User talk:Quiddity/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Checking the "bad words" list for Version 0.7

Hi Quiddity, thank you for your kind offer to help read through hundreds of puerile attempts at humour, for the Version 0.7 release. Wizzy has finally got a "diff" version of his list, which only lists "bad words" that have since been removed - it's still over 20,000 words, but that is much more manageable than 70,000. The list is available for download [here in zipped form. Please let me know if you're available to help, and then we can start divvying up the list. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I've posted a page here to coordinate the work. I'll be away from home all next week, but I should have occasional internet so I'll try and do what I can anyway. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical outlines

Based on the way the history sections of outlines have been developed (especially the history sections of country outlines), the major classification scheme seems to be:

• By period
• By region
• By subject

Which makes these articles general outlines, rather than timelines. The "By period" section may be a timeline, if it is formatted that way.

As far as I can tell, the "historical outline of" articles by Buaidh aren't chronological, but topical, which makes them generic outlines rather than outlines of the timeline variety.

The Transhumanist    01:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for feedback

Burningview has asked for feedback on the Outline of Christianity.

He's interested in setting the standard (figure of speech) for religion outilnes.

I told him to take a look at Outline of Buddhism.

I'd be interested in your opinion of those two outlines.

(What they are lacking, their best features, etc.).

The Transhumanist    20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Terrifying mythologies. I've done a little cleanup, but can't bear to spend much more time there. At a glance, they seem quite complete and informative. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Removing maintenance tags

I'm so sorry. I didn’t know. I will try to revert my removals, on any pages where I'm uncertain whether or not the initial problem has been fixed yet. If its ok... I may just wait and see if other users revert my removals. I did some Maintenance on Category:Articles to be split from August 2008. I Removed and Updated the split tags on 247 articles. It took me 5 hours.--Zink Dawg -- 05:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Too many in one bite?

Renamed a bunch of topic lists to "Outline of". So far, one person has pinged me on my talk page. Please have a look. By the way, here's what I've been up to...

renames

I only renamed structured (subheaded) "topics" lists.

The Transhumanist    19:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. Corrected. [1]

Moving that many pages without discussion, including obviously argument-ridden articles like Outline of pseudoscience, is just asking for trouble.

These pages are Indexes, not Outlines (at least currently). Outline of curves, Outline of Russian, Outline of puzzles. Possibly more. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't have time to work on them now. Too busy trying to put out the fire I started.  :( The Transhumanist    18:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Web.archive.org official links

At WP:EL we are continuing to discuss the usage of official websites on web.archive.org here: Wikipedia_talk:External_links#ELs_of_official_websites_archived_on_web.archive.org WhisperToMe (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How are you?

It's me asking: Ludvikus (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(I recognize your username, but don't recall where/how we have interacted before.)

I'm ok, busy, tired. How are you? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have a quasi-pleasant memory of you. I began editing at WP in 2006. And you were an editor who could have explained Wiki culture to me better, I thought, because you were so civil. I was editing Philosophy at the time - and I exploded when one "professor" rated me quite low on the Bristol Stool Chart. He bated me, and I fell for it. I don't know what happened to him, or to USER:Banno, who WP:Banned or "WP:Blocked" me. After that I made another miscalculation over On the Jewish Question (partly over "the" vs. "The" in this foregoing title). And I pissed off the apparently [[Marxist] editor on the Article, by the name of User:El_C. He had, last time I looked, a portrait or image of Che Gevara on his User page. So he gave me a forced leave of absence for two years (sent me off to Wikipedian Siberia, so to speak). But after 1 & 1/2 I nice administrator allowed me to return to "Rome," a fate Cicero did not live to enjoy (I hope I've named the right Roman notable). If you wish I'll you more another time. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, welcome back then. Hope all goes well. I have no time to chat - coffee and my porch are calling me... :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: My talk page

Can you look at the note I have left for you on my talk page, thanks John Francis... Tinkermen (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Great advice

Thank you so much for the insight, think I figured out where I'd really like to start now after getting your message, just what I needed. Looks like I've got some learning and reference work to do that will help me to dive in a little, man this is the deep end of wikipedia that's for sure. LOL I hope to come back again some day in the future once I have gained enough wiki experience to be of help with linking content and catagories ect. Have a great day, hope all of your dreams come true... John Francis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkermen (talk • contribs) 06:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Quiddity. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Usability and Navbox

Hello. I saw you post on the usability project about the Navbox. I agree with you. I would like to show you my mockup.

1. The [show] button is unusal, and much too far away from the title, which is confusing.
   • Solution: Replace with an icon button, or maybe provide both. Move the button closer to the title.
2. The Navbox currently offers the reader to view, discuss and edit the template before he can even see it.
   • Provide a logical order: 1. Title 2. button to view content 3. Further options (v d e).

Capital cities of the Member States of the European Union

v d e

Capital cities of the Member States of the European Union	v d e
Example of content: Amsterdam · Athens · Berlin · Bratislava · Brussels · Bucharest

Capital cities of the Member States of the European Union show

v d e

Capital cities of the Member States of the European Union hide	v d e
Example of content: Amsterdam · Athens · Berlin · Bratislava · Brussels · Bucharest

Let me know what you think. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Good ideas, and I'm happy to be understood! I'll post same to the Or.Thread. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility and usability review

Hello. As you have probably seen already, I made a review of West Rail Line on Wikipedia talk:Colours. And I would like you to review my own review. :D I'm a french user. Since there is no reply to my comment so far, I guess I was not clear enough and understandable. Could you let me know what you think ? I would like to improve my english, and my abilities to interact with the english-speaking community.

If you know of some Javascript expert user, please let me know: I'm looking for people able to improve the Navbox according to our previous discussion. Thanks ! :-) Dodoïste (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your English is great! There was no rapid reply because not many people watch that WP:COLOR talkpage.

The only way to find expert JS users would be Category:User js-4.

I'll try to devote some more time to the navbox idea soon.

Stay well. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. User:TheDJ and User:Cacycle (WikEd) are currently working on the Navbox, and TheDJ has opened a discussion in Template talk:Navbox#Usability and Accessibility. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Accessibilty drive

Well done on your unsung support of a much understated part of wikipedia. I myself have made a few attempts at making entry into WP easier for the new prospective editor, but still this area is undersubscribed and needs a bit of work, I hope to address this over the next few months, part of which is bringing together editors and interested parties together - I think the help project is the best starting point. One problem is that there is no project associated with many of the help/intro/access pages so I feel a project banner will bring together interested parties to a central pool - after all many of the discussions and points cover several articles from different technical groups. I see that you are busy but I get a gut feeling you have a good comprehension of the issues involved - so please keep tabs / advise ... many thanks for your efforts :) L∴V 01:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s. love the churchill quote, quite true L∴V 01:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ponte Vecchio

Please see Talk:Ponte_Vecchio#Undoing_the_compromise? ... it has been suggested that the article be returned to a more standard format, as it has been a year since the compromise. Your participation may be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

descriptive vs. prescriptive

The "guidelines are descriptive and not prescriptive" rule seems to have disappeared. I thought it was in WP:BURO.

