User talk:Tonymec

I'm not sure what to put on this page; at the moment it's just a placeholder. Welcome to all!

Tonymec 05:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tonymec, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Read the tutorial and learn how to edit a page.
• Experiment in the sandbox.
• Follow the Simplified Ruleset.
• Try to edit from a neutral point of view.
• Use talk pages to communicate with other editors.
• Be bold in updating pages.
• Eventually, read the Manual of Style and learn about the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.
• And most importantly, have fun!

If you need any help, see the help pages and glossary, add a question to the help desk, or ask me on my talk page.

I hope you will enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Good luck! — Bcat

Hello :-) Thanks for your welcome and your advice. Following the one about "boldness" I just translated two English pages (about subjects I know) into Esperanto, where the destination pages had until now only a placeholder banner. Just in case you might want to look at them, they are COBOL and Vim. For the latter I also created a disambiguation page. -- Tonymec 12:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The note in the editing page is about articles in the main wikipedia namespace, i.e. articles visible to everyone. You are free to write what you want on your user page (that is, in the User: namespace).

BTW, nice language skills. PeepP 23:33, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the info.
Even before entering school, I was made conscious of the plurality of languages by the fact that my parents had a housemaid who spoke a different language. (My home country -- like yours, or maybe more so -- lies at a crossroads of language frontiers.) Interest in languages has never left me since. You will probably not be surprised by the fact that I don't speak Estonian: in fact, the only word I know in that language is Eesti -- which I saw on postage stamps when, in my youth, I collected them. :-) Tonymec 01:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like reading more about it, then I've written this short introduction to the language - http://www.linux.ee/~peep/texts/estonian.html PeepP 17:03, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. By comparison with Finnish (which is one of those language in which I know "a smattering of isolated phrases" -- e.g. "hyvää päivää", tere päevast; "minä olen Antooni", mina olen Antõn [I suppose] -- and also, in the case of Finnish, the numbers) the "family relation" is obvious; Estonian looks slightly less "long-winded" than Finnish, and lacking "vowel harmony" -- by the latter I mean the difference between e.g. the second halves of yksitöistä (üksteist), seitsemäntöistä (seitseteist), yhdeksäntöistä (üheksateist) etc. vs. kaksitoista (kaksteist), kolmetoista (kolmteist), kahdeksantoista (kaheksateist), etc. Do you think it would be reasonable to say that Estonian is to Finnish as French is to Italian ? ;-) -- Tonymec 18:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I would have suggested the other way around - Estonian being to Finnish as Italian is to French. To me, French has always seemed a bit more long-winded and less concrete, if not in spelling, then in pronouncation (the r sound, the long o's (eau?), etc.). PeepP 19:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, French has lost all post-tonic syllables of its Latin and Romance ancestors (retaining at most an "e muet", i.e., a schwa), while Italian has kept them. In more recently imported words, Italian has usually kept variable stress; French has sometimes displaced the stress, which, in French, must always fall on the last sounded syllable. So Italian words typically have one or two syllables more than their French counterpart: ordine / ordr(e), camera / chambr(e), carabinieri / carabiniers, reppublica / républiqu(e), Svizzeri / Suiss(e)s, etc. In addition to word length, I was thinking of placing the variable stress at the end of Italian words in parallel with the variable "vowel colour" -- with or without umlaut, if the y is regarded as equivalent to ü -- at the end of Finnish words.
As for being more or less concrete, it all depends what you're talking about, not on the language per se. French is the language of Descartes and Voltaire, but also of Rabelais and Brassens (Sorry, there is no article about the latter in the English Wikipedia. I didn't know that "the woman of his life" was of Estonian descent); Italian is la lingua dell'amore and of the bel canto but also of Fibonacci and Cardano. -- Tonymec 20:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tony, please explan why you undo this revision?

Hello Tony, please see on Site [1]. If you don't understand something, please let me know. I will try to translate this. But my English isn't so good ... RogerOver (PS: I know you from the Vim-Mailinglist - Best greetings)

Hi Tonymec,

Sorry I didn't reply to your message sooner - I've been away on holiday. It seems I've missed a lot of goings on in the Babel pages and I wasn't even aware of the xx-4 templates; it doesn't seem like a consensus has really been reached about these and to be perfectly honest, I don't see much need to distinguish between 'advanced' and 'comparable to a native but not actually a native'!

