User talk:S-Ranger

Leave a new message. ''I will respond on this page. If you would like me to respond on your talk page please specify.''

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Dear S-Ranger,

Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:


 * Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community Portal
 * Frequently Asked Questions
 * How to edit a page
 * How to revert to a previous version of a page
 * Tutorial
 * Copyrights
 * Shortcuts

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type  on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with two hyphens followed by four tildes. The software that runs Wikipedia will automatically convert this into a signature which contains your username and the date and time you posted the message, so other users don't get confused.

I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself on your userpage. Please add  to your userpage.

--PEAR 01:12, August 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Toronto talk page
Hi there. I hope this doesn't seem rude - it's not intended that way. Could you make your comments more concise? Some editors (like me) have thousands of articles on their watchlists, so trying to read a number of extremely long comments really slows us down. You seem to make some valid points, but you then wrap them in irrelevant statements (eg: "but it's confederate, so the "Ontario" medieval parliamentary elected dictatorship's "GTA thing" doesn't exist there" and "StatsCan't"). Just stick to what you want to discuss, so the discussion can flow more smoothly - you're also likelier to get more responses that way. (BTW: I notice you've cleaned up some of the comments already -thanks!)

Anyway, I'll try to respond to your concerns when I get a chance in the next few days. I think you asked about some of the tables in the demographics section - although the editors that added the info used a reliable source, they didn't seem to cite it. For example, StatsCan released tables for ethnic origin for major urban areas (based on 20% sample rates, in this case). A whole bunch of other tables are available, with data by CMA, CD, or CSD (eg: Ethnocultural Portrait of Canada; here's a short list of other tables). I do wish StatsCan released more info for free. Mind matrix  16:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Mindmatrix. I had no idea that anyone but those who specifically went to talk pages would get anything but summaries of changes as in the history lists.  Actually not even that much occurred to me because I only look at a few pages for editing purposes, not watchlists, so I assumed someone would have to go to the article in question, click on 'discussion' and read its talk page (and skip over anything that doesn't interest them; which should be the case; how many lines or characters of text you want to see in summaries, with a default of 4 lines or the like, then "..." then click on it to read more).


 * And sorry for the late, um, "reply" because it's not very clear how to go about responding to, sort of internal personal messages here. I didn't think I should stick it on your talk page, didn't think anyone would ever find any reply here, so still have no clue what to do, but others seem to be responding to posts directly on their own talk pages, so I guess that's how it's done.  I hope no "snubbing" or any other offense was or is taken.  Not new to Wikipedia, not new to "coding" (but in proper languages with proper reference manuals), I spent, well ask my wife how many evenings over how many weeks reading everything in the intros to Wikipedia but it's full of errors as with everything else around here, it seems. --S-Ranger


 * I happened to be the one who put the Centre of the Universe name into the article with its surrounding weasel words. It is something that people outside the city do call Toronto (and not a few inside in an ironic manner). I resent being called "hick" when I live firmly inside the boundaries of the City of Toronto. Your rather excessive response to the term is precisely why some of our more rural citizens find us to be rather overbearing and repellent. Dabbler 00:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, Dabbler. [Um, it just means hello, please to make your acquantance, etc.] Then I guess my point was made. I don't care what anyone happens to "think" about anything (just unbiased truth as close as is possible with basicaly free information for the public domain) and certainly not around an encyclopedia. It matters not who happens to call Newfies stupid welfare bums (their premier, most often, hyper-reacting to any comment regarding simple realities that they can't dispute -- so they throw smokeballs around mirrors to try to turn it into "poor, poor them" and invent nothing that was ever said by anyone but themselves) or, hell, look the word hick up at Dictionary.com: "provincial" and need I say more?


 * I didn't call you a hick. If you think I did then you imagined it, because I have no clue in the world who you even are.  In the Centre of the Universe section of the City of Toronto's talk page, someone else had already removed "Centre of the Universe" (look it up in the history), then:

"There is a source which clearly does imply that Toronto in a negative term is known as the 'center of the universe'. With that said I'm adding it among the nicknames Editor18"


 * created the aforesaid section on the talk page with a squash club as some "verification", stating that s/he/it (a handle; it could be students testing some "artificial intelligence" software) was going to stick "Centre of the Universe" back up and then, well perhaps you should read the section.


 * And if hicks don't like being called hicks then they can stop acting like them and can also get a lesson out of DISCRIMINATION BASED ON NOTHING -- and that it pisses people off and the ONLY reason ever given for (as if the section is even needed, Toronto nicknames; in an encyclopedia no less) Centre of the Universe as being "legitimate" is that it is clearly derogatory -- which is called discrimimation.


