User talk:Tree4rest
Welcome![edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- Simplified Manual of Style
You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
- Create new pages and rename pages
- Edit semi-protected pages
- Upload images
- Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed
If you edit without using a named account, your IP address is used to identify you instead.
I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).
Happy editing!
- Hi I dream of horses, Thanks for the acknowledgement, the above links helped a lot. Created account. You can now find me at:Tree4rest (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Can I "claim" edits made without using a named account, that were logged by IP Address?[edit]
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Just curious and don't have a clue where to look. Is it possible to "claim" edits that I made without using a named account, that were logged by IP Address? Specifically, the edits I recently made before creating my account today?
More precisely, I was thinking there might be a way to comment on my previous edits with my new account, thereby manually leaving "breadcrumbs", primarily for myself.
Alternatively, do you happen to know of any recommended or customary way that people might keep of manual list of links. I imagine the sandbox might possibly be useful as a notepad.
Would appreciate anything from basic help links to useful hints and outright advice. Verifiable confirmation of what isn't possible in this regard will be acknowledged, potentially even impress me. Thanks in advance.
Finally, I'm busy and new to contributing formally (just created my account), but on Wikipedia often for work. So I'll probably read responces quickly, but may talk a while or foget to reply. Appoligies if that happens. Tree4rest (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Wikipedia stopped the ability to merge contribution histories in 2005, though you can still manually list the edits you made from the IP onto your Userpage or a subpage (the latter of which you can also use for said manual list of links). From WP:CATT:
- Booyahhayoob (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced but uniquely relevant, new information: time to call house cleaning or create space so that others may have avenues for further inquiry and contribution?[edit]
| This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I'm new to editing, and struggling to understand where to bring this up in the larger scheme of things. For specific examples, please see the section I created:
Bot_appears_to_have_inserted_irrelevant_link
under this articles talk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_email_archive_software#
Can a topic, article, or other material be "flaged-for-expansion"? That is, as new material is roughly thrown together, is there a way to tie it to the structure of related topics or articles that have an established and effective organization. I ask primarily because, not doing so seems to unnecessarily lead to potentially undesirable pruning for lack of context. This is particularly troubling for those of us searching through records trying to find missing pieces of information. Too often, we discover that someone had attempted to piece together some significant clues, but then this work doesn't take hold. Usually, this is because the new connections are very rough and unpolished, lacking sufficient scaffolding to hold together on their own.
Sometimes though there is a similar set of topics or articles with a framework that could serve as a template for the new growth.
Specificially, while most of the other pages that I've been researching on related topics have direct product lists/comparisons/links, there are still several times as much not listed anywhere in Wikipedia at all. Unfortunately, I personally don't have time to create articles for any of these, and am struggling just to sift through the information I have so far (aside: currently working on many hundreds of product impressions for rough comparison - business integration / custom development project). Nevertheless, I imagine there may be some, if not established, at least non-disruptive way of somewhere posting at least some extracts of newly discovered primary sources (e.g. primary materials such as currently unlisted categorical and historical web portals for text editors, outliners, email/groupware, etc.; and several very in-depth multipage expert discussions on key topics: points of comparison plus emerging and critical issues).
I mean well, but am overwhelmed as it is. Also, concerned about not "dumping" this on others. Rather, would like something akin to walking in and asking, is there some place we could leave all this interesting stuff with you that wouldn't get in the way, but the right folks could find and make use of when they're ready?
Who'd be the best person to talk to about that?
(PS: It may be a few days before I can check back on this.)
Thanks for your time and consideration. Tree4rest (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- There once was a {{expand}} template, but it should no longer be used. That template page now lists some alternatives:
- {{missing information}} to point out what is missing
- {{expand list}} for lists
- {{stub}} if the article is a stub and, most generically,
- {{incomplete}} for just saying it's incomplete - which, of course, is also least helpful.
- You could also ask for help with an article at a relevant WikiProject such as WikiProject Computing. Primary sources, however, are of limited usefulness on Wikipedia; our content should be based on secondary sources. Huon (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Huon, following up on your suggestion and replying to my earlier comment, "Unfortunately, I personally don't have time to create articles for any of these...", just found these relevant gems:
- From WP:Your_first_article:
- From WP:Requested_articles: "[F]ind the appropriate general topic area below, choose the best sub-topic that fits your subject, and use that link to go to its page. Add your request there by clicking "edit" at the appropriate heading. Give a brief description, with links if possible, for the proposed topic, to aid others in understanding your request."
