User talk:Opencooper

Postilion
Do you think your gallery looks better? Certainly it is easier to make. Its much uglier. Would you mind if I revert it? Eddaido (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't primarily about aesthetics for me, but several other reasons. It's an ad hoc attempt at a gallery, but a poor approximation of the pre-existing gallery extension we have. For starters just look at how it was previously implemented, with tables all over the place, and a separate one for each image. Because each image is a table, there's no consistent way in how the images get laid out at different screen sizes, resulting in stuff like this: https://i.imgur.com/7JX7QFb.png. Referring again to its ad hoc nature, the layout doesn't consider mobile users and results in a vertical strip of images, wasting whitespace. The use of tables and excess wikitext makes it hard for others to edit it, whether through the visual editor or manually.


 * Thanks for reaching out. Of course you're welcome to revert the change to the status quo if you disagree, and I can then attempt to gain consensus. Though I implore you to first check out the gallery tag documentation and see if there isn't an alternate display such as the "packed" view, or CSS that could be applied to meet your stylistic needs (I'm willing to assist for the latter). Opencooper (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Reaching Out! If you know of a better display please use it instead of the dumb thing you have used. It's ugly. Eddaido (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How about now? It's difficult to address your concerns because you'll have to be more specific about what makes it ugly to you. It's the standard gallery layout used on thousands of articles. Is it the border around the thumbnails? Or what? Opencooper (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't want you to feel you're being ignored. Yes, that's much tidier but its an aesthetic mess. OK if I revert? Eddaido (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Well please just try to make something that suits and actually is better. Eddaido (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I already tried that. Just read what was written above. I already tried a version which had all images with the same height. I even said I was willing to use CSS. But you replied with nothing but vagueness like "its an aesthetic mess". I can't read your mind, and I certainly can't expect to get anywhere if the lack of communication skills originates from you. I'm also not sure why I'd have to appeal to your sensibilities when your implementation is non-standard and lacking every which way. You're the one who should be explaining what on earth you're trying to accomplish with that monstrosity. Opencooper (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've been reading some of the stuff below. I see you can find it difficult. I did/do not mean to suggest you make the images the same height. Give them equal weight, that's what I did. Or, if you are really determined to please the servers and the inadequate phones, just delete the whole lot of them.


 * If anyone else really cares and misses them they (the images) might flower again without either of us needing to be involved. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So are the images so unimportant that you wouldn't care that the whole lot is removed, or are they so important that they need "equal weight"? (whatever that means... results like this don't seem equal to me) Which is it? It's not about pleasing computers or whatever you say. It's about making the images actually layout properly for readers and those with different needs than whatever you're doing here. Opencooper (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Its the end of the working day here. The images are important. So are your many contributions to WP. I know you cannot fathom what I am trying to communicate. (By the way the image you have inserted in the previous paragraph is from a page narrowed up to throw everything out of kilter but you won't have survived around here for a while without learning a trick or two, I bet.)


 * The images are clearly very important, they worry you A Great Deal. If they are deleted you need worry no more and neither need I. If they are missed then someone else can put them there. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's intentional in order to demonstrate the fact that people read Wikipedia on various screen sizes, not just the one you personally used. This link might be helpful for you. If you won't miss them, you also wouldn't miss your design. Opencooper (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see you're a technician. I am unable to improve on the layout I originally provided. In view of your knowledge and expertise you should solve the problem (not screw everything up). Fix it dear Henry, just fix it. You could write a song around that. But don't forget equal weight. Eddaido (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * (brilliant original concept) See how you took a photo of the page all screwed up and put it on the net? Well take a screen dump the way I laid it out and then upload that as a single image to Commons. Then we have one image that pleases you and pleases me! Like it? Eddaido (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I already fixed it, you reverted me and didn't given any specific reasons on what to "fix" other than "equal weight". Anyway, I've removed the gallery per your wishes. Bye. Opencooper (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Interested by your last remark — " on what to "fix" other than "equal weight"" I went to Google and put in this search term: define:"equal weight". You must do that so then (if you read it) you will know for next time. Eddaido (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My, suddenly tech-savvy now are we? I did so, and it returned a picture of your wit and a brick. Opencooper (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That's very funny! If you can't copy-type try copy and paste. Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Duplication Comment
Re this article the information is repeated almost word for word. That is duplication, not summary. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See MOS:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents ... It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points..." The information you removed presents the chronology of the manga series, its U.S. publisher, as well as information about an adaptation. These are not minor points, but rather important aspects of the article. Readers should know from the lead of an article that a manga had a live-action adaptation (especially if they were looking for the latter), as well as the other information. In fact,  many users don't read past the lead. If you feel the repetition is the primary problem, you can reword it. Sorry, this isn't me trying to be overzealously protective of an article I created, but I just don't agree that this is duplicate information. You're more than welcome to solicit input from WikiProject Anime and manga or any other relevant pages. Opencooper (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I moved the information about the adaptation to the Manga section, I didn't remove it from the article. In the lead I read "The manga was serialized in Futabasha's manga magazine Manga Action from January 23, 2007 to March 15, 2011 and was collected into ten tankōbon volumes. The manga was licensed in North America by JManga and was one of its release titles." A couple of sentences later, in the Manga section, I read "It was serialized in Futabasha's manga magazine Manga Action from January 23, 2007 to March 15, 2011. The manga was licensed in North America by JManga and was one of its release titles when the website launched on August 17, 2011." It's fine, but it seemed a bit silly to repeat the exact same information in the exact same words almost immediately. I guess it won't seem that way once there is a plot summary in between. By the way Opencooper, do you know if this is genuinely an adaptation of Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment? The subtitle 'A Falsified Romance' and the chapter list suggest to me that it isn't. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read both and indeed it is a loose adaptation that is modernized. All of the major characters are still there, but the circumstances are all slightly different and the plot modified. Opencooper (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