 * If it's "okay" by Wikipedia that we all post derogatory crap in articles, nothing but discrimination, then guess what happens when we start shooting back? I don't care if you happen to find Centre of the Universe to be discriminatory, it is clearly the ONLY INTENTION of it (and as usual, a lame hick attempt, which is clearly stated in the Globe and Mail article, from 1994 no less, that "Thylark" put on the talk page, likely violating copyright, in an OP-ED that makes fun of the "Toronto-bashers" for being so lame that they can't even come up with a decent term that "stings" and if you want to see bashing, you'll see plenty of it if Center of the Universe ever shows up on the WRONG PAGE ANYWAY.


 * Or do you have "official maps" of the Toronto area documenting how, where and why invisible lines between west, west Toronto (former municipality of Etobicoke, west) and east Mississauga? Or across Steeles Ave or across or in the Rouge?  Where or why does the "Centre of the Universe" begin and end in 2006 and if you prove it, we'll have whatever you use for proof up on charges of discrimimation in a Toronto minute (about a month due to the fact that our municipal revenues are stolen by the "Ontario" feds, as "Ontario's" federal revenues generated are stolen by the confederate feds; for nothing in return but endless bitching and moaning, so best of luck to them both).


 * BIAS has no place in an encyclopedia, let alone nothing but blatant discrimination; even though it's a joke (because the hicks of the Canadas are a joke and many, many studies prove so, but use different words), it's all it is. All I need is Statistics Canada and Finance Canada to prove the utter insanity of "Canada" (which Canada?) on every level imaginable.  And no one will be able to dispute any of it, it will be the unbiased simple truth and the unbiased simple truth is not something that "Canadians" like to hear about -- but too bad for them.


 * And until they get some brains out there, which requires brains in here (the Windsor-Quebec City corridor or even the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor will do; with the U.S. of course, not that they have to do or say anything, just show the usual indifference because they are as fed up with the insults to the words medieval political DISASTERS of systems and structures in the poor, poor Canadas), who cares what they think they have to say about anything? And so what if they don't like it? Who cares what "they think" causes it?  They have no care in the world about Toronto, so why would anyone in Toronto give a rat's ass about them?  And they started this crap with their total obliviousness, hearsay based on rumors they also invented, not us.


 * Toronto has been far too accommodating to the Ontarios and Canadas, in every way imaginable, for far too long. But that's just political reality to stick in the Politics section.  The Ontarios (south) have been far too accomodating to the Canadas for far too long and it's over.  The political boneheads are either going to fall in line with the demands the (suddenly, quite south) Ontario Chamber of Commerce (backed by everything imaginable in all of the Canadas including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce -- just not the political boneheads yet because they have some "Canada" thing to try to market their bullshit to), where it counts at the business level here and in the U.S.


 * If you haven't kept up on it, well whenever I get a chance to flame the asses of the rest of these pathetic "federation", with skids of verifiable documentation to back it all up, you'll know all about it and it won't be discrimination, it'll be the simple truth -- something that "Canadians" don't like to hear about much because it all looks and is pretty bad on all of them outside the few city-regions in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor (with 60% of the population/markets of the Canadas and over 60% of its wealth, combined with about 15% from the Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island, expanded somewhat in some areas, cut in others as with the W-QCC) and then we've got about 70% of the markets in the Canadas and about 75% of its wealth to form another economic union with, get the hicks with the primary-based economies out of our faces and best of luck to them all with their endless loops of complaint in gripe-fests after that, becuse the only people they'll be able to blame for anything (as always) is themselves. It'll just be crystal clear. --S-Ranger 07:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me?
Making one revert is not an edit war. I gave what I consider to be good enough evidence to back up Brampton's estimates (that they jive with the province's estimates). That we do not agree on what is significant enough evidence is perhaps an issue for an RfC. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what's going on, Osgoode, but you are taking things that are public and assuming that they are directed at you. I wasn't addressing anyone in particular when I made the edit and edit comment.  I hadn't even checked the history yet, and it still wouldn't have mattered, it doesn't refer to you.  I don't know how an edit comment became an email to you. ;-) But I don't know how this is "to you" either given that everything around here is public.


