Jump to content

User talk:Gyrobo/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

JScript article

Hi - Looks like I'm working on JScript along with you right now. I think your changes have really improved the article. Regarding the reversion of "Notes to the tables" back to "Notes", it's fine with me. I have a question though - isn't References the place for all the usual references? I thought that Notes was where you put the Table Notes after moving them from beneath the tables. I also see that some articles label the References as Notes. I'm new to Wikipedia so I find this confusing, but perhaps there is a guideline for this? DonToto (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In JScript, References is a collection of sources referred to inline throughout the article while Notes stores information that either wouldn't fit or wouldn't make sense anyplace else in the article (footnotes, basically). That's just my opinion, though, based on how similar articles are structured. The official manual of style describes a combined section for sources and notes, but it's not completely against the use of footnotes. There's really no wrong way to do this, and the notes in this article are basically just a group of references.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll check out those guidelines. Regarding JScript article, I have a few more suggestions which I will shortly put on the talk page. Thanks for your help. DonToto (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for making it! Looks nice. As you saw, I've put it to good use already. Cheers, Pete Tillman 01:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Two days ago, I thought (again), "I should really get on Photoshop and make a geology or Earth science barnstar." And now you've made it! It looks great, thanks so much. Awickert (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, someone made File:Geology barnstar.png about 2½ years ago, but it was never on the English Wikipedia. I didn't even know it existed until I tried uploading my image (which I think is better, anyway).
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Never saw that one, & I agree. Thx again, Pete Tillman 17:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
And after a short discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards, someone came up with an even better image.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for fixing the link to the Bedfordshire barnstar :) I didn't know that the added colon did that, as you can see from my previous attempts in the page history. Any thoughts? Thanks, once again :) Acather96 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new version of File:WikiProject Bedfordshire Barnstar.png to make the background transparent, and the image less blurry. Hope that's okay.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, that is truely fantastic :) You deserve this:

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
For overhaulting the WikiProject Bedfordshire Barnstar, I award you, this barnstar :) Acather96 (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S Is there any chance that you could provide me with that flag (with texture) so I could submit it as a ribbon. I will credit your name in helping designing. Acather96 (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded File:Bedfordshire flag cloth.png. Does it look too coarse? I think I may have overdone the texturing.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
No,it looks brilliant, thank you once again. I will add it (soon) to WP:RIBBONS, with : Suggested by Acather96 and designed by Gyrobol, if that's OK :) Acather96 (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, all I really did was add a canvas filter using GIMP. Have fun with it!
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

background-clip, background-origin and background-size

I am afraid that you are incorrect. The patch was landed in this bug not the one stated in your revert. The item listed in your revert is about the use of the properties in the SeaMonkey UI - not in the Gecko code.

For further information please see the following links in the Mozilla Central HG repository:

Please undo your change since the code changes have been landed and are present in the latest nightlies.

Ryan Jones (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't see that bug. When you're changing support statuses in the future, it's always a good idea to include a link to the resolved bug if one doesn't already exist, to avoid this kind of confusion.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I will do so in future. Thanks!
Ryan Jones (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

HTML5 and its prose

Hi Gyrobo.

It would have been better instead of just reverting my edits to improve the prose. Would it be possible for us to work together on a better wording. That would be extremely cool. How would you like to proceed? KarlDubost (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Karl Dubost

I'm sorry I reverted your edits, Karl. I saw that you had created several one-sentence paragraphs, and thought that was all you had done. I would undo my reversion and combine paragraphs now, but the article has since been changed.
--Gyrobo (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk 18:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's cool. I'll look into it.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