John Wayne
So, instead of fixing it, you tell an editor to read the footnote, good work. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I did fix it, by reverting the error of "Michael" that the IP tried to introduce. The reasoning for that is clearly explained in the footnote, and I even dug up the specific page in the citation for you to confirm yourself. What exactly am I missing here? Opencooper (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The footnote still says Marion Michael Morrison and says nothing about Marion Mitchell Morrison. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The footnote is calling out "Michael" as wrong. Note "erroneously referred to". Again, read the direct source I linked you. It makes it pretty clear. Opencooper (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your revert
- the IP is very clearly banned sockmaster evading their block(s).-- Begoon 01:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahh, thanks, I wasn't aware. I just looked through the local page history and didn't see anything related to disruption, and the edit itself seemed good to me, so that's why I reverted. Opencooper (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Thanks. -- Begoon 05:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Nunc dimittis
1) Did you notice that familiar Latin phrases, which became part of English, are NOT italic? Such as Requiem and Nunc dimittis. Perhaps think about it. I don't believe in long-standing practise per se. 2) Repeating: it makes sense to have quotation marks or italics for something foreign, or a title, or an incipit, within prose, to differentiate it from that prose. In a stand-alone poem, it makes no sense. 3) Did you hear about WP:BRD? When you make an edit, and it is reverted, you don't enter an edit-war but discuss the matter on the talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Except this isn't just a single loan phrase, but rather a whole passage in pure Latin. No one's gonna look at that an expect the average English reader to understand it. You've even kept the language tag so you yourself agree that it's Latin and not English.
 * I think you misunderstand the usage of italics. It's not just for the usages you listed. Often it's to differentiate "foreign" text to indicate that it's to be read differently and is not English. Again, the usage I've implemented is supported by Wikipedia's own Manual of Style, as well as pretty much every English publication out there. Open up any random book and look for any text that isn't a loandword, and it will be italicized. It's not something I've personally made up or is some new Wikipedia innovation, so it doesn't have much to do with you being a maverick.
 * And yeah, sorry. I've reverted for now. But I can already tell you that if we were to invite further editors into the discussion, it would very clearly go one way, with no editors supporting your POV. But I wouldn't want to ignore long-standing practice ;p. Opencooper (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining and reverting. It's late where I live so not much detail, but POV is not a term I like to hear. I am German, and write a lot where German phrases are used, and distinguish them as I described for the Latin. For example "Christus, der uns selig macht" (recent), Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1 (older). - We (project classical music) distinguish titles of major work (italic) and titles of short works, poems, songs (quotation marks), which helps distinguishing the hymn "Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern" from the cantata Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern. - I notice that things are changing, for example it's not long ago that Nunc dimittis was changed to Nunc dimittis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, all that formatting for distinguishing titles is fine. But I don't see how that applies to a blockquote... If you need language from the MoS that specifically pertains to blockquotes, see MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE (emphasis already present): "...care must always be taken to include the original text, in italics (except for non-Latin-based writing systems)". Even templates like Verse translation automatically apply italics to the original non-English text. Opencooper (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, every time I run into MoS (asking things that make not much sense to me, such as here when it requests that the same words "Nunc dimittis" be straight in the title but italic in the blockquote), I feel like changing the MoS, but then have better things to do, such as writing an article about a singer who died or support a candidate for admin. Happy editing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to spend your time doing different things. :) This is just one of the ways I spend my own time. So where do we go from here? I'm assuming you still do not agree with the italicization of the blockquote and will not be swayed (though obviously a quote in Latin would not have English loanwords formatted differently, since the whole quote is in Latin). If so, should I start a discussion on the article's talk page and hope for other editors to chime in so we can have a consensus? Opencooper (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You may have seen that I don't believe in any italics for the blockquotes. Why should Greek be handled differently from Latin, just because the character set is different. You decide what you do. I think that a quote which has the word "Latin" at its top and lang inside, doesn't need italics, so I disobey the MoS when it doesn't make sense. If you think that readers suffer when the Latin block is not italic, begin a discussion. Then I would have to decide to participate or not. I probably would because the Nunc dimittis is what I write about a lot:
 * Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin
 * Mit Fried und Freud (Buxtehude)
 * Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125
 * Magnificat and Nunc dimittis for St Paul's Cathedral
 * Magnificat and Nunc dimittis in D (Wood)
 * Magnificat and Nunc dimittis (Gloucester)
 * Nunc dimittis (Pärt)