 * And all the province provides is Peel: and you don't even have a source for Caledon and there is no source (nothing verifiable) for Mississauga either. --S-Ranger 20:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments made in edit summaries when reverting someone generally will be understood by the person being reverted to be directed towards them. Who else would you be telling to not edit war but the one you're reverting? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not "revert" anything. I simply edited the page. --S-Ranger 22:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Census metropolitan area etc
Hi S-Ranger, Thanks for your input to the above! You may be perturbed to find this page has now become a redirect to Census geographic units of Canada; however, "Don't Panic!", as: Hope all this correct. I'm intrigued to see what might result from your work as (1) I'm not Canadian, so (2) know only too well that I'm not expert in this area! Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) You should find your edits here and here as part of Census geographic units of Canada;
 * 2) Your edit here duplicated in Census metropolitan areas by size (the template replacing the table in the former CMA article);
 * 3) Your hard work here now copied here and here.


 * Thanks very much for all the info, David. It's strange because I'm still editing the census metropolitan area page by just entering that in a wiki-search, I end up right at the census metropolitan area article, talk page and everything seems quite normal.  There are also lots of references to census metropolitan area and CMA in articles, but I'll try to figure out what you mean above (I know what a redirect is, I'm just not sure why anything has been or has to be copied; I'll have to look at the links you provided to get a clue).


 * And thanks for the input. I've got lots more to do with the table but do need a talk page that has some traffic on it for input and perhaps some help. :-) --S-Ranger 23:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ''...It's strange because I'm still editing the census metropolitan area page by just entering that in a wiki-search, I end up right at the census metropolitan area article...
 * That's odd; you should find yourself redirected to Census geographic units of Canada and one of the templates at the bottom of that page should be the list of Census metropolitan areas by size... Drop me a note if you're still finding you're not being redirected... Yours, David (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. You meant just redirected.  I had the page open (talk in one, the article in another) in two browser instances and still do, but I'll close them and I tried census metropolitan area in a wiki-search and ended up at a page I've never seen.  Thanks for the personal notification. I would have ended up quite confused and am working offline (Wikipedia; I only need Statistics Canada and my handy text editor, which unfortunately doesn't have syntax highlighting for wiki-code) but probably would have saved my last changes to those pages, then had no clue what had happened, if I ever got off the pages I was on before I was finished... so thanks much.  I hope the template is better than the unbelievably horrible table I was going to re-write. --S-Ranger 00:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad the change didn't cause any confusion. Re the table, you could make it into (or add to or convert) a "List of..." article, then add a link to it from the Census metropolitan areas by size template, the Census geographical units of Canada article and any other relevant article you know/find. .. A neat way to do so might be to reclaim one of the redirects I made. Regards, David (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PS Thanks for correcting the abbreviations in the template.


 * I was going to ask about that, because I'd like for it to be a reliable source for authors to use in lieu of anything else, with direct external links (from a linked table/list as the template states nothing now, in any real context or with any real verifiability) to the revelevant Statistics Canada pages, sort orders and such, with no fiddling around to get at the meat. And I still will ask on the talk page, but not on the template talk page because I think I'd end up talking to myself. :-)  Nothing unusual about talking to myself, but I could use a bit of help to turn it into a resource for the editors of, not any but all of the major Canadian articles.  For now.  Thanks again for the heads up and all of the info.  Much appreciated. --S-Ranger 21:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If/when any feedback etc required, let me know. David (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And by the by. Nice user page. Why isn't it turned into the actual Editor's guide for Wikipedia?  Everyone has to go all over the place to find all of the info/links on your user page (just click on David for anyone, interested in expanding their editing horizons) and much like at Statistics Canada, it can take a long time to track it all down. :-) --S-Ranger 22:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your generous comment! The page has no master design (i.e. it's just evolving) and I've other user pages with custom toolbox windows etc etc that are (far) more comprehensive, but by trawl anything you find useful. I agree that trying to keep track of or learn new tricks seems endless – also remembering to keep a link somewhere to past discussions and consensus that are useful points of reference. I'm ever more mindful, though, that time spent trying to contribute to Wikipedia housekeeping (including your own userspace) is time not spent contributing to the encyclopedia content... Yours, David (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Toronto

 * Those who don't pay any attention to Wikipedia at all most likely don't know much of anything about it, let alone read anything on it. Those who don't read the "Four Pillars" at minimum don't, so probably don't know what they even are so aren't following them [...]

To be honest I have not read the Four Pillars; well, I have probably glanced through them multiple times without serious consideration. This may be a Bad Thing because I have participated in so many policy debates at Articles for Deletion, but whatever, reading policy is boring and common sense prevails.