The Transhumanist    19:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed in august. See Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 30 for 2 threads near the top. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Temptation

I'm looking for some sage advice on the article BosWash. My motivation is to avoid backlash resulting from acting on a strong temptation to do something overly bold and utterly eviscerate the article as it stands as of this writing. In July of this year, I placed a {{Disputed}} tag at the head of the article after seeing nothing of substance done for over a year previous about concerns raised by me and Struthious_Bandersnatch (talk · contribs) regarding the overall use of the article to declare extant an area described by the neologism "BosWash" in a forty-plus year old disputed theory. You can check the discussion for the many reasons we found to object to the way the article is presented. To be brief, the opening sentence reads: "BosWash, also referred to as the Northeast Corridor or Northeast Megalopolis, is a group of metropolitan areas in the northeastern United States stretching from Boston to Washington, D.C." This is then followed by paragraphs of statistics and images that essentially treat "BosWash" as something that really exists, as in Benelux. It of course should read something like: "Along with ChiPitts and SanSan, BosWash is a term coined by futurists Herman Kahn and Anthony Wiener in a 1967 essay which they used to describe a theoretical megalopolis extending from the metropolitan area of Boston to that of Washington, D.C. in the United States.", which should then be followed by a brief tie-in to the work of Jean Gottmann and sixties-era socioeconomic theory, with all remaining copy removed, and the hatnote serving to direct readers to the Northeastern United States article for the demographics and cultural features that are currently masquerading within the article as being part of this mythical land.

What should I do? I really want to remove a large amount of content and give the neologism a definition-only place within the encyclopedia, but fear a backlash from a few editors who seem unconvinced by the truths presented on the talk page. The page view history shows a steady readership of around 350 persons per day over two years, indicating that the term is searched for in a moderate amount (n.b.: I don't know if that tool considers robot hits, which may skew the results given the likelihood of mirror sites and search engines confirming that the page still exists). But I am convinced that its use as current name for an actual physical location is being unknowingly promoted by en.wikipedia through the way it is now written and that is then snowballed by the existence of many mirrors of this site that pop up in Google and Bing, all proclaiming a fallacy. Would you suggest a bold evisceration, or is there another way of handling articles such as this that are obvious misrepresentations of facts? I envision being portrayed as a bully kicking over a sandcastle that other editors have sculpted into a nice looking edifice, with some responding in effect "hey, they aren't hurting anyone, why did you destroy their little work?" Well, I for one know for a fact that the great majority of those of us who live here don't conceive of either living in a place called "BosWash" or even much ascribe to the underlying concept of a northeast megalopolis, I just can't prove it without using the WP:GHITS test that unfortunately is skewed by the mirrors. Call it a pet peave, but I am not happy with the way things are. The lack of objection to my now three month old {{Disputed}} tag suggests to me that enough time has passed to take some action. Again, what should I do? Sswonk (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

More input. Many eyeballs make light work, and confirm consensus. Ask for fact-checking assistance at EITHER WP:No Original Research noticeboard or WP:Reference desk/Miscellaneous or WP:Editor assistance/Requests (not all of them, as that would be forum-shopping).

Condense your 2 paragraphs above, down to 50% of the size initially, to prevent WP:TLDR. Mostly the first paragraph is the informative part, and includes a suggested resolution.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - Check these ahead of time, to fix any mistaken assumptions on your own part ;)

Finally, I would suggest not mentioning these 2 initially (that'll only distract from the core issue), but once the discussion gets going, point out the horrors of Highways along the BosWash corridor and the (mergability? deletability? OR?) of Largest companies based in BosWash.

Hopethathelps. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I went with EA/R, trying hard to keep things short. Thanks for the great advice. Sswonk (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Secular

You recently changed the redirect of Secular, with the edit comment "redirect to Secular (disambiguation), whilst discussing this and related at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary". I've looked at that discussion, and I don't see how it bears at all on the question of what "Secular" should redirect to. Moreover, you may not have noticed that over 900 other Wikipedia articles contain links to "Secular"; if you change the redirect, potentially every one of those other articles needs to be revised to fix the link which is now pointing to the disambiguation page. Pending some clarification of these issues, I've undone the edit. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.

Editors appear to be in disagreement currently at the article secularity - which is where secular had been redirecting to for the last 2 years...

Hopefully all of these issues will get more attention now (both the specifics of the secular/ism/ity content, and the overall dicdef issue). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed this redirect back to Secularity where it has been for two years. I cannot see any justification for the recent deletion and redirection of "Secularity" to "Secularism", since the two are not synonymous. Since I also brought this up with the editor who created that redirect I figure I might as well mention to you as well. Discussion about this can be found at Talk:Secularism and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Introduction talk page

Ah. I hadn't seen that = you mean each time some edits the intro page- and the bot restoring it the page turns up? When I'm more awake I'll look into - I have vague thoughts of a page that links to the talk page, and related changes would just show the talk page amendments, like I say when I'm more awake! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. High turnover pages are often unwatchlisted by overwhelmed-editors, so, to try and keep editors engaged, we had redirected numerous talkpages to one location, ifIremembercorrectly. eg [2]. I thought there were more involved, but can only find the tutorial talk subpages currently (eg Wikipedia talk:Tutorial (Formatting)). -- Quiddity (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Copasetic

Here you go: User:Quiddity/Copasetic. +Angr 21:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: threads at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Copasetic example and User_talk:Angr#Copasetic_request. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

outlines

thanks for your constructive note. I have replied on my talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've created a sandbox for interested users to work on the outline RfC at: User:Karanacs/Outline_RfC_draft. Karanacs (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work on trying to bring smoe rationality to the whole scheme, I haven't had any responses to this idea , ok it might need a bot but I think it might help, think the wording can be improved to, I might make a couple of tweaks... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I've just applied a little more editing but am loathe to press the save button - I've split it, rewritten, taken out links, are you online - I'm just trying to work out how to place it in a sandbox, but I could just save it and you quickly check... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 21:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'll be watching your contribs for the next 20 mins, whilst puttering at my own watchlist... :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I support your sandbox'd version. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha cheers, I've sussed it though... how about this: User:Leevanjackson/sandbox2 (I tried to keep a little flair) That's bizarre - some sort of time paralax :) should I apply it or add as a suggestion?Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You could/should just boldly apply it. Add a tiny talkpage note mentioning that/why you did it. People can revert and discuss if they object. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Have done and no complaints ... I am still checking in on outline related stuff, but will be backing off for a bit to concentrate on the Help Project, I'm still keeping an eye on the rfc development ( and a few other bits ) and do let me know if I can be of any other help... cheers and power to your pixel! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

portal icons

Hi Quiddity. thanks for your interest for this. I actually started discussion on the Portal talk:Contents/Portals talk page. I would appreciate your comments also regarding the other improvement suggestions on that page. cheers. Elekhh (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Template state

