User talk:Tuxedo junction

Welcome!

 * Dear editor, I was trying to fix it but did not know how. Sorry! :) Tuxedo junction (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

editing
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Flyguy649 talk 20:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries! You can easily undo any of your edits by clicking on the "History" tab at the top of the page. Then either click "undo" beside the last edit, or click on an older version of the article (where the date is) then click edit (there will be a warning that you are editing an earlier version), then save. Please remember to add an edit summary. -- Flyguy649 talk 20:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it's possible to set up multiple references within an article to a single ref. See what I did to your changes at Neuroethics here . -- Flyguy649 talk 20:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Tuxedo junction (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thomas D Rice
Hi, TJ. I undid your correction of the spelling in the notes to the article ('reminiscenses' to 'reminiscences') for the sake of historical accuracy. I was quoting an article in the NYT (1907) and that's how they spell it in their subheading. Just in case you think it's me that can't spell. RLamb (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Thanks for letting me know! Tuxedo junction (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hermaphrodite
Why are you editing the alt of the statue to call it a woman? Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I was writing the alt text per Alternative text for images, and the statues appear to be female. What do you suggest while remaining in keeping with the current guidelines? Please feel free to change it, while keeping in mind that alt text description should only describe and not interpret. Thanks,  Tuxedo junction (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The statue is all about hermaphrodites, unable to see the actual sex, that is what it is about, the official name of the statue is hermaphrodite, that is the whole point, why would there be a picture of a woman in the lede of the hermaphrodite article? I had changed it to simply a person, people without sight that are wanting to get information about hermaphrodites will understand person or we can just add a hermaphrodite laying back but this is actually not clear as alt text so imo person is ok, what do you think? Have another look and are you sure it is a woman, it could just as easy be a male...Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have it as this now..Marble statue of person lying on a bed, back to the viewer, the persons legs  are entangled in cloth. which I think is correct with policy. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, would you agree to "person looking externally like a female" or something like that? Saying the statue is a hermaphrodite meaning nothing to someone who can't see the picture and has never knowingly seen a hermaphrodite. What do you want the person who cannot see the statue envision that it looks like?  Do all hermaphrodites look like women on the outside, with no sign of male parts? Or do some look like men on the outside?  Perhaps that text of the article could clearly explain that they do. How about that? If some look like men on the outside, there should be pictures of them in the article.  Tuxedo junction (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it looks like a female, I would say it could be a male or a female or a hermaphrodite, which is what the article is about. A hermaf is a bit of both, could be a man or a woman, a merging of the two sexes in one body, you can't say this looks like a woman because you can not see any breasts or any sex organs at all. Is there a noticeboard for alt text? if there is I think I will ask for wider experience opinions regarding this Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

'Marble statue of a person of unclear sexual definition, lying on a bed, back  to the viewer, the persons legs  are entangled in cloth.'' Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea to ask at Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images. There they are discussing alt text, but they don't get questions about specific examples. I think this is an interesting example and I really don't know what the correct way to go is. You could ask the question, entitled "A question about a specific example of alt text", or something like that. I would like to find out what the general consensus is, as it would clarify what alt text is supposed to do. Tuxedo junction (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a interesting example but not especially about ALT, just one of those special, rare cases, lets ask there or somewhere. I will ask there and see if there are replies, regards. What do you think about the last offering just above? of unclear sexual definition?Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, everything the alt text people have said so far is that the alt text should be descriptive of the image, and not interpretive. I believe that I am not unusual in assuming the figures are female when no context is presented. But definitely the alt text should not perpetuate untruths. So I would really like to know what others think. Plus it could be helpful to the alt text people to get a concrete example to discuss. I would like to see you ask there. I would do it, but I don't know enough about it to present the situation accurately. Tuxedo junction (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have left a small request, here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * there is a reply, please have a look. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the editors on that page are the best authorities currently for Wikipedia, so I would go by what they say. Tuxedo junction (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