VP8

Hi, your reversion of my edit for my edit of changing the title of the link from "In Depth Analysis of VP8 and WebM" to "In Depth Analysis of VP8 and WebM by x264dev" was to make it clear that this is not an opinion of webmproject or on2technologies. This is an opinion by a person/group which is working on the patent-encumbered format h.264. Logictheo (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC). "That isn't the author's name, it doesn't really help describe the link." It's now "'In Depth Analysis of VP8 and WebM' by an h.264 implementation developer". Me adding "by x264dev" was indeed ambiguous and not very descriptive so I now made a more serious effort. Logictheo (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Server-Sent Event support in Opera

Hello Gyrobo. You reverted my change on the HTML comparison page, stating that Opera does support Server-Sent Events. Opera has implemented an older version of the specification which defined the <event-source> element, however, that has been dropped. The current specification defines a JavaScript API named EventSource, which Opera does not implement, neither in 10.60 alphas/betas. With your consent, I'd like to update the page saying that Opera does not support the spec. An example/feature detecting page can be seen here. Beverloo (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I was using a ref for the old spec, then.
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Pioneer One

why is my edit gone with no comment? I had a proper source for the addition -Tavin (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I kept the ref that you added, I just combined it with the previous paragraph. But the comment you included about the cost per episode increasing to $20,000 was not in the ref, so I removed it.
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to know why do you think the link I added previously had to be removed ?

Regards. Madsenfr (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The link [1] you have added to articles related to HTML5 is not valid per WP:EL, WP:NONENGEL and WP:NOTLINK -- it basically just duplicates the content of existing sources and is not necessary.
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to thank you for your hardwork at Lake Albany and Albany Pine Bush, I love to research and add interesting articles but making the article actually flow and look good I am not that good at. You have truly improved the article more than I could imagine. Thank you!Camelbinky (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for all your research. You really made the pine bush article informative.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the styling fix. :) Regards, MPEGLA (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.
--Gyrobo (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Warnings

My edits were clearly not vandalism. I recommend you familiarize yourself with the rules for issues warnings before you continue to do so. The edit clearly directed you to talk page where there is a very clear discussion taking place in which I site policy for the changes. There is a huge difference between WP:BOLD and WP:VANDALISM. 22:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.247.185 (talk)

Blanking sections of an article when your issue is with the presentational structure of its text makes it much more difficult for editors to see exactly what your issues are; additionally, other editors who may not be aware of any removal may further change the article, in ways that make it harder to keep thematically-related passages together.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Still not vandalism. So are you admitting to misuse of warning templates. 70.119.247.185 (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
If an overt admission will placate you, then yes, I mistook the wholesale removal of a large section of text from That '70s Show with a vindictive-sounding edit summary as vandalism. I'm sorry and I hope that my advice on blanking enables you to continue your discussion productively.
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Britain and United Kingdom are not the same thing

I've noticed that you've linked up the word "British" to the United Kingdom article on the Julia Bradbury article, when in fact, it should like up to the Britain article.

furthermore, if you're going to supply someone's nationality, at least give them their proper nationality. In the case of Julia Bradbury, that would be English, as England is her country. Britain is not a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMPinkRanger (talk • contribs) 16:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't choose to link anything, I was merely reverting [2] and [3] as vandalism. Julia Bradbury's nationality is unknown to me.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
To be technical nothing should ever link to Britain as it is a disambiguation page. As for nationality I would say anyone living in the UK after 1707 whether it is England, Scotland, etc would be British as that would be where their passport would state and how they would be listed when entering another country whether as a visitor or immigrant. While England and Scotland remain countries to an extent the UK is the state or nation and therefore nationality refers to the political entity whereas ethnicity would refer to Scotish, English, Welsh, etc. In my opinion.Camelbinky (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Flexbox in Internet Explorer 9

It's an unannounced feature, but works fine in the latest build with the -ms prefix[1]. A bit of background info;
- Internet Explorer 9 PP 3 introduced the properties, they parsed, but didn't render anything[2].
- Internet Explorer 9 PP 4 added rendering for all properties.

This can be seen in action on (demo + screenshot):
http://peter.sh/examples/?/css/flexbox.html

If I add a feature in one of the lists I'm sure it works, you do not have to worry about that.