 * Whether a cite was added a year ago is irrelevant. When it was last verified/checked, not just checking a link (if it's a cite web and has a link) to see that it's not a 404 [...] but to read the entire document if that's what it takes, to make sure that whatever is alleged prior to or after (around some tables) the cite is actually correct according to the source cited.

You can implement this idea by adding your own "last verified/checked" date after the existing "last retrieved" date in the citation. I'm not sure this is against policy. Surely, on the Talk page you could list your verifications. Talk pages are usually where sources are contested. If you want to do it at Talk:Toronto that would benefit us all.

Ideally you shouldn't have to read an entire source to see if a cite is correct. There's a quote = parameter in cite web cite news etc. If the source is long or the inference is hard to find, people should add the specific quote that is being interpreted/paraphrased.

The "last retrieved" date implies that the source was last verified on that date. Even if you have this "last verified" information, you would still need to verify that verification to know that it isn't lying. And even after someone else claims to have verified it, they could be on a bandwagon, etc, etc. A key is obviously to not trust any secondary source (and Wikipedia is a tertiary source most of the time) until you access it yourself to see whether anything has been misinterpreted.


 * After a while of it, we'll recognize good "verifiers" and if we know when they last verified what the article states is what the alleged source states, it'll make verification of cites much easier, for those interested.

Some might see it as overcomplicating the process, I don't know. There could be scheming verifiers who build up reputation verifying various sources, but for their own biased subject they intentionally mis-verify. Special interest groups could bandwagon on this feature. Of course, they could do it now and be caught either way.

What is the practical consequence of this? Say you come across a source that has been verified 3 times by 3 verifiers. Are you supposed to trust it and move on, automatically increasing your trust in that citation?

If someone wants to verify an assertion, they should look at the source regardless. Wikipedia is useful for research in that it provides a starting ground. Even if you're writing a paper, and citing Wikipedia is a big no-no according to professors, you can still check out articles to find some primary/secondary sources on the subject. Not necessarily the best ones, that's up to you to verify.

For the casual reader who is reading out of pure interest, their interest should lead to to clicking on the sources, or else they will blindly accept assertions in the article. If they're going to blindly accept, they'll do it regardless of whether the citations have been documented as "verified".


 * It'd be nice if we could define rules along with the above. Like for any cites of the 2001 Census it'd be nice if we could tell the wiki-software that there is a census in Canada every 5 years and define release dates of 2006 Census data so that when the data are released, and if a user bothers to click on a "verification" tab (which would just build a  didn't work.  And please don't tell me that the wiki-links of any page I want a wiki-link for has been on the screen in front of my face the whole time, but I didn't notice because no documentation (and I've read far too much for knowing Intel 808x assembler, C, C++, Borland ObjectWindows, I sold my software development and consulting company when Microsoft destroyed Borland and ObjectWindows, which would easily have allowed the same source for multiple platforms to be coded once, then just get the ObjectWindows library/framework for other OSs and link it to your code after whatever C++ compiler is done with it/has create object modules, which is why Microsoft destroyed Borlnd; and far too many script and macro languages, including my own, and more recently, HTML for no apparent reason, assuming that the messes may have been sorted out by now, only to learn that most of it is deprecated by HTML 4.01/XHTML and CSS, Java ... commenting code out; how well thought-out.  C and C++ were very well-engineered/thought out and for the rest, use a WYSIWYG editor with context-sensitive online help; not a text editor, referring to the equivalent of MS-Word data file formatting, tables, embedded spreadsheets that show up as whatever tables unless they're edited (and the document sets permission for that) and other codes and manually entering them all in a 'text editor). :)


 * And thanks for your feedback re "documentation" and totally agreed. :) —S-Ranger 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see why you're having trouble with that. Think of wiki text as raw C code - it has to be parsed and "compiled" to HTML for output. When you create a link, only do so using HTML characters, and wrap them in the usual wiki braces: this is stored as raw wiki text, which will then be converted to the appropriate HTML. Unfortunately, when the link target contains a template link (like Maintained, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to link to the particular thread. This is why we try not to put links in the header. Anyway, one could escape all the odd characters (google for HTML character code), like so: Maintained template discussion , but that doesn't quite work in this case. So, my last resort is to check the HTML source of the page in question, search for the anchor text in that source, and I get this: a happy link to the Maintained discussion on Talk:Toronto. This is undocumented, of course, but it's standard fare as far as HTML is concerned, so I always fall back to this when all else fails. Check the wiki source - I'm not sure what's up with the 7B and 7D weirdness in place of the braces. Just remember this: you're editing in wiki markup, you're viewing in HTML. Mind  matrix  17:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Undocumented? Oh come on, what's undocumented around here. :) Wow.  Who'd have thunk it?