I'm sorry you weren't able to follow my example - coming back to it now, it does seem pretty unintuitive. I don't know anything about Esperanto but if you'd like to send me the text for each template I'd be quite happy to generate the code for you. It's basically just a case of copying the code boxes into a new template page and changing the words!

Good luck and happy editing, Yummifruitbat 23:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently someone else (saw my post? and) went on to create the templates I missed: a day or two after posting that request they suddenly appeared on my userpage. Thanks anyway. -- Tonymec 00:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, j'ai vu votre commentaire dans mon talk ... Et je suis en désaccord avec vous ... C'est votre Babel qui est impressionant. La plupart de mes langues sont du premier niveau ... mais c'est pas comme ça pour les vôtres. ! :-D --Chris S. 02:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to what you put on Wikipedia talk:Babel: 'участник' could just as well be construed to mean 'user' as opposed to 'participant'. This is also supported by the fact that the russian wikipedia uses участник to specify users (such as ru:участник:Ilyanep) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is used on the Russian Babel template is irrelevant: the French Babel templates use "cette personne" (this person) which is not synonymous with "cet utilisateur" (this user). OTOH, участник "participant, member" is obviously cognate with участвовать "to take part" and участие "participation", not with использовать "to use", пользоваться "to use; to avail oneself of", использование "use, exploitation", польза "utility", полезный "useful" etc. Actually, however, (as I stated in Wikipedia talk:Babel) I do regard "participant" as more appropriate than "user" to the casual-editing organization of the Wikipedia. And French "cette personne" is not wrong; it is only less precise. -- Tonymec 20:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said Classical Greek is not the same language as Modern Greek. Can you back this up by personal experience, or is it just something you have read? I'm really curious to find out. Miskin 13:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've had some classical Greek in school, but if I try to use it on Greek people, they don't understand it, unless they've had schooling in Classical Greek and know Erasmian pronunciation (as opposed to modern Greek pronunciation). Nor do I understand modern Greek. All Greek people I've spoken to, have told me that Classical Greek and modern Greek are no more inter-intelligible than, say, classical Latin and modern Italian (no wonder, since they are more distant in time by ca. 500 years). There are even 'false friends', like Cl. Gr. καλος kalos "beautiful", αγαθος agathos "good"; Mod. Gr. καλος "good", αγαθος agathos "stupid". -- Tonymec 14:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :)

I noticed you removed the user-ASL templates from the Babel page and I'd like to know your thinking behind this. I originally created the user-sgn templates, and added them to the Babel page. These templates are a bit odd, because they contain a (language) parameter and don't integrate smoothly into the Babel-X templates. There have been various work-arounds for this problem as this idea has developed (see category:User sgn and Category talk:User sgn). User:Jdavidb came up with the (I think) excellent idea of making seperate templates for individual sign languages such as ASL (the most widely used sign language by wikipedians), which are basically a shortcut to creating a {{user-sgn|ASL}} template, and have the added advantage of integrating smoothly into the babel-x templates without asking for extra (potentially confusing) steps. Note that I have noticed several users incorrectly using these user-sgn templates inside a babel-x template — I guess they were confused or just overlooked the extra step. The user-ASL templates have an additional advantage of allowing for double-categorisation of users as sign language users (category:user sgn), as well as ASL (or other specific language) users which the generic user-sgn templates don't allow. So I created them and added them to the Babel page, thinking they integrate well with the existing user-sgn categorisation and can serve as a model for future sign language templates for BSL and Auslan. If you had explained your removal of content on the discussion page or in your edit summary I would be better able to respond; perhaps I would agree! I am not hell-bent on the inclusion of these templates, just curious. Cheers, ntennis 08:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the purpose of sgn templates was to avoid defining templates for every sign language on Earth. The fact that ASL is "most widely used by Wikipedians", even if true, is IMHO a symptom of a bias: it reflects the fact that "most Wikipedians" (or maybe just most English-language Wikipedians) are Usonians. IIUC, even within a single spoken-language area, there are often several geographically localised and mutually incomprehensible sign languages. For instance, in my country (Belgium), somewhat less than half of the more or less 10 million inhabitants have French as their native language; but of these maybe 4 million or so, those who use sign language use a different sign language than that used in France.