 * For years, I didn't italicise Nunc Dimittis in the above articles, and last year the Nunc dimittis article followed (January 2018, as you may have seen). You decide if we talk about formatting (and for whom?) or content. - Look for Begoon on my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Greek is handled differently exactly because the character set is different. Historically, the Latin script developed an italic counterpart, but other scripts have not. And alright, I'll start a discussion on the talk page when I get a chance. Hopefully others fresh to the topic might have a clear idea of what direction to go. Opencooper (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You just messed up the move from Steve Huffman (businessman) to Steve Huffman.
Was waiting overnight for someone to delete the base name. Please check nearby logs carefully before doing that. People usually have a reason to delete base names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safrolic (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought all the deletion stuff was just for history merging as I've seen in the past. I also checked the talk page and only saw the dab project so assumed it would be okay. I'll try to leave such cases alone in the future. Opencooper (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

How to move name page Wikipedia?
How to move name page Wikipedia? Joker5122 (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

New message for you on Talk:Niki Lauda
Hi, just out of common courtesy I thought I'd let you know that another user has decided to continue the discussion and has also gone on to reinsert the hypocorsim. Regards, SSSB (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Low-background steel
Why should "captions not be essays"? It seems fine if appropriate, and it seemed quite reasonable. The article seems worse for your edit. Can you justify your proposed rule? (The alt text was strange, but I don't think "useless" is a good characterization. But color depth doesn't seem like the point of alt text, yes.) jhawkinson (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For captions, refer to WP:CAPTION. A caption is meant to show the relevance of an image to the text. Telling the whole history of a single piece of equipment has nothing to do with low-background steel. Just saying that the room uses the steel is sufficient and anything past that would be off-topic. Additionally, captions are meant to be succinct, which is what I meant by not an essay. I understand that there is historical interest in documenting such information, but it should be relegated to an article about the room or the image description page.


 * For alt-text, see MOS:ALT. Writing good alt text is difficult and I'll admit I'm not very good at it myself. However, alt text is meant as an aid to visually-impaired users. It should not repeat the caption, because screen readers will read both, and in this case the picture being black-and-white was all that it added. Additionally, it should describe specific and pertinent visual elements of an illustration. Saying something is a "body counting room" doesn't tell us anything specific about that particular photograph. Instead it could have mentioned a reclined seat, with instruments pointed at it, surrounded by steel walls. But again, writing useful alt text is a delicate matter and I'm not especially proficient at it aside from knowing when the alt text is not helpful. Opencooper (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * special:diff/904141603 seems to me like a safe and clever solution to a difficult problem. I should use this solution in general.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hope I didn't open any can of worms; I just generally prefer to source URLs from Wikidata and it worked in this case as well. Y'know, if something is preventing you from improving the encyclopedia, IAR and all that... (famous last words haha) Opencooper (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

ウィキペディア
Hey, TBS Radio did a show on Wikipedia, it might interest you: https://radiocloud.jp/archive/a6j/?content_id=60584&fbclid=IwAR3i3T-0WKe_gNd4wQuV9bH2Jn2QrHBM6IkJDF0LGrZug3qbMVh8s4C-QPc ~ ★ nmaia d 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for sharing that. Unfortunately I don't actually speak Japanese, though I've taken the first few steps on the long road (apologies if I've ever falsely given that impression). I gave it a taste anyway for fun, and man it's a barrage – with multiple speakers and fast delivery. Sounds like it was definitely interesting though; I picked up a few 「ノストラダムス」's. :) Opencooper (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Steve Huffman
Hi,

I noticed that you reverted my edits on the page for Steve Huffman. You also seem to be a fixture of that page's edit history. Can I inquire as to your relationship and/or experiences with Mr. Huffman, or the reasons you've taken on a leadership role on this page? I want to avoid edit warring, but also want to avoid the injection of bias, for or against, into encyclopedic content, and I have some concerns that the article under your leadership has moved in that direction.

Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1E60:EF70:F58F:6E6F:C48F:A8C8 (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're making a lot of insinuations and talks about bias for someone whose sole edit to Wikipedia has been to insert bias on that specific article. You also say you don't want to edit war, but proceed to immediately revert. Clearly someone here in good faith. Opencooper (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Natural Semantic Metalanguage
Hi Opencooper, I disagree with your changes to the Natural semantic metalanguage and Semantic primes pages. Wierzbicka's semantic primes are only one possible instance of the idea, with a long history including Antoine Arnauld and Leibniz. I think the table should be returned to the NSM article, with the semantic primes article instead giving a general overview of the idea and other attempts, and perhaps merged with Alphabet of human thought. --Curiousdannii (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. I just saw duplicated content so went with it. I've restored the table. Unfortunately, I don't understand the topic well enough to offer any input on your other points. Thanks for reaching out. Opencooper (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I'll have a think about how I could improve both pages. --Curiousdannii (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Spez/Steve Huffman
Either the piece is going to read correctly or its going to be edited every single day until it does. Wikipedia isn't your personal PR site, its a place where important events are tied to major public figures wikipedia pages in seperate sections. We can happily appeal if you feel otherwise. Reading your talk pages shows other users have had the same issue with your patrolling his page as his PR arm. We should probably appeal this as far as it needs to to make sure there isn't some bias in play.
 * This is hilarious. I can't believe I've been doing it for free all along! Opencooper (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

What is hilarious is you are also the editor his paid "wikipedia group" chose to make edits to his page. Please move along to another page or appeal this change. Ill be reverting your changes going forward on that page until another admin steps in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siihb (talk • contribs) 04:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They should have sent me the check instead, as I am an ally of Justice! Opencooper (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Added you to Steve Huffman dispute resolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Steve_Huffman

I've reached out to several news organizations to let them know we are seeing some astroturfing on a page for a guy caught modifying comments on his site. I sent them some screenshots of your back and forth with his paid content editors to show the cozy relationship and how they personally selected you by name.

Let me know if you'd like to comment for those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siihb (talk • contribs) 20:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

PotD
Hey, Opencooper!

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File: is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 24, 2019. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2019-11-24. Additional information [optional] --valereee (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC) ----valereee (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries
Please use edit summaries to explain why you revert, like in this case. Debresser (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In a majority of cases, I do. There are some though that are pretty obvious. Drive-by genre changing is one such category. These edits are always low-effort and original research. I don't feel obliged to engage them, and anyone who has film articles on their Watchlist will notice that these kinds of edits are rampant. Opencooper (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Still, reasons for removal could have been "category not applicable", "list only main category", etc. When the previous editor doesn't use edit summaries I usually start with "Revert unexplained edit, add non-applicable category", e.g. The use of an edit summary also indicates to the IP editor that they should use edit summaries. Thanks for your reply, and happy editing. Debresser (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Buddhabrot definition
It looks like a small edit fight so I wanted to tell you that the Buddhabrot is not a fractal. It's a density field or rendering technique that can be applied to pretty much any iterated fractal. It's not even dependent on the Mandelbrot set which is a fractal, and the one that the technique is most closely associated with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutelyaware (talk • contribs) 06:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't really an edit fight. It's just that a majority of the time, removal of text without justification is indistinguishable from vandalism. I can't read their mind across the keyboard, so that why I reverted the edit as "unexplained". They've said why now, in line with your message, so it's all good now. Thanks for explaining. Opencooper (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on Shōji
Thank you very much for sorting out the language templates in Shōji. I very much appreciate it; I probably would never have fixed it myself, and the article is much the better for it. You mentioned a problem with the romanji, whivh I didn't quite understand; is the Kunrei-shiki/Hepburn romanization the issue? HLHJ (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem. And nothing wrong with how you did it. Normally, if you use the nihongo template, for example: Student (学生), the "Gakusei" is tagged as "ja-Latn" because even though it's in the Latin script, it's still in a different language, same as how we'd mark Italian text with the lang code "it". Since the shoji article uses a different format than just "English (kanji, romaji)", I didn't want to change the format you went with so I didn't use the nihongo template. I could mark each instance of romaji separately using the transl template, but it's a lot of work, so I was lazy. Thank you for all your work on expanding the article; I learned a lot by reading it. Opencooper (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Right, I included the hiragana. In an ideal world, I suppose the template ought to give the hiragana as a ruby text to the kanji, or bopomofo or whatever, according to language. Requested. You did a lot of work, and I'd think screenreaders will pronounce it OK anyway. I'm glad you enjoyed the article! I'll be tidying it up for the next week or so for DYK. HLHJ (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, you could use ruby-ja. Cheers. Opencooper (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Consider adding a Dracula (color scheme) page
You made such a great job on the Solarized (color scheme) page. I was wondering if you're interested in doing the same for Dracula (color scheme): https://draculatheme.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinedmoreschi (talk • contribs) 00:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. I tried finding coverage of Dracula, and the most I found was an article on omg!ubuntu! (and this post on the Pro version by the creator). So I don't think there's currently enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to use for writing an article and meeting the notability requirements. It's unfortunate because it looks great and has wide support. Opencooper (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice! I did some research and found some really good references. I never created a Wikipedia page before, but I decided to give it a shot. What do you think? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dracula_(color_scheme) Carolinedmoreschi (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's actually a very good job for a first article! I see you managed to find some other references, including discussion in podcasts such as The Changelog and Sustain. Not sure Speckyboy is considered reliable though. With the Ubuntu site and those two podcasts, I'd say it just barely meets the bar for notability. Ideal sources would be national newspapers or magazines, but in a programming context these sources seem fine to me. It's just Wikipedia can be really picky about what it considers as reliable. Maybe you could try moving the page to the article space yourself? If that doesn't pan out, there might be some alternate wiki where the page would be published. Opencooper (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