 * Your alt captions are pretty nonsensical. Woogee (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They are not captions. Please learn the distinction between alt text and captions. I am trying to add alt text per Alternative text for images. My edit was not a mistake. I was trying to add alt text for the cover, a la the wonderful example set by the article on the single If U Seek Amy. Please consider before you label an edit vandalism. Perhaps you can correct the error on the page of Ice Ice Baby, where there is no alt text for the album cover.  Tuxedo junction (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what alt text is. Don't be a jerk.  Woogee (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't you be a jerk. Learn what alt text is. I gave you the link. Here it is again: Alternative text for images. It is required for all articles. You should not revert progress. Tuxedo junction (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that I said above that I know what alt text. You're basically calling me stupid, or ignorant, I'm not sure which, and therefore you are being a jerk.  Woogee (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please point to any policy which requires alt text. Woogee (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is actually policy but it is an up and coming thing to add, it is a requirement of a wikipedia good article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It recently became required for Featured articles. However, currently there is argument over exactly what alt text should say. I think the only way to find out is to try it, and ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images.  Tuxedo junction (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, many Good article reviewers require it now. Tuxedo junction (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is policy. You may not break it with your alt texts. Woogee (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Alternative_text_for_images. Woogee (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What is POV about "neat goatee"? Tuxedo junction (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Neat" is your POV. Woogee (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, give me some idea of how to characterize goatees. You want to give some flavour of the individuality of the subject to the person who doesn't see the image. Tuxedo junction (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't characterize. Just use neutral language.  Woogee (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That was a mistake and I self reverted. See article history of Drew Barrymore. You are abusing templates. Please stop. Tuxedo junction (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 D u s t i SPEAK!! 22:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 D u s t i SPEAK!! 22:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of talk page edit
I reverted a user talk edit of yours by mistake. Sorry. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, according to User talk:Dusti, there is no such thing as a mistake and you should receive a warning template!! Tuxedo junction (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but AGF. At first glance, what you're doing doesn't warrant waning templates.  However, attacking others will get you blocked.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 22:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll put a stern warning on my page. PhilKnight (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks. Hope it is very stern! Tuxedo junction (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiEd
Hi Tuxedo junction. I understand you are new to Wikipedia, and that editing here may be confusing and difficult for new users, but please bear in mind that you are solely responsible for the edits you make, regardless of the tools/gadgets you use. I'm not sure if you know this, but when editing with automated/enhanced tools such as WikiEd, you accept full responsibility for your edits you make while editing with these tools, just as if you were editing normally from your internet browser. If the tool isn't working out for you, don't use it. I hate to tell you this, but your errors with WikiEd are becoming rather disruptive. If you don't know how to use it, please stop. Consider this your only warning. If you "mess up" or blank a page again, I will not hesitate to block you from editing. Kind Regards,  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 22:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not using the automated functions of Wiki Ed. I am not even sure what they are. I was only using Wiki Ed because it highlights the text and makes it easier to read in the edit mode. For each of the two mistakes, the mistake did not show up in the preview mode. Is there no tolerance here at all for human error. Each time I self reverted immediately. Are you saying that I should not use Wiki Ed for its ability to highlight text in the edit more? Tuxedo junction (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically. If you don't know how to use it, don't use it.  It's just that simple.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 22:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, please stop harassing Dusti, whether on WP:ANI or on his talk. Although it may not seem like harassment to you, per the common definition, it is.  You can also get blocked for this so I recommend you stop.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 22:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not harassing Dusti but merely responding to the talkback template he leaves on my page.

And I do know how to use Wiki Ed. I don't use it for any "automatic features" so I am asking you what you are talking about. I don't think there are any "automatic features". Anything extra makes a browser crash more easily. Does that mean no one should ever use any edit aids? There seems to be tolerance for the occasional error other places. Someone just accidentally blanked my page and self reverted. Should he receive a warning template? Tuxedo junction (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A formal notification
I would like to apologize for any confusion that may have taken place previously, and any feelings that may have accidentally been hurt. Welcome to Wikipedia,  D u s t i SPEAK!! 00:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your apology. Apology accepted. Tuxedo junction (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

James Cagney
Thanks for doing all those alt texts, much appreciated! It's been on my list for ages, as I do want to get this to FA eventually. Ged UK  18:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome! Feel free to adjust them, as you know more about the subject..Tuxedo junction (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope to get to it eventually! Ged  UK  20:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Smedley Butler
I just wanted to say thanks for the Help on fixing up this article. --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome! Tuxedo junction (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style discussion
I've moved the MOS structure discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Structure. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 21:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And you were doing so well ..
I hate to have to revert you, but your recent edit to Harry Potter was in error. Please look up the difference between a skunk and a badger. Thank you. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you fix the text instead of reverting whole thing? It takes time and effort to do over, and you could have replace one word? Tuxedo junction (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Van Gogh
There were several errors in your changes to the article, and I have reverted them. Please use the talk page and achieve consensus before making so many corrections. There were multiple spelling errors, multiple minor WP:IDON'TLIKEIT type alterations - multiple veteran editors have been working on this article for many months, wholesale revisions should be discussed first. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)