OK, I guess I had misunderstood the purpose of "sgn" templates, sorry; and the fact that ASL and sgn had been created by the same individual, didn't jump to my mind; I thought it was some more mindless template pollution like that of creating "This user is a (native) user of Firefox", etc., with the aggravating circumstance that there already were sgn templates. So, go ahead, revert my delete, I won't counteract you again. - Tonymec 11:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou :) You are right about French Sign Language vs Belgian-French Sign Language. But I'm not clear how this affects the use of the templates? If users desired, sets of templates for both LSF and LSBF can be created, which call on the user-sgn templates (ie. they would tranform into {{user sgn|LSF}} and {{user sgn|LSBF}} just like the ASL templates do. I'm sorry that the ASL templates were aggravating but I really want to make the sign language templates as easy to use and as effective as possible, so I would appreciate your feedback (you said you misunderstood the purpose of user-sgn, but I can't see exactly what the misunderstanding was). As for bias, I would like to minimise that too! I have corrected many article pages on sign language that assume sign langauge = ASL. I myself am not an ASL user. I had to pick a sign language to test the new system, and it seemed to make sense to choose the one that the majority of people using the user-sgn templates were already using (23 out of the 30 users use ASL, and two of the remaining 7 don't know a sign language at all). Anyway, I will reinstate the ASL templates for now and try to put a couple of explanatory notes. Cheers, ntennis 00:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The misunderstanding was as follows: I thought the purpose of the sgn templates was: "Let anyone who wants to express fluency in a sign language use the sgn templates, so there's no need to create any other templates for individual sign languages." Obviously (from the present discussion), that was not at all what you had in mind.

I didn't use the word "aggravating" as applying to the ASL templates themselves; I said they seemed silly at first, and that the existence of sgn templates was an aggravating circumstance, i.e., it made this "silliness" all the more blatant (as in judiciary language, where "aggravating circumstance" > < "extenuating circumstance"). Obviously I was mistaken. - Tonymec 03:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a while ago you made some comments about the presence of bible-verse articles, and/or source texts of the bible, and you may therefore be interested in related new discussions:

• A discussion about 200 articles, one each for the first 200 verses of Matthew - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
• A discussion about 18 articles, one each for the first 18 verses of John 20 - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20
• A discussion about whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a repeat of last year's move request Laozi -> Lao Tzu you might be interested in here: Talk:Laozi. AjaxSmack 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, On a pris l'initiative de créer WikiProject Belgium,si vous voulez contribuer vous êtes vraiment bienvenu!Pour le moment, on craint un peu que nous manquions des contribueurs Wallons et Francophones... Pour le moment, tous ceux qui sont inscrits, sont des Flamands (=Belges néerlandophones). On ne veut pas donner l'impression que c'est une organisation pro-Flamande qui veut contrôler tout ce qui concerne la Belgique:), c'est donc pour ça qu'on veut inviter les francophones tout de suite. On voudrait y travailler en anglais.

Donc si vous en avez envie, ajoutez votre nom sur ce liste! Evilbu 23:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit to John Russell. I noticed that you marked it as a minor edit. That designation is intended only for changes which do not affect the content of the article, such as adding categories, correcting spelling, or disambiguating links. Adding a new person is substantive and should be tagged that way. Matchups 04:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. There were already so many of them, I thought adding just one more (already named in some other page, but with no wiki page of his own yet) was no big deal; less in fact than adding a brand-new category. I stand corrected. -- Tonymec 10:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tonymec,

Thank you for your interest in the Wikimedia Board Election. The Election Committee regretfully informs you that your previous vote was received in error and will be struck according to the election rules, described below.

The Election Committee regretfully announces today that we will have to remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must have at least 400 edits by June 1 to be eligible to vote.