 * Thanks again for all of your help and feedback, Mind  matrix .  You never cease to amaze me. :)  How you found all this crap out ... well you must not be as sick of coding (let alone learning an undocumented YAML [yet another markup/macro-script] 'language') as I am.


 * [Not that the above isn't, but very optional reading from here down.]


 * Maybe 15 years ago this mess would have been 'fun' to try to figure out: but the only other language I'm thinking of learning is C#; if I can ever get past having to use Visual.NET/Microsoft and its horrid MFC 'library/framework' is probably mandatory to get anything done.


 * But to me, "raw" C code means machine code, or preferably faked assembler with semi-English tags representing processor 'command'/function numbers, though it's usually what I profile with (aside from a profiler) (assembler) to find out what fake C/C++ code compiles as in assembler, with various compiler settings/optimizations of different sorts turned on and off, once profiling software has ID'd bottlenecks or around obvious potential bottlenecks where every extra instruction to the processor (like loading the address of a class for offets to class functions/data) could add up to hours and hours, in milliseconds over time around code that runs in a loop constantly. Source code is quite worthless for anything but coding and those who don't know what their compilers generate in machine code (like a switch/case as opposed to if (...) else if (...), else if (...), etc., is quite a lot faster, which is about the first real thing I found out about C (C++ too, same code around switch/case). But it depends on the compiler and settings, which I always have to state due to posting proof, but for Borland C++ not "every" C++ compiler and ObjectWindows in the OWL newsgroup on Usenet proving that C++ always produces fatter/slower code compared to C, which resulted in quite an argument about nothing relevant to what I posted. Many people seem to like doing that online, to demonstrate how stupid they are ... and once they figure it out, being self-proclaimed 'authorities' on the subject, they can never admit to simple reality, even when it's qualified and the proof is right in their faces.


 * HTML and ilk make me nauseous, but that's another book about horribly engineered commuinications protocols/terminal emulations at best (commented-out scripting in HTML data files excluded). To me it's the equivalent of writing a Word document in a text editor and manually entering all of the formatting and other data file tokens manually in a text editor. And around here, a text editor with no active spell checking, let alone active grammar checking, or even syntax highlighting for the undocumented data file 'code'.


 * Who sits around with the data file specs for MS-Office, any data file type(s), PDFs, whatever, manually coding, hell, why not database indexes, in a text editor? For a simple B-tree index it's very simple to find the specs and they're quite good, so why not code B-Tree indexes in a text editor too?  And at least it's relatively simple to get data file specs (but usually for real application developers to convert to/from whatever data file format, automated by software no less :o) that are written properly, which isn't the case around here meaning that it makes more sense to waste hours coding a Word document or the like (what can Wikipedia data file codes do that Word data file codes can't do more of and better with no coding whatsoever?), reading the data file specs (because they exist, unlike around here) and manually coding them all in what might as well be Windows Notepad as the alleged "editor's" interface (other than the 32,565 character limit around Windows edit controls, which is all Notepad is, with a simple wrapper that must have taken a whole ten minutes to 'code') around here.


 * Um, nothing directed at you or anyone in particular because I have no idea if any wiki-software engineer(s) or bricklayers/coders (engineers too of course) are around anywhere to get some real feedback (and help if they want it) to properly correct all of the messes around here; in time, with nothing radical (that any end-users will know about) for a year or so, until a proper, probably offline Wikipedia WYSIWYG editor with all the bells and whistles is released and 'data file coding' reference manuals (or the lack thereof) will mean nothing because no code will ever be in anyone's face anymore than it is in decent word processors from the 1980s, without WYSIWYG due to the cost of fancy CGA/EGA monitors and video cards (I was a Hercules Man myself; amber monitor and much crisper graphics than any CGA lump of crap could pump out; for like previews of spreadsheet charts; even a golf game) back then.  But Volkswriter, if you've ever had the non-pleasure, or WordPerfect for DOS back in the 1980s didn't stick formatting codes in anyone's faces.  You could see them if you wanted to but had to split the screen with a command for that.