MOS
Thanks for the education, in re the MOS and Bill Bryson. Learning every day here. —¿philoserf? (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. I realized afterwards that such a long comment would be better suited as a talk page discussion, but blame the developers for increasing the maximum summary length so high, haha. Happy editing. Opencooper (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Questionable edit to topic "Fire Island"
OpenCooper.

What edit are you referring to? I checked the very small changes I made in February of 2020, and see nothing wrong, and certainly nothing either contentious or anecdotal.

Dunbarx (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Craig Newman
 * I linked you the diff for the exact edit. Among other things, you did stuff such as: revert an image back to an inferior version without a caption, replaced the image frame template with table syntax, removed an image in the etymology section, replaced a working citation for sunysuffolk.edu with a broken one, removed IPA pronunciation for Sictem Hackey, replaced archived URLs for newsday with dead links, and it goes on and on... Just look at the edits after yours where others had to fix things. I'm not even sure why I have to be explaining this to you when you should be able to justify your own edits. Opencooper (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Eady
I'm fine with your last edit. Thanks for the clarification. But I wanted to clarify one matter with you: I didn't "stick it in the lead". It has been in the lead for at least six years, just improperly cited. But other than that, we're good. Happy editing. Sundayclose (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You seemed awfully fixated on keeping content that was completely misrepresented and touting reincarnation though. In my wiki experience, when shoddily quoted content is falsely stating things and is contested, we remove it. Your abilities in interpreting tone are also highly suspect, because I quoted three different instances in that review that showed the author was highly critical of any claims of reincarnation. The use of the term "case study" makes this quite apparent. In the future, I suggest looking at things with a critical eye and examining the citations used instead of assuming something added 8 years ago is valid by default. Opencooper (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're taking such a hostile and argumentative approach to this matter. I'm fine with your changes, and I wasn't fixated. I didn't assume anything was valid except for the existence of the quotation. I was simply providing a proper citation, and I didn't think the author referred to delusional thinking. I hope you will see the importance of discussion and collaborative editing without the harshness. Thanks for your improvements to the article. Sundayclose (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleting the name "Barry Fell" from Barry Fell
That looks very much like disruptive editing. Certainly not something I'd expect from someone with your experience. You know better than to make a change like that without a move request, let alone the fact that the books mentioned are all written by "Barry Fell". Virtually every source I've ever read about him uses the same name. It's a nickname for Barraclough. You don't have to change your name legally. I haven't used my first name for an extremely long time, and it's not on my passports (plural) or any legal documents. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing is defined as "a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles", so I don't think you are using that term correctly. As for the reasoning behind my edit, see MOS:LEGALNAME:
 * which is exactly how it's currently presented on the article in question. Additionally, "Barry" is a "conventionalized" hypcorism here, so it's not necessary to have repeat it past the article title:
 * (refer to the footnote for details on what is considered "conventionalized") Opencooper (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (refer to the footnote for details on what is considered "conventionalized") Opencooper (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * And yet Twinkle allows you to give a Level 1 warning for disruptive editing telling the editor their edit wasn't constructive. But that's a trivial issue where I should probably have said that the edit looked disruptive because it could confuse the reader. I can't see any reason to change "Barry Fell (born Howard Barraclough Fell)" and there are no quotation marks in that. I've replaced the parentheses with commas.
 * I think that sort of change needs discussion on the talk page, and not an edit summary suggesting he changed his name (of course if you know that he was known as "Howard" for a good part of his life, you might have a point and it might need explaining). Minor point, "Barry" isn't necessarily a hypocorism. Doug Weller  talk 15:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your change still doesn't address the problem point, which is born. As in my first quote, this implies that the article name is distinct from his birth name, for whatever reason, but this is confusing, hence my rhetorical edit summary "suggesting" if he changed his name. This is recommended against by the MoS. If you really feel the need to keep the "Barry Fell" part, it should instead be reworded as "Howard Barraclough Fell, better known as Barry Fell..." Opencooper (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * Thanks! Best wishes to you as well. Happy holidays, and here's hoping that 2021 brings us a good year. Happy editing. :) Opencooper (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The Scent of Incense