Hi Quiddity. Recently you changed the state of Template:Angling topics from "nocollapse" to "{{{state<includeonly>|expanded</includeonly>}}}". Woild you mind explaining the difference, and what this code actually does? --Geronimo20 (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It's part of the standard Template:Navbox options. It means that on pages with 2 or more navboxes, they have a configurable state regarding their "hide/show" status. The change at that template won't have any effects, unless a different state is specified in the transcluded template (eg at Outline of water#Fishing all 3 templates now autocollapse properly). Actually, I made a mistake by using "expanded" instead of "uncollapsed" (I was copying Template:Fishery science topics. I'll fix them both now...) Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:MediaWiki edit window instructions

Hi, {{MediaWiki edit window instructions}} was a good idea, which I've taken further with {{MediaWiki messages}}, so it's basically redundant now, and you could {{db-author}} it if you agree. I just wish I could make {{MediaWiki messages}} 80% width and centered, to match the standard {{fmbox}} - can't seem to make that happen. Rd232 ^talk 12:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's autumn

I believe it's now autumn, so I thought I'd poke you about going for adminship again. Best wishes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay. I was hoping some projects would come to resolution sooner than they are. I'll let you know when I'm ready. Thanks though. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Video as infobox image

See User_talk:Ssolbergj#Thumb_time for background and a link. Basically, I am wondering if you remember any discussions relating to the use of videos as an infobox main image. I don't have an issue with it as done at Signing of the Treaty of Lisbon, and can only envision the remote possibility that people might argue over which thumbnail (frame of a given clip) is best, at which point I might not be able to get my eyes back in position after they roll back inside my sockets! Anyway, ever heard of this? Sswonk (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha! No, that exceeds the limits of my obscure knowledge... I'd support it though, especially with the thumbtime parameter. Good luck.

Hmmm, found something on the technical side though, will post to your page for everyone's edification. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your msg re WP:LQ

Fascinating. I had no idea that, as a matter of policy, Wikipedia requires that editors mispunctuate their contributions. Clearly, this is another step towards the dumbed-down, anything-goes future we are headed for. Correct usage is correct usage, and calling some erroneous alternative "logical" doesn't make it correct. "Logically," we should all be spelling night n-i-t-e.

However, I appreciate the "heads-up" from you, and may now stop developing the bot that I was planning to create to deal with this issue. B00P (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to self, replied at usertalkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Linkrot

I have completed a major rewrite of Wikipedia:Linkrot, an essay that you commented on in the past. Would you be interested in reviewing it for grammar, comprehensiveness, and clarity? In the next few days, I will place notices of the rewrite at the Village Pump and maybe the signpost.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography page guideline proposal

Hi Quiddity,

As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper

I wish to have nothing whatsoever to do with you for any purpose, at any time, this is not going to change. Any contact with me on my talk page for any reason, even any tagging of any kind, will be considered harassment and will be treated as such. I do not require notification that you understand. That is all I have to say.- Wolfkeeper 22:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Severe overreaction? I am perplexed. Are personal talkpage 'bans' even allowed/enforceable? I certainly won't push the issue, but we both edit many of the same pages, so interactions in the future are probable/likely. Hmmm. I'm sorry you've taken this in such a hostile direction. I have no interest in hostility - Vinegar vs sugar and all that. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Note to self (and anyone else watching) this edit was the last post I made before he started this thread here. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Awesome! I've christened it the "Hall of Fame", and transcluded it into the template page. — Pretzels ^Hii! 21:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images in user space

Per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, criterion 9, non-free images are not allowed in userspace. I have removed the non-free images in your userspace at User talk:Quiddity, User:Quiddity and User:Quiddity/Pheasants forever, leaving the links to the files in place. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Re [3], which I've reverted. Please review WP:NPA, WP:TALK, and WP:CON. Name-calling and accusations of bias hurt honest attempts to improve Wikipedia. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and understood. Rewritten. Though it wasn't intended as an accusation, simply a statement of fact, based on meta:Why a cabal is perceived. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a strange discussion, given that an editor is working to prevent others from directly addressing the problem. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bill Watterson picture

Sry I didn't realise you'd commented on my page a while back. I ended up contacting Nevin Mattell who recently tried to track Watterson down for his book, and he said the image can be sourced to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, although no photographer is specified. I've changed the relevant source info on the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adondai (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! (Note to self: File:15_watterson_lgl.jpg.jpg) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD

I used {{Db-imagepage}} to mark files (like File:ZweiRadMuseumNSU_Quickly.JPG, File:Cessna.fa150k.g-aycf.arp.jpg (both pages were deleted by User:Skier Dude (F2: Corrupt or empty image, or image page for an image on Commons)) and other image page with no corresponding image, or where the image is on the commons and the page has no Wikipedia-specific information) for speedy deletion until User:Graeme Bartlett asked me to use {{db-f2}} instead (you probably noticed his messsage). Please ask one (or both) of them if you need an explanation. -- Common Good (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Danke

Ciao Quiddity, and thanks for the support at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by William Gibson/archive1. I expect to finish the featured topic sometime in 2022! Cheers,  Skomorokh  11:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

While we're waiting

... to see if we get more feedback at WT:5P, I'll pass along that I asked Jimbo a related question recently, and got no answer, here. (That was the archiving edit, search for "Dank".) (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo didn't have any input on the creation of the template:Wikipedia principles, or its appearance on User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles, so he might have been confused as to what you were asking about.(!)

FWIW, I don't think the template is suitable at WP:EDIT. The general rule of thumb is to only use templates on pages that the templates contain links-to. So that template should really only appear on 4 projectspace pages (obviously can't be at meta). However it is 3 years old, so an overhaul/rethink/merge/etc is probably overdue. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I like your thinking, with the one exception of the 5P page itself. I think that most of the time someone is pointed to 5P, it's because someone wants to give them the "short version", so anything that suggests that there are alternative ways to formulate basic principles works against that. I'd be in favor of stripping the 5P link from that template. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Edittools

I have left a message for you at MediaWiki talk:Edittools#Separate the Insert and Wikimarkup sets. (Short version: It's done! :)

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Program guides

Hi. I semi-randomly selected you (Firsfron, Masem, Protonk) as major participants in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 30#Per station television schedules, which I didn't follow closely. The subject has arisen again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Forbidding programme guides, and I was wondering if any of you could give a short/neutral summary at the VPump, of what the WT:NOT thread's consensus was, if any. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Quid,

Thanks for the talk page note. I've responded at the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) page. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thagomizer

I apologize if I am not using this resource correctly; I am an infrequent contributor to Wikipedia, and thus am unfamiliar with the mechanisms. It is my intention here to send to the user Quiddity what amounts to a personal -but not necessarily private- communication. My edit to the Thagomizer page was made because we do not, in fact, know with the certainty or unanimity implied by the words used that humans and dinosaurs did not live contemporaneously. As I am certain that you are aware, this is a point of some controversy, and there are millions of adherents to both sides of the issue. I felt that, as a source of general knowledge, Wikipedia should reflect these differences in opinion rather than gloss over them, and accordingly changed the text from:

"The fate of Thag Simmons notwithstanding, dinosaurs and humans did not exist in the same era. "

to

"The fate of Thag Simmons notwithstanding, dinosaurs and humans are not widely considered to have existed in the same era."