- I'll see if I can suggest this on the talk page for the help topic that Huron suggested, which itself, could possibly be cross-linked to one or both of the above help articles or even the requested article template.
- Adding potential answer for my own question. Found the {{Notability}} tag on another page which may either be useful or lead to better help searches.
- Here's the full sample text as the tag appears:
- The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for products and services. Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.
- Find sources: "Cone" software – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2010)
- (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
- Links to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal#Specific_template_guidance
- Tree4rest (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Request for feedback or links to further discussion[edit]
@IonPike:
and related sections, including on your talk page, as well as your follow-up explanation to me:
Revision as of 08:54, 1 August 2019
IonPike (talk | contribs)
(Undid revision 893616513 by Tree4rest (talk) This made the tables a lot wider again and go beyond bounds and provides little benefit as products and correspondingly specs are naturally sorted by the market segment they are in.)
I welcome your feedback, and have expressed my appreciation for your initial work and vigilence in oversight a new talk section on that page. I see these pages are in good hands; you and a few of the other contributors have got this.
As a follow-up, I thought I'd ask your advice concerning how best to approach some of these wiki tables both as a reader and in contributing edits.
First, I agree with the need to keep tables readable. I'm mostly browsing with two 1050x1680 monitors in portorate orientation, bordered by one small 1280x1024 for media and chatting and with a larger landscape 1080p to the other side, usually turned off in standby until I need it.
Obviously 1050 is not that wide, and is often effectively much less with sidebars, sliders, and tree-style-tabs as well as the in page sidebars that come stuck on the full desktop version of webpages. However, even when I've taken measures to remove the noise and move tabs over to 1200-1920 wide screens, there are many cases where reading these tables can be a huge pain.
The main reason I had tried sorting that table was to make it easier to read in detail with zoomed in pages when cross referencing since at least sorting by columns can make it easier when having to constantly scroll back and forth between the row headers and data, i.e. sorting can group all of the like rows together.
However, while that has generally been a good thing, the tables on this page have a great deal more to cover and I agree are already pushing the boundaries without the sorting. I thought the one edit I tried might be okay, but wasn't surprised to see it reverted.
What I ended up doing, and again this is just for being able to Read and Use the data, not even getting into editing just yet, was to copy most of the other tables first to my sandbox, then use the visual editor there to sort the tables before cropping them down and importing the result into what became a very large and growing spreadsheet.
As I am performing of related products to try to identify what related cards might have the same chips and functionally behave similarly enough to use the native macOS drivers so that we can upgrade these machines and perhaps even aquire and deploy more (for the non-profit I'm help out.)
Anyway, here's my question. As I often find myself more and more needing to pull and push data to and from tables in various wikis, but expecially wikipedia, do you have any guidence or know of any good resources for good workflows for editing tables, and expecially being able to refactor data between multiple tables as it seems you have done on this page?
Several times now, I've been through been through this process of collecting and exporting data to spreadsheets for clean up. Then extensive reasearch to fill in many blanks, but always left wondering:
- Is there a better way to grab this table data for export (and better viewing / handling in desktop apps)
- Whenever I'm left with all this updated and refined data, I'm thinking I would be nice/great to upload this to either the Wikipedia or talk page for feedback and sharing. However, have always been pressed for time and resources. Nevertheless, I see now that they have the visual editor, maybe it isn't so bad. It's not that don't know how to edit the source code. Rather, I'm already editing lots and lots of source code and structured data blocks, and just don't have the juice to deal with adding that much data to what seems like a very clumberson interface. Having said that, I've noticed that sometime folks will through the data up in Google Sheets or some attachment so that others might improve the page in a tag-team / relay-race collaborative/opportunistic manner.
- Note, I know that Wikipedia wants references, which I'm already doing my best to keep anyway. Am thinking that it's best to add new refs where most relevant. But have noticed that almost all articles seem to avoid duplicating the same citation twice on the same page unless they are in unrelated sections.
Thanks much in advance for your time and consideration, and please do feel free to pass me along to whomever might be good to talk to where ever you think that might be best.