Could you please explain your changes in the head section (rm of 1964 in film, instead adding unreferenced note)? Thanks. Robert Kerber (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the note was added in a separate edit than that, and while I did not include an inline citation, I directly stated my reference and wikilinked it, so not sure how you missed that. As for why I removed that wikilink, refer to the second link in my edit summary: MOS:EGG. Opencooper (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear 1. You referenced to another Wiki article, which is not a reference as per WP:CS 2. I cannot see how MOS:EGG justifies your 1964 in film rm – which section does? Thanks. Robert Kerber (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you open the link? Daijirin is a standard and reputable Japanese dictionary. The film is obviously not mentioned on that wiki page. I've added a citation so hopefully this is less confusing now. And sorry, I might have been mixing up two different things regarding the link; I've added it back. Opencooper (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear OK, this makes sense now. I've added an translation so the link is not Japanese only in the ref section. Thanks Robert Kerber (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Glad you found it useful. Opencooper (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Umezu
Hi Opencooper. Thank you for the multiple edits to both Shingo and Fourteen. It is great to see such improvements. By the way, I've read both series (in Japanese). I also went to the Zoku-Shingo art exhibit last weekend. Bendono (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm the author of the Cat Eyed Boy article, so was glad to see more articles on Umezu's works. Pretty cool that you got to see the exhibit and made an article for both series. Opencooper (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Unicode minus signs
Greetings! I've come across your recent edits and my curiosity is piqued. I'd like to know whether our own WP:MOS has explicit guidance about using real Unicode minus-signs with letter grades. As an education professional, I often assign grades with + or -, and so I'm curious about the guidance and advantages of converting those hyphens to Unicode glyphs. Thanks for any pointers you can offer! Elizium23 (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for reaching out. MOS:MINUS and MOS:NEGATIVE endorse it as a math symbol, but don't discuss using it in letter grades. So to that end, these edits are mainly me being bold in trying to improve the encyclopedia.
 * For some background, English typography uses many different types of dashes: '-' (hyphen), "–" (en dash), — (em dash), '―' (horizontal bar), and '−' (minus). These all have different uses, though it's common for people to mix them up or substitute multiple hyphens, e.g. '--' (a holdover from the typewriter era). However, they each have a distinct look (the minus sign normally has a different height than the dashes) and represent different things to computers.
 * If we're merely arguing on matters of correctness, in the equation "2 x 5 = 10", it's not "two letter x five", but should be "two times five" (×). This might seem like a nitpick when it comes to scores, since most will be able to visually tell that "A–" (with an en dash) is meant to be read "A minus", but this actually does affect screen readers. Try reading the following using a screen reader:
 * Gave it an A- score. (hyphen)
 * Gave it an A— score. (em dash)
 * Gave it an A– score. (en dash)
 * Gave it an A− score. (minus)
 * Using both Chrome (highlight text > right click > Speech > Start speaking) and VoiceOver on macOS (Preferences > Accessibility to activate), neither reads the first three correctly. In fact, they both read them as "an score", so visually-impaired users are actually hearing the wrong score! The screen readers will also insert a slight pause for the center two, showing that they're respecting these dash's usage as punctuation. The hyphen also introduces ambiguity, as the hyphen is also used for prefixes.
 * So I feel using the proper Unicode character here is better in terms of typography, correctness, and accessibility. Hopefully that's good enough justification to use it, as Unicode has been upon us since 1991 (the minus sign was present in version 1.0) and now enjoys wide support by computers and fonts. I've held off continuing my edits in case you have any objections. Please let me know if there are any, as semi-automated editing is not meant to be used recklessly.
 * P.S. I highly recommend picking up a primer to typography or Butterick's Practical Typography. There's such a wealth of history in the practice (did you know the ampersand—'&'—comes from the Latin et?), and with just a little work, one's writing can look better and be easier to read. Having your students see a minus sign that looks the same as the one used in their math classes might be useful. Opencooper (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Special:WantedTemplates
Hi, I have been cleaning up Special:WantedTemplates and noticed that your javascript page is showing up in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:$1. This is because the backend software is parsing the curly braces as templates. An easy way to fix this is to put  at the top of your script, and   at the bottom of your script. This won't impact the functionality, since they are in javascript comments, but will remove the pages from Special:WantedTemplates. Thanks in advance for your help! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks for reaching out and for the instructions. Opencooper (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Killers of the Flower Moon, my excerpting EW article's Devery Jacobs quotes
I've been busy for a little while, but re Krimuk2.0's comment "John315 if you want more participants in order to form consensus, you could start a WP:RFC. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)", I appreciate their idea, but could it be quicker if, say, just you and they (and maybe Kire1975) commented? You two (or three) seem to be the only ones raising questions about the length of Devery Jacobs quotes from the Lenker EW article. Thanks. (I just sent Krimuk2.0 a similar message) John315 (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My commenting wouldn't add too much that is new, since I was the one who started the discussion and made my preference explicit. If Krimuk2.0 and others express a preference for your version, then I would concede to the consensus. Otherwise, what's currently in the article could always be expanded in a paraphrasing manner. Opencooper (talk)