If it's merely a matter of finding works to cite (if we honestly need to cite works for such a small thing, and a well-known one at that), then I can probably help with that. 75.8.90.107 (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 75.8.90.107

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. Dinosaurs did not coexist with humans. Humans evolved around 6 million years ago, whereas non-avian dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago. You'll want to quibble with Evolutionary history of life and Paleogene and hundreds of others, before Thagomizer is worth worrying about. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not challenging Science here, merely wording. It's hardly exceptional to say that some people disagree with the "no-coexistance with dinosaurs" thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.90.107 (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to try to find a reliable source, and explain it at Talk:Thagomizer, but I suspect you will only find creationists endorsing the idea of human/dinosaur coexistence. 59 million years is a really long time! -- Quiddity (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Creationists are people too, you know. Having a different frame of reference doesn't make you wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.90.107 (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Read more on creationism and creation–evolution controversy. It is as correct a "frame of reference" as geocentrism. Even the pope acknowledges evolution! -- Quiddity (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Arborwiki

I'm looking at Wikipedia:List_of_templates_linking_to_other_free_content_projects to see if Template:Arborwiki can be folded into that effort productively; give me a chance to get up to speed. thanks Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I've replied at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_16#Template:Arborwiki. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cats

Hello. You have listed yourself as a member of WikiProject Cats. I would appreciate your help in creating Canadian Cat Association, which is a request on the to-do list. Thank you, Brambleclawx 00:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Pirsquard

threads moved to User talk:Pirsquard

About interwiki links in WP:FL

The interwiki links you added all refer to WP:FA, and you can click them and look the English interwiki links to verify it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yupyup. I already responded in the thread at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_lists#Connecting_Wikipedias. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Badagnani

As one of the very few editors that actually gets active responses from Badagnani, do you have any idea how to get him to consider following 1RR? I'd like to hope it's possible...

As an aside, like GTBacchus, I'd like to know how'd you get the number of editors watching his talk page. --Ronz (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked him. We shall see how he responds. *holds breath*

"Number of watchers" reply at the ANI thread. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! *fingers crossed* --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Music of Australia

I've undone your addition of several external links you made to this article. They fail WP:ELNO point 13 which reads that Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked. should be avoided. These links may be appropriate in articles about these sites specifically, for example the Music Council of Australia link can be linked to in an article directly about the Music Council of Australia, but not in articles with a broader subject. We do not link individual societies and organizations, however notable, in articles about a broader subject because if we did this for all viable links, our external links sections would be overflowing. Again, ELs have to be directly about the subject of the article and I believe there is a consensus among EL-conscious editors that these would not belong in this article. ThemFromSpace 06:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why the second diff example, this one, (in the edit you're replying to) suggested those links perhaps be re-removed...

The "EL-conscious" editors are often m:immediatist and not always as careful as could be. That's all I was trying to say.

There is a significant proportion of editors who are not immediatist, who are more willing to let links that are likely to become references, remain as ELs in the meantime. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasonable reply, sorry if I seemed overly hostile. ThemFromSpace 07:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My using that set of edits was far from ideal, but I had recently made them, so they were freshly available to memory. Sorry about that.

My angle and inclination, is for everyone to have more cognizance of each other's wikiphilosophies [one of my favourite meta pages].

Because it really does take a village, to build a decent civilization-sized creation over the course of a few decades... [*grumble* that's a horribly merged-looking phrase-stub *muttergrumble*]

Collecting reality tunnels for fun and profit. -- Quiddity (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

When I find an external link that has the potential to be a reference, I'll leave it if the article has few external links. Otherwise I move it to the talk page with a note. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Classical composers time-line

I just userfied it to my page per the general concensus. Hope that's ok? I asked Kleinzach to cleanup the redirects. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

For sure. We can always move it to a subpage of Talk:List of classical music composers at a later time, or elsewhere, if that becomes useful. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Good. We have no time limit now (no risk of PROD etc) so the page can be cleaned up at leisure and relocated as and when necessary. BTW, that's an hilarious quote from Winnie: I love it! --Jubilee♫clipman 22:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of arborsculpture as a generic term

Thanks for commenting on the "arborsculpture" debate. I agree that User:SilkTork's comments at Talk:Tree shaping make sense as an isolated analysis. I'm not sure if you are aware that User:Blackash is the Pooktre mentioned in the article and they have stated very plainly that they have a real life agenda not to have a word coined by a professional rival (Reames) applied to their work. Because of this blatant WP:COI editors should be looking very, very carefully at the views that User:Blackash is trying to push and why. I've provided some Evidence of arborsculpture as a generic term. The only one in the world who seems hell bent on making it otherwise is Pooktre/Blackash. Peace and respect. --alias "Griseum" (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Tag on Tree Shaping

The tag you placed on the tree shaping talk page reads "This user's editing has included significant contributions to this article" assuming "article" does not mean the talk page, please review the contributions made by user Slowart to the article, thank you.Slowart (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You and your prior account have made 30 edits to the page tree shaping (or its old title) according to the Contributors listing. That's all the tag is intended to point out. I'm not sure what the error/problem is? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just being oversensitive. I din't know the tag was based on total number as opposed to real significant contributions, mine at this point are surely insignificant. Thanks for clearing up the meaning.Slowart (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks from abb615

yeah, thanks for the welcome, and thanks for putting back my information on the page about oobleck. also sorry for not making the information i posted on it clear. Abb615 (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Procedural revert

I undid your actions as I do not believe you are an admin (I checked your userpage and the list of active admins). Thanks, Verbal chat 08:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Outlines

Re: accreditation

You have a question waiting for you at Wikipedia talk:Outlines#Problem with lack of suitable attribution, GFDL.

The Transhumanist    19:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Using redirects as a method of deletion

This isn't allowed, right?

Where is this covered?

The Transhumanist    21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please include links when asking about something specific, otherwise I have to dig through your contribs to figure out what you mean.

You mean this kind of thing, and I imagine that it's rare enough to not be mentioned anywhere. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Can attempts to damage a project be considered vandalism?

If a person deliberately tries to sabotage a component of Wikipedia, such as the Outline of Knowledge, using various tactics to attack its pages individually, is that vandalism?

If not, what is it?

And how can I stop the perpetrator?

The Transhumanist    22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You're both operating in good faith, but pushing your own points of view far too hard. He dislikes 'Outlines', and you keep redefining them (see: basic geography list, territorial evolution of, historical outline of, et al). I don't have time/patience for this today. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Colour discussion

I notice you have previously commented on the use of colour on Wikipedia talk:Using colours. You may be interested in commenting at this discussion. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gay (word)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gay (word), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay (word). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Wolfkeeper 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I dare you to vote keep.

If you don't vote keep, you're basically admitting to stalking and block reverting me.- Wolfkeeper 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist. (-17,120) tends to stand out. I was about to selfrevert, as it is indeed currently a cfork (with complications), but you afd'd it first. I'll give details at the afd, where everyone can benefit. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

List of hybrid vehicles

Thanks for the cleanup. Embarrassing slip on my part. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Quiddity. You have new messages at Gimme danger's talk page.
Message added 04:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Danger (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Core topics

Thanks for making that. Maurreen (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had the beginnings of a list floating on my userpage for years,[4] and had dumped that list on a talkpage somewhere, previously. I'm just glad to finally find an ideal home for it!