 * Sorry to waste your time instead of going to the helpdesk or village idiot, but from what I see on those pages, folks are better off throwing sticks on the ground to try to figure anything out around here. Do you know if the real wiki-'coders' are around (anywhere) and how to contact them and possibly get involved with some real coding around here?  If you don't know right off the bat, have to do any research whatsoever, then please just tell me to ask the helpdesk and/or village idiot.  It's not your job to explain this mess and it's a never-ending job until the messes that cause it are rectified, which isn't going to happen without major changes to the real code around here.  Well, major overall, not all at once.  I've never read any invitations to participate in or even to provide feedback for the real code development around here. —S-Ranger 04:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ya know, I was just trying to make an analogy about the C raw code! ;-) (For the record, I should have used "source code", not "raw code".) The problem with wiki editing is actually well-known, and there are groups, somewhere in the ether chaos of the internet, trying to solve that problem (for example, see the somewhat outdated Wikiwyg). I'm sure there are decent HTML editors available, though I prefer hand-coding with vi and possibly Perl. As far as getting in touch with developers, you can try at a number of sources, including the mailing lists, on the meta project, the MediaWiki project website, or perusing Wikimedia's bug database (to which you can also submit feature requests). There are plenty of other links, but they escape me at the moment.
 * BTW: WordPerfect was once a great editor. I never used Volkswriter, which seems to be a good thing given your parenthetical comment. Mind  matrix  15:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. [I just like that word; pay no attention to any silliness; not that I have to tell you.]


 * Source code would have been a more 'proper' analogy ;) but sorry if it came across as some offense taken (or intended). [I saw the 'emoticons' but still don't want you to think that any offense was taken.] I wasn't trying to 'correct you'; just my point of view, no way for you to know, around programming in general and (sort of) why I 'dislike' [X]HTML/CSS let alone this wiki- mess.


 * [Um, optional ranting until last paragraph.]


 * I'm not accustomed to source code being the same as even data file 'code' and find it to be extremely lame (not around wiki-anything that has to be translated into [X]HTML/CSS or something that web browsers understand and PHP.exe doesn't exist for no reason; though it depends on the "web browser". If it's the (probably offline or it'd perform like a dawg) Wikipedia WYSIWYG Editor (for wiki-editors, not wiki- or any other coders or wannabe coders either)/word processor/web browser then transfer the data files/sections, if edited, in the native PHP/MySQL format, unless they're too fat/slow, in which case a tokenizer will have to auto-run on the data before transferring it to the Wikipedia WYSIWYG editor and whatever else it is, with a data file format that is very fast to parse or even offline the WYSIWYG editor will perform like a dog; depending on the computer it's running on. For sure we can't have big long English-like "source code"/parameters stored right in the data files for any WYSIWYG parser to deal with.  Not even software designed to create web pages does that; it tokenizes its data files in the format the engineers designed, or 'borrowed' and translates it into usually deprecated HTML and non-standard parameters from the 'browser wars', or at least Fusion does.  I don't know about Dreamweaver; it probably creates Macromedia Flash code when translating tokenized data files to upload the proper code to servers, not HTML or CSS or anything else, other than to tell people that they have to install MacroMedia Flash to see the web site and how to do so.  The only point being that whatever format data files happen to be stored in, like Word documents or whatever, which can translate/output documents in HTML and other formats, is irrelevant to what users see and is irrelevant to output, because the translation/conversion routines for different data file format output is separate code and a separate issue that has nothing to do with the actual format data files are stored in.  And I don't assume that you don't know it, but, even though we're done here (I'll be happy to pick your brains for weeks; but I assume that you have much better things to do, so I'm not happy to waste your time), around this anyway, i don't want to waste your time having to explain things that I know and that you have no way of knowing I know unless I tell you or anyone else who's trying to help me out.  And if others come here to help me out, I might save them some time if they have an idea what sort of level I'm at and do and don't understand in general; if not around here specifically.]


 * Thanks heaps for all of the links and it's nice to hear that the (quite few so far) 'potential' improvements are known and that everyone I know aren't the only ones who happened to 'notice' them, to say the least. I was beginning to wonder, because I haven't seen any proper bitching (which means polite, but also at least semi-informed feedback, unless one wants to be ignored) about what are absolutely glaring problems to everyone I know personally who I've tried to get to help out around here; unsucessfully (namely what happens when "edit this page" or an edit link on a section are clicked on). And pointing out potential (not up to me to decide) problems isn't the issue. Proposing possible solutions, once I'm qualified to in Wikipedia terms, is the issue (for me anyway) instead of just stating the obvious (I hope), or worse, just bitching/moaning and leaving it at that. —S-Ranger 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 21
Do not make ad-hominem personal attacks as you did here ("the handles that voted to delete need to be watched to find out what their problem with Wikipedia:Attribution is, now they've announced themselves"), per No personal attacks).

