If you leave a message here, I will probably reply here, unless requested otherwise.
I usually watchlist talkpage threads for a few days, so please reply in original.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (est. 2005)

[edit] small bag of holding

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: "Boswash" — search, news, books, scholar, images - 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Suggestion

Re [2], 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009