[Note to self and anyone watching: I didn't create the navbox itself, just the large SeeAlso list of related links underneath it, that we're discussing at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Related and historic lists, and Wikicup.] -- Quiddity (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For this. Just spotted it! BTW, shouldn't music be in the WP top 10 vital articles or is that just my bias? --Jubilee♫clipman 06:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome ;) And, I think the other folks, the fans of words, lumps, images, and movement, would be quite upset to be left behind under "art" ;P -- Quiddity (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

True --Jubilee♫clipman 01:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Massively confused...

How does "Alias" become "Also known as" in the displayed infobox?!?!? I can't figure that out at all! I can see why it makes sense to do that, I just cannot see what process it is that makes it happen. Is it embedded in the code or something? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The first {{{Alias|}}} has the bar| with nothing after it. That's a variable.

The {{#if: indicates a conditional statement (if x, then y, else z). See Wikipedia:Conditional tables for details on that.

If we remove all the styling elements (the code to make it align properly visually in a table, like {{!}}), then the "Alias" line in {{Infobox composer/draft}} is just:

{{#if: {{{Alias|}}} | Also known as | {{{Alias}}} }}

Which could be translated as:

If [variable named alias] exists (i.e. if there's something after the Alias= in the template's usage), then add the title header "Also known as", and add [the variable's value] to the infobox. However, If [variable named alias] is empty, do nothing.

HTH. (I'm not a technical writer! Sorry if this explanation makes things worse :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No: that's clear enough and I see it now in the template code.

{{#if:{{{Alias|}}}|
! style="white-space:nowrap;" {{!}} Also known as
{{!}} class="nickname" {{!}} {{{Alias}}}
{{!}}-

Thanks! (BTW, this just proves just how wrong MB was when he claimed that editing infoboxes was easy: even adding fields is a minefield (as it were)...) --Jubilee♫clipman 03:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Outline of water

Hi, I remember you being very much a part of the outline projects. I just want to bring to your attentions this An editor did a copy and paste of Water and added it to the Outline of water which I just reversed. Is there an ongoing conversation still going on about this or the RFC? It's been quite a time since the RFC was announced to happen but I don't remember seeing it go live. Any info would be appreciated, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yup, we're allowed to copy&paste content between articles but it should be attributed, and his edit summary was intended to specifically attribute the content to where it came from. I (and recently Stefan) have recently been going through old instances of copy&paste where the attribution was not specifically noted, and adding that attribution with a blank-edit edit-summary eg (per instructions at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution). See details of our labors at Wikipedia talk:Outlines#Fixing accreditation.

Regarding the RfC, we're still waiting for people who disagree with the current draft-wording to give input/assistance on specific changes they'd like (or give possible-solutions that haven't been suggested/included yet, etc). Ideally, Verbal and yourself and any others, could give more input and make more direct edits. I've left a number of comments that have not been replied to yet, near the end of User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft#Ready to launch?. I wasn't sure whether to individually nudge everyone to give feedback, as I'm trying to not dominate the process, or irritate anyone needlessly. It's a tricky balance to maintain! Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll go back and revert myself if it's not already been done. I was not aware of this method going on. I thought editors were pretty clear that the copy and pasting from other articles was not ideal. I'm not too active right now but I'll give it some thought again and try to take a look at the rfc and see if I have anything useful to add. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that it is not ideal. But it seems to be going on all over the place (e.g. some editors make entire articles in summary-style out of copy&pasted parts, like credulity), so I'm not going to add it to my windmill jousting list this week ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If I am remembering correctly, this was one of the major complaints about outlines. Editors just cannot take the work of others and copy and paste it as their own. To me it seems totally wrong to just put a note in in edit summary to cover why the move was made. There is a proper way to move material to other locations, why not use it? I'm not blaming you but since you are very active in the outline project, why not ask them to stop doing it this way? It makes the project look bad in my opinion. I'll go over to the RFC and see what's there now. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I just want you to know I responded to you on my talkpage. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Wi

Given that Wolfkeeper is insisting on his changes, should we open an RfC on the template? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps revisit Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_73#WP:DICTIONARY_needs_tweaking.3F with a formal RfC given [5]? I think we need to hash this out, one way or another. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I can point you towards my sandbox notes, if you're willing to do the work that an rfc involves. It definitely needs one, but the thought of organizing it into a clear format exhausts me. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested in looking at them. I won't have time to focus on it until next weekend but at least I can start thinking about it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Old notes are here. I can clean up the other notes, if you're still interested later. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but I was referring to clarifying the not a dictionary policy, rather than an RfC on Wolfkeeper's behaviour (sorry I was unclear). If we can get wording that makes it clear that articles about a word are ok (found two more today!) as long as they have encyclopedic content then there should be less conflict. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Also definitely needed. I think everyone would agree to that. (All the disagreements in those diffs are concerning dictionary definition disagreements. Worth glancing through for arguments given and refuted in the past.) Current disagreements are prolific. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agape World Fellowship

Thanks for your opinion in the AfD. I agree with your assessment, that the organization is not notable at this time. I'd also like to apologize for not stating my COI (as a leader and former board member for the organization). Please accept my sincere and deepest apologies for any confusion this may have caused. Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Quiddity. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Surname + Given name + disambig.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Infobox Classical musician

Note to self: Template:Infobox composer/draft and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC

Ravpapa (talk · contribs) seems interested in designing a new Infobox for classical musicians, also. A collaborative effort by two knowledgeable editors would be far better than efforts of a single editor that hasn't a clue what he's doing (i.e. me). I've requested that my old deleted userspace be undeleted for your convenience, also. The 2007 attempt by Turangalila (talk · contribs) is also worth a look: User:Turangalila/sandbox/Infobox composer. That's basically where my attempt stemed from. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 22:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the extended box is fine. I can think of lots of additional information I would like to see presented in a structured way (for example, genres (symphony, piano, chamber, opera, etc), main cities of residence (Vienna, Salzburg, ...), and more. But considering the politics surrounding the issue, and the vituperation it inspires, I think that less is better. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to word the documentation advice concerning the fields "Era", "Styles/schools", and "Principal_genres" (at Template:Infobox composer/draft/doc#Long example). Please have a go, or suggest a delegate who might be good at an initial go (it'll all get refined eventually :) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Styles: Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Late Romantic, Impressionist, 12-tone, Modern. I think any finer resolution is likely to case problems.

Principal genres: Symphonic, Piano, Chamber music, Opera, Vocal, other. Other would include composers like Gesualdo (who wrote only madrigals), or composers who wrote for a single instrument (Devienne, who wrote for flute). --Ravpapa (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

For Styles, I think I've had them accidentally swapped/mixed with Eras? Please tweak what I've currently got at Template:Infobox composer/draft/doc#Long example. I'm going to sleep on it :) -- Quiddity (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to work on the infobox. As stated, I won't personally use it (at least, certainly not in the foreseeable future) it but others may find it useful --Jubilee♫clipman 22:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: [6] Good job! I'm standing well back for now but watching... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on a thread (that I'll add to the rfc page) for discussing the example box. It needs some more work first though. Tomorrow hopefully, as time allows. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry just seen this!) Looking good. Thank you again (Have you spoken to that other editor yet, BTW?) --Jubilee♫clipman 01:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't talked to Ravpapa yet, I'll get on that after supper.