You also may wish to read Talk page guidelines, which includes such helpful guidlines as:
 * 1) Avoid excessive markup: It undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force through Italic text, Bolded text, and especially CAPITAL LETTERS, which are considered SHOUTING, and RANTING!!!!! Italics, however, can be usefully employed for a key word, to distinguish quoted text from new text and, of course, book titles etc.
 * 2) Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood. If you need to make a detailed, point by point discussion, see below for how to lay this out.

 Λυδ α  cιτγ  23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the links and feedback. I have read every guideline and policy ad nauseum and meant no offense or inconvenience.  One must realize that with the number of talk pages and different topics on Wikipedia that the experiences of individual users differ and that guidelines are just that. The point is to be able to read it quickly, with the main points emphasized but important (to some) details not left in the ether.




 * If you can logically describe some other reason that the #1 problem of Wikipedia, according to Wikipedia, is that is is not considered to be a reliable source of information due to anything but editors (are bots causing it?) who don't know about or follow Attribution, exactly what the  deals with, then please let me in on it.  Personal is something personal.  The #1 problem of Wikipedia is nothing personal, nor is this anything personal. Thanks for your help and input. If we have more than a misunderstanding then please let me know so I can understand/do something about it on specific pages. I am probably as frustrated with those who don't follow guidelines as you are. —S-Ranger 01:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your views — I also strongly support the use of Template:Maintained — but with the way you expressed them. The excessive bolding and length are merely annoying and not helpful to your point, but the ad hominem attacks are harmful to the purpose of a discussion, which is to build consensus. In terms of what specific attacks I'm referring to: the "handles" comment; "this encylasylum of wiki-heads who can't read or even comprehend simple common sense and simple facts."; "lack of credible sources for alleged facts being thrown around by "editors" who can kiss my ass with their worthless history lists that states nothing at all about WP:NPOV or Wikipedia:Attribution". I can appreciate bluntness, but these seem unnecessary. Thanks.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying,  Λυδ α  cιτγ . [I hope that worked; it rarely does and I can't figure out why with simple copy/pastes. :)] I agree with you and "but/however" is always an excuse.  However. :) I read have read every single word in that, um, frankly I don't know what to call it because for a debate to occur around something like this, some conclusion has to be reached first and proof provided, or the "edit this page" tab is up for deletion. —S-Ranger 04:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the template seems unlikely to be deleted. By the way, I had originally thought that you were using "handles" as an insult, but I just realized that you use "handle" to mean "username" (correct?). Apparently that's a common term online, but for some reason I don't remember ever coming across it.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  17:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope that it can be re-worded as proposed, if anything, instead of outright deleting it.


 * I'm not sure how handle is an insult, which is the usual from region to region, demographic group to demographic group; different words mean different things. The only time I recall "handle" being used, other than around computer things that existed but certainly not in anyone's home at the time, was at our cousin's [um, aunts and uncles too] as kids and they had a CB radio.  "What's yer (your) " like "ten-eighty" or something (they had the book of "secret CB codes" and everything :)) meant "What's your handle, big/little buddy?" (gag ... but it was amazing when we were kids; I'm turning 43 this year to give you an idea as to when that was).


 * But I think I picked 'handle' up again (around computers) on web discussion forums like phpBB and such. It's used around internet chat applications, I think. I don't do any text messaging or internet chatting (phones work fine for chatting; though I've said the same about lots of things before figuring out the benefits and adopting it as my own quite happily so one never knows. At this point, particularly with ridiculously cheap long-distance [telephone] plans around, I just don't understand the point of trying to use a phone or the like to enter text).


 * It's just that lots of people don't use real names (as was almost always the case, real names and verified, back in the good old days of BBS's) online anymore due to any/all privacy paranoia and realities in the media, but I'd assume that username is the proper term on Wikipedia regardless of whether it's a handle or not. Thanks for pointing that out: I'll try to remember it and stick to username to avoid any confusion that I wasn't even aware of until you mentioned it, so thanks for the feedback. —S-Ranger 23:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Image on Template:Maintained
Your recent edits to Template:Maintained removed the image I changed per the discussion on the talk page. It doesn't appear intentional but I wanted to check with you to see if there was a reason behind this change before I fixed it. Feel free to reply here. --24fan24 (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So sorry about that! I didn't even notice and have restored the image from the original template code that I commented out (to make for an easy reversal and I hope I didn't screw that up ... my brain seems to be functioning fine, I don't know how I missed it, I thought I compared every single character from the "old" table/template to the new, but obviously not). If anything else was changed by me other than what the sentence states (as per Kevin's suggestion and enough support for it and none against), please just change it back and don't bother asking me.  Thanks for letting me know. —S-Ranger 23:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, I figured it was a mistake. --24fan24 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You were warned more than once. You don't get to go around calling your fellow editors "deluded", "freaks", "nutcases", "have no f-ing clue", "f- off as some worthless editor", "old biddies", etcetera. Use your time off to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and decide whether you want to abide by them or find another hobby. Hesperian 05:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