Continuation of "Killers of the Flower Moon, my excerpting EW article's Devery Jacobs quotes"
I didn't see a "reply" tab after your last comment, so, a new post.

Below is what I sent to Krimuk2.0 after their reply, which said, "It's completely fine the way it is now imo.". I reference you there:

"Thanks, but I would like a little more latitude, if you would, please, as per reasons given below. --As noted previously, my own current version has 76 words within quotes (besides "Elora Danan Postoak"... from which I could actually remove the quotes), less than Justin Chang's 81-word quote length.

Moreover, one current quote in the "Indigenous response" section, "When it comes to Native representation, is Killers of the Flower Moon perfect? No. Is it progress? Yes. The film meaningfully moves the entertainment industry forward, making a strong statement that it's no longer acceptable to extract valuable assets from Indigenous communities – whether that be our stories or our natural resources – without our consent and input", is allowed to have, and has, 56 words.

A more recent quote there, "See it when and only if you feel ready, and see it with people you feel safe with. You'll likely have a lot of generational grief to process", has 28 words.

By contrast, your preferred version of my proposed post, has ...6 words of quotes: not 81, 76, 56, or even 28. Hmm.

So, seeing that others are given latitude I am not given so far, what do you think is the absolute maximum number of quoted words I should be allowed? I think 76 is fine, but if you want to argue for a lower number, with reasons, please let me know.

To allow me anything less than 56 words, the number that another entry there **currently has**, could look like an absurd double standard. I still prefer 76 words though. Thanks. ...Opencooper said something about paraphrasing, so, say, maybe I could paraphrase, or just omit, 20 words out of 76, to bring the count down to 56, if you wanted no more than 56.

I'll send a similar post to Opencooper's Talk page soon."

That was it. I think it's fair to ask for at least 56 words. Thanks. John315 (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. I've had no objections to devoting more words to Jacobs, with my contention being around this being done via quoting or putting her thoughts into our own words. Opencooper (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol
Hello Opencooper! Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
 * We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
 * If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