The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third party election partner) initially were wrong, and one of your account was eventually included to our initial list. There was a bug in the edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits. So large numbers of people were qualified according to the software who shouldn't be. The bug has been fixed and an amended list was sent to SPI already.

Our first (and wrong) list contains 80,458 accounts as qualified. The proper number of qualified voters in the SPI list is now 52,750. As of the morning of July 4 (UTC), there are 2,773 unique voters and 220 people, including you, have voted who are not qualified based upon this identified error.

In accordance with voting regulations the Election Committee will strike those approximately 220 votes due to lack of voting eligibility. The list of struck votes is available at https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/List_of_struck_votes.

We are aware of the possibility that some of the people affected may have other accounts with more than 400 edits, and hence may still be eligible to vote. We encourage you to consider voting again from another account, if you have one. If you have no other account eligible to vote, we hope you reach the criteria in the next Election, and expect to see your participation to the future Elections.

Your comments, questions or messages to the Committee would be appreciated, you can make them at m:Talk:Board elections/2007/en. Other language versions are available at m:Translation requests/Eleccom mail, 07-05.

Again, we would like to deeply apologize for any inconvenience.

Sincerely,
Kizu Naoko
Philippe
Jon Harald Søby
Newyorkbrad
Tim Starling

For Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came across this – could you please explain what IOW is? Thanks, Dan ☺ 12:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short for "in other words". Similarly, IIUC = "if I understand correctly"; OT1H… OTOH… = "on the one hand… on the other hand…"; YMMV = "your mileage may vary"; RTFM = (depending on sources) either "read the friendly manual" or "read the fucking manual"; etc. Try to find a reference on "computer jargon acronyms". Tonymec (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks – I was seeing a list of three possible directions of writing (“IOW, LTR or RTL”) and imagining IOW meant something like 'from in outwards'. I suppose I think weirdly Dan ☺ 22:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arabic language influence on the Spanish language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alcantara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the link to a disambiguation page was intentional, in order to create a single link pointing to the several pages listed at that point in the disambiguation page. Tonymec (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(This section created empty and unsiged by Randomwangran (talk), referring to a rollback of three consecutive edits (including a +1 and a -1) in International System of Units)

@Randomwangran: These changes seemed at first to be the work of a troll, so I almost clicked "Rollback (VANDAL)" then I thought again and decided that maybe you were just misguided but in good faith and used the plain "Rollback" button. Let me see…

• File:International System Of Units Logo .png is black and white with not even greyscale tints; File:International System of Units Logo.png, the colour version which you replaced by that high-contrast one, is nicer, and seems to include nothing important that a colour-blind person couldn't see;
• The ampere is a unit of electric current; saying just "current" is no better;
• "A unit of substance" doesn't make sense to me; the mole is a unit of quantity of a substance;
• "A unit of luminous" doesn't make sense at all AFAICT; the candela is a unit of luminous intensity;
• The fact that "time" "length" and "mass" are one word each is no reason why all other units should have just a one-word name for the quantity they measure, especially if a two- or even three-word name makes it clearer or less ambiguous.

So I felt that each of these changes was at best unneeded and at worst ill-chosen; undoing them all was easier from the diff page where the email notification had brought me than undoing only some of them. Maybe I should have added "thermodynamic" as an epithet of "temperature" (to mean "temperature measured from absolute zero") but somehow it seemed less important. — Tonymec (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonymec What's the difference using Rollback (VANDAL) and the plain one?

@Randomwangran: The difference is that the one marks the undone change as vandalism, the other doesn't. If someone replaces a section by "qwertyuiop asdfghjkl zxcvbnm" I wouldn't hesitate to undo that as vandalism.

• The reason why I feel File:International System Of Units Logo .png is good than File:International System of Units Logo.png is because that I feel back and white is enough to differentiate seven basic unit. The color does not add any meaning to that, so it makes the basic thing complicated. We are talking about the foundation of todays' scientific knowledge, so I think that any thing should have some meaning otherwise unnecessary.
• What I found about this description in that box is that how concise time, length, and mass is. You only introduce one word for each item. However, it becomes complicated for ampere, kelvin, mole, candela.
• If "A unit of substance" dose not make sense to you, why "A unit of time" make sense to you?
• If "A unit of luminous" dose not make sense to you, why you are okay with "A unit of length"?
• As you point out, I am trying to find such one-word name for the quantity they measure, it makes sense to me, but not to you.

