User talk:Saxbryn/Archive1

=Message Archive 1=

Thanks for notifying me about broken tables. I always try to check every single change, however due to the large amount of edits I am performing, it happens at times that I miss one or another whose conversion has failed. Thank you very much for reverting these changes. Saxbryn 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Calculator Deletion
I managed to keep most of your fine work in moving Beghilos into Calculator spelling. It looks like a truly substantive article now, with everyone's input merged into a single page.

I also moved the long list of calculator words to a new page. This caught someone's eye, and they marked it for deletion. I'm writing this because, with your work on the theory on calculator spelling, I'd think you would disagree with that thought. I'd appreciate if you spent a minute to visit the talk page at list of calculator words and voice your opposition.

Thanks again for your good work, and feel free to contact me. Spamguy 16:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Railway Line Station Tables
I note you have been revising these tables. With the html code they are not very elegant, or easy to edit. In the cases of the two I have reverted, the tables had been left without the list displaying any stations. I suggest that trailling these revisions in your Sandbox before applying them to the live articles. Stewart 16:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Broken tables
Thank you for your dedicated efforts to rid wikipedia of HTML tables! However please double-check your changes before saving them, as some of your edits resulted in unreadable tables. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's another edit that didn't work . Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother 7 (UK)
You broke the table with your changes to this page. i've reverted them -- timdew (Talk) 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Successful Edit
Sax, thanks for taking the time to help enhance the Battlefield High School page by cleaning up the table syntax. I had to pop over to see who you were and what you're doing, and it seems like a very large but very valuable undertaking. Thanks for contributing to the community. Bhs itrt 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Politics Australia tables
Thanks for your changes to the tables on some Australian geographic articles. Unlike some of the ones above, they worked fine - I hope to be incorporating this into a template which people can call rather than the so-called "bring your own box" approach to infobox building I've seen with some. Good work! Orderinchaos78 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

wikEd
Hi Saxbryn, I have seen that you are converting html tables to wikicode. You might be interested in the in-browser editor extension wikEd (currently Firefox/Mozilla only) that has an automatic 'html to wikicode' fixing button. Cacycle 14:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Broken table
I suppose you already know about this but your update to the Vale of Glamorgan Line has meant the stations have disappeared. Simply south 21:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Destruction of Wachusett Dam image context
Can I ask you what your intentions were when you destroyed the context of the two, dissimilar sized, side-by-side, images that I had carefully formatted? You CANNOT simply convert every table you see, without first determining what the original image was. Further, the result must be identical to what you found or the editing was a FAILURE! --LymanSchool 18:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am duplicating your response here: Hello, LymanSchool I think I put a well visible head tag denoting that I sometimes miss out certain tables I convert and am happy to be notified about these mistakes. This might have given you the impression that I don't check changes at all, which isn't the case. In fact, I usually check the actualized appearence, the original appearence as well as the converted table syntax and try to tidy the latter one where time allows it. I am very well aware there musn't be an optical discrepancy (except for a wanted one), not least I converted already about 3000 tables and spent countless hours to go through them. The way I convert doesn't allow preview and is more or less automatized (tables without proper HTML syntax are consequently skipped), which most certainly does produce betimes faulty results. However, previewing every single table before changing it would never enable me to scan larger parts without excessive time consumption. Examining changes by observing the contribution list and particulary reverting changes while the script is running, heavily speeds up the process. The relatively small amount (so far) of both failed and missed conversion is maintainable in my opinion, because it is very likely a responsible wikipedian like I guess you are, will revert the accidental damage in no-time. If you think my editing policy is not bearable, feel free to contact an administrator. Regards, Saxbryn 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to have you know that I think your response is one of the most arrogant that I have ever read. Basically, you decided that to maximize your edits, you could destroy encyclopedia articles at will. I would like to remind you that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to maximize the number of edits that you can accomplish, nor to even remove all the HTML code and convert it to WIKI format. It, instead, is to produce a useful worldwide on-line reference. You MUST modify your priorities with that in mind. You MUST preview whatever you intend to change and then you MUST verify that the result of your edits does not materially hurt the quality of the article. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles that are not going to be reviewed for years because the authors consider them finished. Expecting an article author or editor to catch your errors is a further indication of your arrogance. --LymanSchool 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey LymanSchool, before posting such arrogant and defamatory statements you should check the facts. The table was introduced in this edit from an anonymous account (you?). This table is completely unneccesary, adds to source text clutter, and does not use wiki table markup. Moreover, it had a broken syntax, so it was not Saxbryn who made a mistake! Cacycle 21:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree and I just fixed (changed what was not broken) the Wachusett Dam to use the WIKI format without screwing it up. Whoever added the table in the beginning probably did it because the two pictures are of unequal aspect ratio so the "normal" way of handling pictures would only look "right" if somebody who had a certain screen size. The table glued both of the images together so that they would move as a unit, the desired result. There is no "correct" way of doing this. The editor of an article can chose whatever techniques he thinks is appropriate. To have another author come along and edit the code, breaking the article, then claiming; "If you think my editing policy is not bearable, feel free to contact an administrator." is not only arrogant, but unconscionable. N26825 23:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledgement
Thank you for improving the article of BUPT! Zhangyunfan 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)