users. I normally only do this if the template is within the first 500 characters, or so, of the lead section, because that's about all one will see in a navigation popup anyway. Other Convert templates further down in the article can be left as-is. — QuicksilverT @ 03:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * — Hover your mouse over this link: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17


 * Thanks - But I stand by my original statement and revert and I respectfully believe your revert was misguided - No one should be promoting a data based workaround solution to a functionality problem in a fringe piece of software. If this is important it should be fixed at source in the software providing such functionality rather than imposing a retrograde fix on the whole of the project.  Andrewgprout (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * — The "Navigation popups" feature is hardly "a fringe piece of software", as you so dismissively put it. If memory serves, it's been in Wikipedia since early 2006, which appears to be half a decade longer than you've been editing.  I've used it since it was still in beta stage. — QuicksilverT @ 23:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I would have hoped you could have commented on the substance of my question, on why you seem to imposing a solution on editors without the prerequisite justification. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * By fringe I was meaning something that was not turned on a default in mediawiki, I'm sorry if that was too strong a word for you. The length of time something has been there, or that you personally use it does not have any affect on its potential importance however.  Nor I might say does your rather strange comment about my length of time editing compared to yours which I in good faith will ignore.

Addressing your more recent comment above, I'm hardly in a position to "impose" a solution on editors. Even though I wasn't involved in the creation of the popups extension to Mediawiki, it's fairly clear to me from studying the development history that considerable ongoing thought and effort has gone into it, in the hope that editors would use the feature to good advantage to provide the best possible experience to readers of Wikipedia. The popups extension has been available for a relatively long time, I see no evidence that anyone wants to get rid of it, so it is reasonable to infer that many other registered users of Wikipedia enjoy its use as well, even if you don't. Knowing how the extension works and what its limitations are, why would you, I, or anyone else want to deliberately go out of our way to sabotage it by inserting non-displaying text in the form of inline templates into the lead paragraphs of articles? Why break one feature of the system by misapplying another feature that you happen to like better? Web sites like Wikipedia do not exist for the pleasure or convenience of the creators and editors, period. They exist for the site visitors. If I were to refuse to accept this fact, I shouldn't be in the business of creating Web content here. — QuicksilverT @ 03:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * — Further replying to your earlier comment regarding "imposing a retrograde fix on the whole of the project", if we check the development history of the popups JavaScript and the Convert template, we see that both features were introduced approximately at the same time, seven to eight years ago. It seems silly to suggest that substituting text for the Convert template in the leads of articles that were written half a decade or more  after  these features were introduced is a "retrograde fix"; I believe the smart thing to do is to write article content so that it works properly within the constraints of  both  features.  It's sort of like driving a car:  Keep it under the speed limit  and  keep it between the lines!

Tooltip preview
Just out of curiousity, what did you mean by "template in lead section breaks tooltip preview" when you edited USS Reasoner (FF-1063)? Llammakey (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * — See the recent rather lengthy discussion immediately above under . — QuicksilverT @ 13:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Didn't know any of that. Another question. If I put the subst: before the ship template, would that fix the problem for people with that particular preference set? Or would that just create another bucket load of problems? Llammakey (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * — In most cases using subst: does the trick, avoiding the need to re-type the template results and possibly introducing errors. I verified in the Sandbox that it works with the sclass- template previously used in the article.  I can see where replacing templates with their results could be a problem in cases where the information varies over time, but usually we are dealing with values that aren't likely to change, like the height of a mountain or the distance between two towns. — QuicksilverT @ 19:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll use that in the intros from now on for ship articles. Llammakey (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The m-dash in a sentence
Hello! I thought you might like to know that, despite darned near everything published any more, the Chicago Manual of Style and Wikipedia Manual of Style still dictate that the m-dash—used like parentheticals within the structure of a sentence—is not surrounded by spaces. Cheers! &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 08:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * — I suppose you have some magic pixie dust that can make all browsers wrap lines after the em-dash. By removing the non-breaking leading space and normal space you make the lines randomly break before or after the em-dash.  The Wikipedia Manual of Style and Chicago Manual of Style notwithstanding, no competent typesetter would break a line before an em-dash or en-dash, thus putting the dash in column 1 of the next line. — QuicksilverT @ 08:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That much is true; however, with no spacing at all, as is correct with the m-dash, browsers (are at least supposed to) recognize that there is no break at all—which would show up like this. That said, in situations where you've used the n-dash, the use of &amp;nbsp; to avoide the random line break is correct. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 08:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hoplophobia
"Hoplophobia: Hey,dummy, is not a very polite way to address a fellow editor." I acknowledged that you had made the change in good faith but that it really had no substantiation other than Cooper's claim he invented the word for his own use. Perhaps, as OrangeMike has subsequently said, in his removal of the addition, another way to look at is that is that it is unecessary. In any event, no harm.99.242.108.55 (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * — When you revert the work of other editors anonymously, be prepared to be treated roughly. If you had edited under a user name, I would have left you a polite question about your edit, but there was no evidence on the talk page of 99.242.108.55 that the same person was the author of all edits from that IP address, so leaving a message there was pointless.  If you are one and the same as "OrangeMike", why don't you disclose that fact?  Further obfuscations may draw more curt treatment by other established editors. — QuicksilverT @ 14:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You may need to take a break from this. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * — Please review Wikipedia policy. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here.  The policy also states that one irrevocably agrees to release one's contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution.