<<Unblock|What is wrong with this software (what is right with this software is where to begin and "not much" is the answer) that it tells people to post this and/or the tag below but then AUTOBLOCKS THEM again for accessing their accounts as instructed to? How else are they supposed to be able to add any of the crap the wiki-ban-help sticks on user pages? The 24 hours was UP as far as I knew but this place uses UTC and I don't know or CARE what it even is. My time zone is in my OS, which my web browser has access to, so screw your "UTC" times and give people the time in their ACTUAL time zone and maybe they'll be able to tell if 24 hours have passed yet from a "sig" that has time in whatever the hell UTC is. If it's GMT then state so. But more importantly, don't stick instructions in people's faces telling them to add this or that tag (this and/or that in my case just to explain it), which there is no way of doing with an edit ban in place, WITHOUT logging in. And if the time isn't up then the software should state so, not tell users to go add this or that "below", resulting in yet another 24-hour ban for doing what we're TOLD to do.>>

<>

Notes for admins considering servicing this unblock request:
 * 1) S-Ranger's block has indeed expired, so he is entitled to have his autoblock lifted;
 * 2) Given the nature of S-Ranger's response above, I am disinclined to lift this block; I would rather see it extended. But I have no objection to you lifting it if you think it best.
 * 3) In response to S-Ranger's statement that my block on the basis of "constant stream of insults and incivility" is "bias, POV, power-tripping and OUTRIGHT LIES", the following are insulting and/or uncivil posts by S-Ranger on 27 March alone; there are plenty more from previous days: . Hesperian 11:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you decide to leave permanently, Toronto will sorely miss your contributions and off-tangent rants. –Pomte 09:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Pomte. [The usual; optional "off-tangent ranting" :) henceforth.]


 * Though the ultimate lesson in "wiki-civility" above, if anything could possibly more insulting around this place, Hesperian, has probably taken your comment literally and added it to its little anal list of talk page guidelines as sarcasm, as in good riddance, Ranger, you were never of any use in the first place with your "off-tangent rants." If anyone at all ever sees any of this.


 * I think we, with others, got some productive things done but anal politicking/power-tripping is worse around here than on phpBB2 chit-chat nothings, and simply stating realities isn't what the wiki-"powers" (beggars, looking for handouts with customer "relations' like the above?) that be ... well it was only one 'admin' and I don't think I've run across a bigger waste of storage space/bandwidth in a sig but  Netsnipe  ►  proved handily and in no time that not only one admin is in charge of financial donation/customer/contributer relations around here. —S-Ranger 22:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Now now, there's no need for any more accusations a fortnight after the event. I used to hold an attitude akin to yours, and in fact on old phpBB2 forums I would scrutinize the decision-making process of moderators who would delete and ban at a sensitive whim. I didn't believe in being humble and following aribitrary rules, especially not on the internet. But of course I never got anything productive done either. Wikipedia admins are much better than phpBB2 forum mods because they have a strict set of policy and guidelines to follow; they simply cannot power-trip and get away with it.
 * Recently, knowing nothing about goth myself, I helped rescue the article goth subculture in Toronto from a rather drawn-out AfD debate. Anyone glancing at the article may be astounded by how many sources can be stacked on such a specific topic, but if they look deeper they'll see that attributability/verifiability can be used in mischievous ways. And if anyone else happens to read this and suspects something, I'll just have to improve the article a little more.
 * Seriously though, it's tragic that you (and me and hundreds of others) strayed away from article editing to arguing oft-trivial meta-stuff like maintained. –Pomte 22:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mississauga, Ontario
In-article hidden comments should be reserved only for the most serious issues (such as recurrent insertion of incorrect information). Please don't throw them around like that. Lexicon (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained
As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that Maintained is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-01-30 17:47Z

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message
--UTRSBot (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)