I'll go through the discussions again, and do some final revisions, and add a couple more examples, tonight or tomorrow. Then I'll add it to the discussion thread. Thanks for your feedback (and general diplomacy and insight) throughout this :) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In light of the sensitivities of members of the project, I would probably avoid style altogether, and leave era (or period). Because style can cause endless arguments, especially when discussing modern composers. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Quiddity - perhaps my/your discussion at the sandbox should be moved here? More central and open...! --Jubilee♫clipman 15:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved below. Style field removed (and added to the "left out" section). -- Quiddity (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! --Jubilee♫clipman 02:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

discussion moved from User:Quiddity/sandbox to here, regarding my draft of proposal thread:

It might be useful to add several examples: (a) the disclaimer, I do not mean this to imply that "x" should have an infobox, is enough, and (b) there is nothing to stop anyone using the box—that's the point! (No WP-approved guidelines actually preclude/prescribe infoboxes at all.) --Jubilee♫clipman 01:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added one more example at the documentation page. I'm thinking that I'll sleep on it, and post this in the afternoon/evening, after checking in with you :) Feel free to overhaul/tweak my wording however you deem helpful. It's kinda pointform at the moment.... _zzzzzzZZZ^zzz-- Quiddity (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Thanks again for taking the time to do this! --Jubilee♫clipman 14:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I wonder if if it could be widened a little to include classical musicians in general? I'll add a lead to the documemtation explaining that this one is for composers but note that no classical musician has a specific infobox! --Jubilee♫clipman 14:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OTOH, I can see a strong advantantage in restricting it to composers: lack of over-fielding... As it stands, the info box is fine. Maybe just reduce the clutter in the doc by removing some of the less important links? (Leave the RfC link there though obviously...!) --Jubilee♫clipman 14:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Folantin makes a good point over at the RfC: perhaps the documentation should use only contemporary composers for its examples...? (Riley and and a reworked Bradley Joseph would do, I suspect) --Jubilee♫clipman 15:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Removing the Styles/schools field was a good decision which I almost made myself but left to your judgement based on Ravpapa's advice --Jubilee♫clipman 02:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm done prodding User:Quiddity/sandbox into shape. Do you think that looks ready to be pasted into the RfC thread? Anything that could be phrased better? (I've sent discussions off on bad-tangents with a poorly-placed word that gets a hostile/defensive reaction, more times than I can count... ;)

Also, I've added 2 long examples to Template:Infobox composer/draft/doc. Do you still think we need to remove Vivaldi from there? I was hoping that the usefulness of having the "Lists of works" links in the infobox might find some interested parties... ? -- Quiddity (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Go for it. And thanks for the effort. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Seconded --Jubilee♫clipman 03:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings -- pardon me for butting in (I just saw this rolling by on recent changes) -- the things that jump out of the Granados box are 1) Spain or Catalonia? It's been contentious, and will continue to be (maybe put in both with a slash separating?); 2) historical era? most musicologists would probably tag him as "nationalist" first, and maybe "romantic" second, but he doesn't fit neatly into a category; 3) genres? He's by far and away best known as a composer of piano music. The birth and death are fortunately unambiguous. I'd strongly recommend against having a list of works in any box -- except for one-hit-wonders, it's just too subjective. Just my unsolicited opinion ... cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Antandrus raises some important points but I think these should be raised on the RfC now, personally. You have gone as far as you can for now and further commenting/refactoring etc will need a far wider participation that us four --Jubilee♫clipman 03:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for joining. I was trying to ask all my foolish questions outside the main thread, so as to avoid distraction/catastrophe ;)

Thanks for the pointers. I've added piano, removed the notable works, and added Catalonia.

Regarding era, I was following what was given in the categories (not a reliable source, I know!). I've added Musical nationalism, but was unsure whether to remove C20th, so left it in for now. I'll stare at it for a few more hours, then post it to the discussion. Thanks again, all. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Coastal management

Thank you for your gracious comments. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

technical terms

Hi, when you said "I have no strong opinion on which title/location we want to merge them to, but a single location is definitely wanted.", did you mean that a single location might be what has now been inserted in MoS main page here? Do you not think that this solution will expose a lot more editors to the message, and that the page as it stands contains a lot of text that is either repeated elsewhere or is questionable? Tony (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've replied at Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles accessible#RFC: Should this guideline exist, or should it be an essay? in case it is useful for anyone else, too.

Whilst you're here, I'm still curious if my reply to you here, at the composer's infobox rfc, was at all helpful. At all? :) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay on List of gestures

You undid my rollback of an unsourced addition to List of gestures saying, "that gesture is the primary gesture taught in scuba diving (because a thumbs-up means "I'm going up now"), rephrased-please improv".

The text I reverted said that the 'Okay' gesture also means 'Okay' in the context of scuba diving. If it means 'Okay' in most contexts, this is hardly a meaningful addition, is it? If, as your edit summary suggests, the gesture is particularly meaningful in the context of scuba diving, perhaps that should be spelled out more explicitly.

I would also note that List of gestures is a list of (ideally) short descriptions; A-ok is the Wikipedia page dedicated to this gesture. The scuba-specific uses of the gesture should probably be described on that page or possibly on Okay, not on List of gestures. Thanks for your additions, and happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring, just have it on backburner. I will get back to this :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft

User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft, a page you contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. The Transhumanist    23:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Hey Quiddity, good to see someone is finally getting something going with an RfC. In my opinion the RfC ought to be on Wolfkeeper, not on words articles, for two reasons - first, no one besides him really sees a major problem with our articles on words, and second, because his disruption has started to go far beyond just these articles - he's also edit warring on policy pages (to justify his edit warring on word articles).--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Notes now available at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary/RfC on Wolfkeeper and words.

Re: RfC's topic: There are a couple of other editors who also seem to believe we need to purge all word articles, so I think that is the critical topic to get clear. (Names are listed at the end of the RfC. Frequent AfDers listed in mid-RfC. See also Rjanag's comment here.)