The polychrome logo looks nicer to me; in fact the high-contrast monochrome one looks downright ugly to me. The only reason why IMO the high-contrast one might be preferable would be if the polychrome one made things harder to see for color-blind people. But AFAICT it doesn't. So leave it as it was.

About the descriptions in the infobox, the KISS (keep it short & simple) principle is no reason to make the descriptions inexact, less precise, or harder to understand. The second is a unit of time, the metre is a unit of length, while for the candela, «a unit of luminous» makes no sense AFAICT.

The fact that you're saying that the one-word descriptions you chose make sense to you makes me doubt: What is your mother language? If English, of what country or region?

All in all, I stand by my revert. If you don't agree, I'd recommend that you open a new section about this difference of opinion on Talk:International System of Units so other people will see it and maybe leave their opinion. — Tonymec (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to make things concise, at lease, with the most fundamental things. I do not know why some of the unit is being able be described using just a single word whereas some are not.--Randomwangran (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tonymec! You created a thread called Zooming images on mouseover at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy,

friendly reminder: seeing that you share my opinion (by the way, I copied the revert reason right from the article!), you might want to reconsider calling it "vandalism". That's rather harsh.

--Tuxman (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuxman: At many places throughout the article, you had removed "/in" from URLs, changing .../something/index.htm to .../somethingdex.htm. That's what I called vandalism. Maybe it wasn't intentional but it should never have happened. Next time, please, use not only the "Preview" function before you "publish" your changes, but also the "History" function immediately afterwards, to check that nothing unwanted happened when you clicked "Publish". — Tonymec (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh! I had not seen that - it is a script to remove Binnen-Is from the web to make German texts less horrible to read. In fact, it even killed them in the Preview, so I did not see that I did anything more than remove the editor. Ouch.

I'll whitelist the Wikipedia ... Sorry! --Tuxman (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Two dots (diacritic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noel. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot: The alternative would have been to point the link to Christmas when the subject matter was not Christmas but the presence or absence of a diaeresis on the word "Noël". I hesitated but I finally decided that pointing the link to the disambiguation page was the right thing to do. The French Wikipedia has the templates Page h and Page h' to be used when intentionally pointing a link to a disambiguation page, but I didn't find the equivalent on en.wiki. — Tonymec (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JaGa: See above. — Tonymec (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Silkmoth has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 22 § Silkmoth until a consensus is reached. Randi🦋^Talk_Contribs 09:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I just wanted to follow up on the edit you made restoring the "last appearance" of Ron Weasley. I removed it because Ron is a character in the play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, which has been produced on stage since 2016, and is set for more performances this year. We haven't seen Ron's last appearance yet! Wafflewombat (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wafflewombat: Well, then, why not mention Harry Potter and the Cursed Child as Ron's last appearance ? AFAIK, no more HP stories are forthcoming, and successive performances of a single play, or successive editions of a single novel, aren't different stories. — Tonymec (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can mention Cursed Child as the last appearance. I'll change it. Wafflewombat (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just had a question about line breaks. Are any type of line breaks problematic for different devices and skins? I've noticed that line breaks are very common in infoboxes, and not just the way I've been using them. Wafflewombat (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on my system, with the forced linebreaks you added it looked like

Harry Potter and

the

Philosopher's Stone

(1997)

which is how it looks to me again now. Replacing <br> and its surrounding stop-and-start italics by a single space changed it (for me) to

Harry Potter and the

Philosopher's Stone

(1997)

and similarly for the "last appearance". So yes, it does make a difference.