Templates
Just thought I'd leave this here: it's not usually necessary to initial-cap a template call. Both and , for example, work just fine. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage &#128406; 05:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If one is lazy, there are many things that aren't necessary when editing Wikipedia. If one is really, really lazy, why bother editing at all? — QuicksilverT @ 14:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * — ATinySliver / ATalkPage &#128406; 19:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Planetbox character.
Hello Hydrargyrum! I reverted your edit on Template:Planetbox character as it was producing "Bold text|-" on every page that used it. Here are some samples showing this issue in action:


 * Sample 1
 * Sample 2
 * Sample 3

I reverted it so that this artifact wouldn't continue to be reproduced on every page. Next time be careful and make sure that you aren't breaking anything! Davidbuddy9 (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * — Thanks for catching that. I thought I tested that change, but obviously something went wrong.  I'll review what I did to discover what caused the problem. — QuicksilverT @ 14:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think Primefac already fixed it. I would recommend that you double check to make sure the contributions you made have been properly implemented. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I noticed your comment on Kevin McCarthy (California politician). Please have a look at Huma Abedin
I have been pushed out of editing the Abedin BLP, and another Editor mentioned on my talk page the problems we have had there. I do not know what I can do now, any suggestions would be appreciated. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * — Thanks for the note, but I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed by circumstances at the moment and don't wish to get into a conflict with editors who think they "own" the Huma Abedin article. As I noted in my comment on the Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) page, overtly biased editing of politically hot topics pretty much ruins Wikipedia as a useful source of information, both for me and for non-editor visitors.  My solution is to ignore such articles and editors and get my information elsewhere.  The articles can be revisited in a year or two to clean up the nonsense, after their self-styled "curators" have moved on or have lost interest.  I've also noticed that two or three years after the subject of a biographical article has died, corrections can often be made without attracting undue attention.  A case in point is the Michael Jackson article; in the days and weeks after the singer died in June 2009, it was nearly impossible to work on any article related to him, as changes would be reverted and overridden within minutes by "guardians of the shrine".  A few months ago I performed numerous copy-edits on those same articles and it seems hardly anyone noticed. — QuicksilverT @ 02:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you hate redirects?
Hello

I have run into two of your edits and it appears you seriously hate redirects. Well, please don't! As an editor who has been here for almost eleven years, you should by now know the benefits and caveats of redirects.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * — Yes, I hate redirects, especially when they redirect to the wrong place or when a better redirect is more appropriate. What I hate even more than bad redirects is editors who revert my edits wholesale without even studying what I've done, trashing corrections to syntax, grammar and punctuation.  In essence, such editors are degrading the quality and usefulness of Wikipedia.  Surely, these editors can find more constructive things to do than criticize others who are genuinely improving the project. — QuicksilverT @ 01:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I am sorry that you hate me. Rest assured, if you had done this to my edits, I wouldn't have hated you. I would love you still because your edits would show that you care. I assure you that I still don't hate you. But It is painful to review a massive edit which mainly consists of changing Main to Main article and such changes that have no effect. Worst is unnecessary changes from say, "feed reader" to "news aggregator" and "fish tank" to "aquarium" which goes against MOS:STABILITY too. (I struggle a lot with editors who change "x64" to "x86-64" and vice versa.)


 * Nevertheless, if you don't like redirects, feel free not to use them in the articles that you write. But when you copyedit articles that you haven't written please leave that hatred by the door. Bypassing the redirects of CSS3, HTML5, feed reader only adds to oversight burden.


 * And if you think I don't care about quality, I should say that I have a Featured Article in my record. I do care. A lot.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)