AI Voice
You seem to give a rather speculative reason to the unconstructive edit of removing an AI-audio file which i uploaded. You seem to suggest that this needs to be discussed at the talk page of Haile Selassie, nonetheless as far as i am concerned i have not read any Wiki rule or Spoken Wikipedia rule which suggests otherwise than yourself, in addition i would like to point out that you called this "low-quality" which is drawn in a subjective line rather than Objective line. I believe this comes from your bases of the sorts (All AI-generated Wiki Spoken files are "low-quality") which again divulges into the bias and subjective line which does incline me to concern, since according to the Project their is non consensus or rules which bar or shadow ban or create an premises wherein that call any and all types of AI-generated text to speech audio low quality. I perfectly choose a human like non-robotic in voice texture to represent to the article a great deal. My last point even if you still feel that this is still a "low-quality" file please do create a subsection in the talk page where you give an appeal to remove this file, this is simply to cause and end to potential edit wars. Usually audios, images, texts which are already in place for dozens or several months or even years being removed due cause conflict and would be reverted, and even after being reverted another revert would not be the solution (That is if that opinion still holds) and then a constructive way would be for that person that disagrees with a contribution this case you, then simply create a discussion to remove the file. CtasACT (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My comment about this requiring consensus was not about including that audio in that specific article, but the use of AI technology on the project as a whole. People are expecting human-read articles, where a human will understand things like emphasis, implicit pauses (e.g. places a comma was omitted), using a "quoting voice", differing pronunciations of a word depending on how it is used, and just general cadence. Human readers are also conveying information that might not be available to a non-sighted reader, such as announcing that information is in a table, the contents of a key image to the article, etc. If someone wanted a text-to-speech robot rather than human-read audio, they could use that themselves.
 * Yes, me calling it low-quality is subjective. But this is based on the reading having multiple issues. To start with, the article title was skipped at the start. Then, it reads his name as "Haile Selassie the first Ge'ez". He was the first "Ge'ez"? Then it obviously misreads the romanized version of his name. Then it pauses a large amount between "born Lij…" then speed-reads "Tafari Makonnen". I don't know what kind of stuff you listen to, but it's already apparent no human reads things like this, and that this recording is not an acceptable substitute at all.
 * It continues reading with very unnatural cadence, randomly pausing and speeding up. It doesn't pronounce names like "Zewditu" correctly, something a human reader would look up first. It reads "Menelik I" as "eye". This is all just in one paragraph. I could go on all day, but the AI reading is full of issues, and you yourself are not holding it to any "Objective line" because a critical listen by a native English speaker would spot these immediately. It's fine if you want to use new technology for your personal use, but introducing it to a project like Wikipedia that follows editorial standards and is curated by humans means it also needs to be subjected to those, including the approval of the community of this technology. There's a reason the Spoken Wikipedia project exists, with human readers carefully researching and pronouncing things as a natural English speaker would, and we don't just have a text-to-speech button on all articles. Opencooper (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes i do understand that it has problems, and yes all of this is right about the pronunciation, but my appeal would be that this over 1 hour long audio provides information which might be considered overwhelmed positive to the article than NOT (for example minor name mistakes and such which you would find so little of, in this mega sized article), so i would suggest if you have a strong urge of the AI thing, then simply create a subsection in the article Where readers in the Haile Selassie decide whether or not to keep or remove it, i would be well happy if actual people read this article (I did ask for someone to contribute [1]) it seems no one is interested so to keep the page as euthanistic as possible i decided a file of this sorts was the reasonable thing to due although bugged with inconveniences which you did very well point out.  Nonetheless to resolve this issue it seems a vote might be necessary.   CtasACT (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And again if someday, someone with a good heart does decide to speak for the Spoken Wiki project for this page: i would be thrilled if the AI thing is done away with, but as long as people leave articles blank, then i would think the best resolution would be AI (even with its mistakes) but as people who aim to improve Wikipedia, a talk page resolution would be the most likely thing if you want to remove it, so that any conflict of interest does not demean the process. CtasACT (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So you acknowledge that the recording has issues, yet for you, worse is better? You don't think you're doing a disservice to people who rely on these recordings due to sight issues, resulting in them getting a recording with poor cadence that pronounces key terms wrong? (what you call "minor name mistakes", most would call "the actual content of the article")
 * Having the recording there will actually discourage anyone in the future taking the time to record proper audio, because why would they when a low-quality AI already did it with a fraction of the effort?
 * You seem to want to drag this into a community discussion, but it boggles my mind that you yourself can't see sense in why this recording shouldn't be up. Based on your manner of typing in these comments ("euthanistic", "inconveniences", "demean"), I gather that you yourself aren't a native English speaker, so I don't see how you can even judge its acceptability. I don't mean this as an insult, but as a point of reference, considering I wouldn't be able to tell if a Hungarian reading was badly done for example. Opencooper (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This argument is a fallacy since we have articles in Wikipedia which date to over a decade in many featured class articles, i don't even need to list some of them, by your logic since the articles have changed over the years for example Edward VII was recorded in 14 July 2014, George V 13 July 2014, and it keeps going on and on, the amount of change over 9 is far greater than some minor pronunciation errors you seem to think would effect an entire 1 hour audio recording. We can go on and on, we have our own opinions, i am not willing to go to circles in this endless cycle, if you want to put a vote simply fulfill it. The amount of value the article audio of George V and exc.. is greater than the time laps the improvements have made and thus you still have them, but no no no some minor pronation mistakes would ruin an article made up of over 80,000 words or more. CtasACT (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * pronunciation* CtasACT (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes i am a native English speaker, not fluent, but native, do not know where and why "demean" could equate to me being a non-native speaker, nor can i fully understand the full scope of also adding "inconveniences" as a reasonable way to judge me not being "native" which again i am. The only one is the 'euthanistic" which i see since again is a typo, since i meant enthusiastic. But due note your notice of that error on my part which may again have appeared to you of some sorts of a, if you will showcase of my ability of possibility hindering the project: which again i do not think alike. CtasACT (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The template has a parameter for indicating the date of recording. If we don't care about pronouncing anything correctly, then readers can already use the text-to-speech built into their device themselves or the dozens of websites offering the same.
 * In short, you're perfectly fine with having error-riddled audio over no audio. This makes the project worse rather than better for users with accessibility needs and those who value accuracy, such as trying to learn pronunciation from these.
 * "Enthusiastic" doesn't make sense there either. There are plenty of other tells, but it's getting off topic. Also, I noticed on your userpage that you describe yourself as the "Gate keeper of Haile Selassie page". I suggest you read WP:OWN. Opencooper (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Immortal Hounds chapters
Sorry to ask, but do you perhaps have names for the chapters of volume 7 of Immortal Hounds also? Smeagol 17 (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * No problem asking at all. I do not unfortunately, and did not have any luck finding a preview of the table of contents. (a common thing with Vertical titles) I've added the Japanese titles though. Opencooper (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)