I hope this is generally what was wanted, and that it ends up doing some good. Please please help organize and coordinate it, if you can. Feedback of any sort would also be appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sig

Thank you for informing me of the signature length guideline. --  Chickenmonkey  21:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Tree Shaping

Thanks for your interest in the tree shaping article. In answer to your query, User:Slowart is Richard Reames. User:Blackash is Beckey Northey of Pooktre. I'm just an exasperated Wikipedian with no connection to this subject matter. In theory, I object to either of these folks editing the article based on WP:COI guidelines, but I have encouraged Reames to make whatever edits he deems appropriate as "damage control". I'll refrain from recapping the big picture, as that might be seen as focusing on editors rather than edits. But if you have any questions, I’m happy to respond. --Griseum (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading about half the discussions since February 2010 (and have glanced at the archives of older discussion), and I added the 2 {{notable wikipedian}} tags currently on the talkpage (hence I was checking in with you). I fully agree with your explanation and perspective above. The only questions I currently have, I'll ask at the talkpage when I have sufficient time to devote to the arguments that will likely ensue ;) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at recent discussion on the talk page when you have time. Reames and I both objected to Blackash's recent edits on the grounds that referring to the “arborsculpture method” or using similar verbiage reflects a blatant disregard for the consensus (based on verifiable references) that arborsculpture was never the name for a method and is widely-used as a generic term for tree shaping. --Griseum (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Arborsculpture and it use

I understand that in Wikipedia this is original research but it will give you a brief glimpse of the issues related to Arborsculpture. The use of Arborsculpture and in what context to use it in, has been an issue though out the whole history of the Talk page quotes with links from talk page history You most likely have seen the next list and it does show that the word Arborsculpture is linked to Richard and his books. This was a google search with Richard Reames name removed, realistically how many people are going to get google to remove Richard Reames name from the search results of Arborsculputre. list Google Arborsculpture it leads to Richard Reames and the methods he teaches either in his books or in person.

The issue we have with Arborsculpture, is it has methods of shaping trees associated with it. Our trees, Axel Erlandson trees plus others are unachievable using these methods. I have pointed this out to Reames/Slowart though out Wikipedia and silence is the only reply.

Silence spokes volumes,

• Richard Reames first book "How to grow a chair" published 1995 uses drawings to illustrate the process and the expected results of a grown chair. 10 years later in his 2nd book "Arborsculpture" instead of the expected photos of mature shaped trees he continues to use drawings for the process and the expected results.
• The word Arborsculpture is not in the book "My Father Talked to Trees" written by Axel N Erlandson's daughter Wilma Erlandson, copy right in 2001.
• Gilroy Gardens who own most of Axel Erlandson's surviving trees don't use the word Arborsculpture either. Both of these people are aware of Richard Reames and the word Arborsculpture as he has had contacted with both of them.
• In Richard Reames's book, Arborsculpture Solutions to a small planet, Richard has acknowledged Mark Primack as being the leading authority on Axel Erlandson's trees. Mark Primack has this to say about the word Arborsculpture quote " That word is no more nor less than the name chosen by Mr. Reames to describe what he has accomplished with his own hands. His recent efforts to center himself in the world of artists (some more accomplished or famous than himself) who are working with living plants and trees, by applying his brand to all their work, may someday succeed, but it does not appear to be the mission of Wikipedia to support such efforts." search Mr Reames

When Griseum and Slowart can't rebut my points they yell COI and NPOV I most recently answered here [7] We don't see that a word must be either a name for a method or used in the generic sense only, why can't a word be both? Blackash have a chat 02:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Composers RfC finally closed

Hi Quiddity! Martin has finally closed the Composers RfC: his closing remarks are required reading, perhaps... --Jubilee♫clipman 16:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Now that the dust has settled I wanted to recognise the sterling work you and others did on the infoboxes RfC in order to work out a compromise. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)

Note: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Icons - Thoroughbreds is the item under discussion.

You stated "If there is a discussion elsewhere (that formed a WP:Consensus) then link to that also (I searched the WikiProject Thoroughbred racing talkpage archives, and there were no discussions about flags or icons. Possibly you've discussed it somewhere else?). That's the main point."

Two points - Had you actually read my statement before you made your "main point", I said: "So, I will initiate a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing to help formulate any appropriate additions to this guidline".
Next, linking "Wikipedia is not a battleground" to make it highly visible is 1) improperly used and derogatory in this context, and your calling my words aggressive is nothing more than your POV. When my clear, precise, and legitimate position totally consistent with the "guideline" is removed with a snide remark, and by someone who either doesn't bother to read it or as their editing record shows, is intolerant and uses a cabal, including stalking, to quash anything they rightly or wrongly see as a disagreement with THEIR position (BTE imposing "guidelines" is not allowed at Wikipedia), then I will certainly speak out and not just for my rights, but for all legitimate and sincere editors at Wikipedia. I hope next time you comment on any subject at Wikipedia, you will take the time to read the facts and not cast aspersions based on your POV. Thank you. Handicapper (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied at the ongoing thread. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Starcastle

Hello Quiddity, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Starcastle, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Colonel Warden. This has been done because the page is unquestionably a copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Colonel Warden. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) 21:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a disambig hatnote to it in 2007... ?! Odd notification. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This note should be on Dan012752's talkpage... weird. Some bug in the bot? Anyway the copyvio issue was resolved, at least --Jubilee♫clipman 02:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yupyup. I left a note at User talk:SDPatrolBot II‎. Oh, you crazy pagewatchers, all 67 of ya! Makes me feel loved, and paranoid, all at onceness... Huzzah! -- Quiddity (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have had you on watch since that RfC... Could not resist commenting on this! I have added more over at the bot's talkpage, BTW --Jubilee♫clipman 02:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorted (though there are still teeting troubles) --Jubilee♫clipman 20:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Move: Tree shaping to Arborsculpture

Tree shaping article has undergone a series of mayor changes in the last few days. Here is the page before and now Duff has now proposed to change the article's name from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. If you are interested please come and comment on Talk:Tree shaping. I am contacting everyone who has edited about arborsculpture Blackash have a chat 08:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

fulfil, merci

So I go to the OED, and there's no American English fulfill. So not only is fulfil an acceptable variant, as you kindly suggest, but it in fact «is» the Queen's English single expression.

So I stand corrected, even, as you note, in the US, and thank you for educating me about yet another British/American English variation. Now I shall go out and see if I can find a comprehensive lexicon of British/American English variations.

For what it's worth, it was the visually unæsthetic aspect of fulfil that offended me. And I have long preferred (but no longer use) the variant-variant "til" (v. 'til v. till), so, as we say in the States, go figure.

Dstlascaux (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping Talk

Quiddity will you please archive some of the discussion on Tree shaping talk page. It getting long again and I don't know how to archive. Blackash have a chat 02:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and I have changed my sig as you suggested. Blackash have a chat 22:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack (webcomic)

I added the author's article to the afd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

ASDF

Starting an edit war? "Revert vandalism on sight, but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. Edit warring is prohibited." WP:RVV

WP is not a search engine. "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow the user to choose from a list of ... articles" MOS:DAB. We can't be listing every known subject that may be incidentally associated with another one. "Disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title." MOS:DAB I checked both Home row and Password strength - neither are ever referred to by the term "ASDF" - never. So, please make a case in those two articles that they are known by the term "asdf" and then add them to the DAB.

Please read MOS:DAB because oh this error: "exactly one navigable (blue) link" MOS:DAB#Introductory_line

--Hutcher (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Good morning to you too!

This is the edit in question.

A single revert does not constitute an edit war. Ever. See Wikipedia:Edit warring: "... repeatedly override each other's contributions ...".

A single revert, is part of WP:BRD, which is a much friendlier and more productive alternative. Thank you for starting the discussion thread.

The MOS:DAB guidelines are guidelines. I've been editing and cleaning up disambig pages for years, and am very familiar with how we guide people to format the pages and hatnotes. Some instances require thinking outside the box (the box of general rules), and I consider this situation to be a edge-case example of that.

