User talk:Teachingwedge

Welcome to Wikipedia!
- - - W e l c o m e - - -

Art v Science
Actually I'm embarassed by my poor use of reference citations on this one. There are plenty of better examples on how the article should be re-worked. In saying that I am happy to give you a hand and any pointers that you might need. Dan arndt (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have redeemed myself by going through and fixing most of the references - there are still a few gaps that need filling but I'll leave that up to you. Dan arndt (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Am done - will try and stop editing to allow you time to work on it yourself. Dan arndt (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: In one of your article edits you changed to. In your edit summary you pointed to WP:FN and indicated that "should not be 3 columns". Does this means that your monitor/browser displayed 3 columns? My reading of the WP:FN section is that you should rarely use or higher but that the number of columns displayed is up to the viewer's choice dependent on their browser and on monitor width.

Consider the subsection of WP:FN, on References or Reflist. You should find, "To prevent display problems with multi-column formats on smaller monitors, the "colwidth" parameter can be used with to specify a fixed column width. The number of columns displayed will then automatically adjust to match the size of the user's browser window. For example,  will display as many columns with a minimum width of 20 ems as will fit in the browser window." I generally use 25 ems to further reduced the likelihood of the multi-column problem. As far as I know, this subtle difference has no overall effect on Safari or Internet Explorer which both provide single column display. Users with different browsers (e.g. Firefox) might prefer to see 3 or more columns on their wide screen displays but with your edit they are forced to see only two columns. Whilst this is no particular problem for the Art vs. Science article at present – it is relatively low in number of refs at 18 – some editors see the "colwidth" format as being more browser friendly than Reflist|2. I don't expect you to change the Art vs. Science article but thought I should give you a heads up on why I used that format in the first place.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is fun, playing with Firefox width, it seems that the three cols switches over earlier on the colwidth format than when on the Reflist|2. Anyway, thanks for the diversion.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

He Will Have His Way
Hi, thanks for the message, what you said about the redlinks sounds fair enough to me - and thanks for adding the reference on the Crowded House page, it always bugs me when people don't add references and then I go and forget! Being in the UK, I've not heard of the 2 bands in question, but hopefully someone will start a page up for them. All the best, Ian. Iangurteen (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Kiss the Road..." - have a look here. Iangurteen (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)