Where forced linebreaks may be useful in an infobox is to separate different items which might appear elsewhere on different lines of a bullet list. Not in the middle of a single item. — Tonymec (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. To clarify, the first appearance and last appearance content on Ron Weasley currently looks inappropriately broken up? If so, I'll put everything back to normal formatting like you suggested and let the browser handle it. Wafflewombat (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no change since this morning. I'll try to change it myself in a few minutes. If on your system it becomes bad-looking, please tell me how bad it looks. — Tonymec (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Your Plainlist template made the browser believe that "Harry Potter and the" and "Philosopher's Stone" were two completely unrelated items so it separated them even if for layout's sake it had put a linebreak before "the". When treated as one item (as I changed it again a few seconds ago) it adds linebreaks only where required by the layout, and among others possibly before "the" and possibly after it but not both. — Tonymec (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your willingness to dialogue about this and calmly seek a resolution. You approached our conversation with civility and courtesy, and that means a lot.

I'm a nitpicker about formatting, but I'll just have to live with less-than-ideal formatting in this case. It doesn't look terrible, just not ideal in my view. I don't see a way to prevent the headers from creeping onto a second line, unless there is some means of "freezing" the headers that I'm not aware of. Since the formatting styles I've tried create problems, I might just have to wait until WP implements new infobox tools to get the effect I want! Wafflewombat (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On my system, I see on the left side of the infobox

First
appearance

and what I see now on the right side is

Harry Potter and the
Philosopher's Stone
(1997)

neatly displayed on three lines including the two with the bold headers. For the "last appearance" it looks even better because the year is on the same line as Cursed Child. Looks nice to me considering how narrow the infobox is; but as the saying goes, "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". No matter what we do and how we do it, someone will complain. Let's try to produce something which will look "reasonable even if not perfect" in most people's eyes. (Having the word the alone on one line with Harry Potter and above it and Philosopher's stone below it looked unreasonably ugly to me.)

About calm dialogue and willingness to seek a solution, I am convinced that we won't get anywhere (except maybe getting at least one of us banned) by throwing insults, disparagements and what-not at each other; maybe because in my country, where Members of Parliament are elected by proportional suffrage, it is usually necessary to get between five and seven parties around one table to find a compromise equally displeasing them all and form a government. — Tonymec (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just wanted to follow up about the TOC edits you made on List of Harry Potter characters. After your edits, the TOC content became un-centered for me. How does it look for you? Wafflewombat (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me it was the opposite: before these edits, I saw them justified left (the frames as well as their contents), and after them, each of the table-of-contents frames moved horizontally to he center of the page. Their contents remained justified left within each frame, however. At the moment I'm busy with other edits but maybe you can study Template:Compact TOC and see if you notice something. When I did, I saw no "align=center" parameter, I saw a "center=yes" parameter, and the change from one to the other moved the TOC frames from the left to the center without changing the look of what was inside them. Not perfect, I admit; but IMHO a first step in the right direction. Does it change something if you add back "align=center" without removing "center=yes" ? If it does, then maybe there's a documentation bug for this template. — Tonymec (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'm not in the right headspace to tackle this issue right now, but I have another question for you. I was removing a lot of content on the Ministry of Magic, but another editor reverted all my work. This editor doesn't seem to want to engage in dialogue, so I posted my reasoning on the talk page. I feel the article has mountains of cruft (multiple minor characters have paragraphs upon paragraphs describing their every deed in the novels), but it looks like I'll need more editors to weigh in before I'm allowed to remove it. If you feel qualified to add your perspective to the conversation, I would appreciate it! Wafflewombat (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel qualified to determine what belongs on Wikipedia and what doesn't: not so long ago I got temporarily banned on fr:wiki for adding what some editor said lacked "sufficient secondary sources". Since then I've been mostly limiting myself to spelling corrections, changes in form not affecting content, and reversion of obvious vandalism (let's say, if someone replaces a paragraph by "qwertyuiop asdfghjkl wxcvbnm" I have no quirks about revoking that). Maybe you should better put your question in some section of the Wikipedia village pump (I'm not sure which one). What you should not do, of course, is start an edit war, which could result in getting you both banned. — Tonymec (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the honest reply. I'm getting so exhausted by content debates. I might start backing off from discussing content with people. I don't know if it's worth the effort. Wafflewombat (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]