I'll add more details at Talk:ASDF. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

loose end

That reminds me, the AfD directive to merge the state history outlines into the state outlines needs to be completed.

About 15 more states to go.

The Transhumanist    21:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

your engineer issue

If you haven't found someone to talk with Mr. Kamen, I'd suggest User:PeteForsyth (or his sock, User:Pete Forsyth (WMF)). He's helped people with COI and making productive edits in the past, even when paid editing was a concern. He's with WMF, and really good at outreach. tedder (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I was looking for. Huge thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Glossaries

Template:Glossaries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Schmidt Sting Pain Index

Thank you for that referral to a much-welcomed, good, weepingly hysterical guffaw. Oh my goodness, that is funny! Good luck on the merge resolution. Duff (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Help:Contents/Draft

Hey Quiddity, we've spoken in the past regarding design of various pages, particularly the Community Portal. I saw User:Gareth Aus's recent update to Help:Contents and made a few more edits on Help:Contents/Draft. If you could offer your opinion on the changes I'd really appreciate it. — Pretzels ^Hii! 20:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Question (please answer on my talk page)

The user interface has changed!

Now how do you watchlist a page?

The Transhumanist    16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

On retrospect, that seems so obvious. I didn't even notice the star. (sheepish grin) The Transhumanist    17:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Question (please answer on my talk page)

How do you force a "Search" search now?

The Transhumanist    03:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a dictionary

Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography articles

As one of the few people interested in this sort of thing, I thought your input would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#JW publications. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping->Arborsculpture

Hello. You may want to ring in on the RfM survey at Tree shaping->Arborsculpture RfM at some point during the next seven days. Blackash have a chat 10:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Chair1

File:Chair1.jpg - Am I hallucinating or did Buckey really draw and uploaded this illustration and then add the notation "Please give credit to Arborsculpture.com"? --Griseum (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It does seem quite peculiar... -- Quiddity (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

no way. That's a scan from one of Reames' books...gotta be. That's his chair right? Who's got the books. not I. Duff (talk)

Nor I (but am working on it). You'd have to ask a copyright expert re copy-vio, if the image is confirmed as a tracing (perhaps ask Slowart himself about that?) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Griseum & I both left notes on his talk page to RSVP on this question. He is on a 2 week wikibreak, and incidentally, left word there that he trusts me to express his consensus on the naming if necessary, for whatever that is worth. Duff (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

She says she drew it herself. Wow. See Talk:Tree shaping#New Image found on Commons Duff (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

selfref

thanks for removing the SELFREF to my userpage from the article about the concept of wikipedian in residence. I'm not a fan of that article in general as I think it's one big self-ref, but keeping it referencing the mainspace is a start... cheers, Witty Lama 01:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No prob, and I generally agree. It's perhaps somewhat like User:Shimgray/Citation needed - not quite 'notable' enough for mainspace yet, but surely will be soonish. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Last night

Sorry if I came across as short last night. I saw your reply and wanted you to know I'd read it, but tiredness got the better of me. Best, Verbal chat 08:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) and huge congratulations on your expanding family! Tiredness is expected. Best of health to you and yours. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Portals

Hi Quiddity. I might have been acting bold in regards of improving the Portal:Contents/Portals page, but I find this warning by User:OhanaUnited very dissapointing. Your feedback welcome. --Elekhh (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Anon first

yeah thats a major malfunction —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryk20 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm? This is your accounts first edit, so I have no idea what you're referring to. Please elaborate :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Rule 34

"See [8] [Ed: shortened] for a good summation of the actual background, including the original image that started it." Wow, I really wish I hadn't!. :-) TJRC (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have warned about the low-taste humor, sorry about that :( -- Quiddity (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeking suggestions for new title for WP:AMORAL

You have previously commented regarding the essay WP:Wikipedia is amoral; I am soliciting suggestions for a better title for the essay. If you have any, please list them at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_amoral#Suggestions_for_new_title.3F. Thanks, --Cybercobra (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent author

If you find time, check out Thomas Hager's writing.

The Transhumanist    21:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

User talk:Buaidh#Status report on the historical outlines

The Transhumanist    01:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Celtic Nations

Regarding the Celtic Nations,one user named BritishWatcher will not allow any flag representing Ireland in the article on the box with all the details about the Celtic Nations flags.He does not care about the article,only getting his political message and beliefs across,and will not compromise for another suitable Irish flag that symbolises Ireland's celtic identity only for all the other flags of the countries to be removed which will ruin the tone of the article.I have no time for politics on that article its is only about Irreland's celtic identity,I asked for a non-bias third party opinion but I have received no reply.If you interested please check Wikipedia:Third_opinion. Thanks. Sheodred (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure why you asked me specifically (should I remember your username from elsewhere?), but I've replied at Talk:Celtic nations#Flags. You can remove the wp:third_opinion request, if my response covers your need. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

Have you seen the Encyclopedia article? I've done a bit of work on it, with actual sources, that may be enlightening for future discussions such as the one at WT:NOTDIC. It's getting the predictable friction from certain quarters, though.--Cúchullain ^t/c 11:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, have been watching since at least March... I see that those sections are back at the bottom again...

I do have an idea, regarding the abstract NOTDIC disputes, but I'm busy for the next little while.

I don't have any valuable insights regarding "generally-speaking", except that using the "general-purpose dictionaries" revision might be more readily citable? -- Quiddity (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC question

At User talk:Courcelles#Re: Four days full protection, the admin suggested an RfC tag. Do you know what he's talking about? I'm hoping you know the name/syntax of the tag.

I'll check back here.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    23:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

{{Rfctag}} :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

BigBodBad = Wolfkeeper

Good pick up. Hope you feel better. 13:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 13:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

VW kaefer 1300 images

• File:VW kaefer 1300 1966 unterboden.jpg
• File:VW kaefer 1300 1966 heck unterboden.jpg
• File:VW kaefer 1300 1966 heckmotor.jpg
• File:VW kaefer 1300 1966 getriebe.jpg

{{Commonsfähig}} "works" but usually it takes a long time until somebody moves the files (130 files are in the category "commonsfähig" currently). I transferred the files. For you now. It seems you like to use them. ;-) Please check and correct the descriptions and cats. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! My friend was asking me why they weren't "searchable" in the usual spot (he likes the commons galleries, for researching technical histories). I'll ask him what contextual annotations are needed, and see if I can find a home for them here. Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the descriptions. You're welcome. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It was User:Bukk who corrected the descriptions at commons, not me. As much as I'd like to take extra credit for things I didn't do, that is awfully difficult around here ;) Have a good weekend. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nereid dab pages

Thanks for your edit note on Talk:Callianassa, etc. I really wasn't sure if it was OK to do it. You never know whose toes you are stepping on these days! Moonraker12 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem!

Regarding toes, someone told me early on, "You're not a real Wikipedian until you've made [and learned from] 50 mistakes". That's an implicit part of WP:BOLD, and I repeat it to all sensible seeming folks.

And it was an eminently sensible outcome for the unwieldy hatnote collection that was growing at Nereid. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Smile

That's WikiGnome magic for ya! --Cybercobra (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)