Thanks,
Beverloo (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[1] http://peter.sh/examples/?/css/vendor-prefix.html (-ms-box-* properties)
[2] https://connect.microsoft.com/IE/feedback/details/570528/flexible-box-model-is-unsupported-but-style-properties-are-recognized

Thank you. Beverloo (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: update

it's updated I also do demands for any other browser requests Totalaero (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's all right, I just don't have enough video ram to run aero and the existing screenshot had it enabled. Thanks!
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Chromium vs Google Chrome

Thanks for pointing that out, but I would like to correct u in that I was using Google Chrome NOT Chromium (shown here: http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/5945/chromedev.png) cherryboy (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, that's fine. If you want to include a current development screenshot of Chrome, it could definitely fit into the article somewhere, but the main image at the top of the page should still be of the most stable version. And the screenshot should still depict a default layout, without customization.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Woff and Chrome 5

I won't add at the moment to every reference the [dubious – discuss] tag, because you may find easier a better reference. I can't imagine that only a commentary of "paul" (is he paid by google?) is reliable. mabdul 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Irish does in fact work for Google, and I've replaced all the refs for Chrome 5 WOFF support with an article he also happened to write, on HTML5Rocks. All of the other sources I can find on Chrome and WOFF seem to be about WOFF support being added, not the resulting version. And (I know it's OR), WOFF demos work under Google Chrome 5 Portable.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that is better. alternativ we could add both references. But since html5rocks is also from google this is good/better. Good work! mabdul 13:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your input requested

How would you like to give Albany, New York a read-through? You've been putting a lot of time into Albany-related articles recently, and this current FAC could use another set of eyes on it. Thanks in advance! upstateNYer 22:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll read it over and do what I can.
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I know you seem to know a lot about the Pine Bush, but that souce claims it is the only sizable inland pine barrens and dunes in the US, not the only one period. Also, it's not saying the only inland pine barrens and only inland dues, it's saying the only inland (pine barrens and dunes)... if you looked at it like math. The sources are reliable and I've seen it in a book too. Are there others that are as large as Albany's? upstateNYer 22:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Pine Barrens (New Jersey) appears to be bigger than the Albany Pine Bush, though both are part of the Atlantic coastal pine barrens.
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
And Pine Barrens (New Jersey) is on a coastal plain. That may not count as inland.
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I would say they are very different, especially since the Jersey one is so closely connected to the sea. The Albany one didn't need the sea, in fact because of its separation from the sea, Lake Albany developed, allowing for the sandy alluvial plan to be created. I think because it's inland (pine barrens and sand dunes) clumped together, that's what makes it unique. upstateNYer 00:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Then I don't know of any larger inland pine barrens in North America. My apologies if my answers are sporadic, my Internet connection is shakey at best.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
No big deal. I'm going to go back to the original wording unless you have any further concerns. upstateNYer 00:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

IE9 column split

please add a column split in ie9 platform preview away from the new interface changes.... platform preview 5 doesnt have a different gui from all the other platform previews

Matthew Anthony Smith

Matthew Anthony Smith you can delete this as soon as you read it, please add a split on the ie9's combined column where it says notab —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.88.36 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of your recent edits to WebP per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

Moved to Talk:WebP/Archive 1#Date format

Risk of edit warring in WebP

Hi again, Gyrobo

I see that you have returned the See Also section back to the article, disregarding the fact that I had previously contested its addition per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I'm obliged to notify you that this adding back is a violation of BRD cycle and is edit warring. Please do not add the section back without a discussion and a consensus. I assure you, we can easily reach a consensus, if necessary. If we did not, we can always get a third opinion.

I also see that you have returned the article dates back to YMD without a consensus. Again, this is edit warring. Let us be "good pals" and do it the right way. Please continue discussion and we can always get a third opinion if we didn't reach consensus.

Please do not edit war on any other matter: It has the risk of getting you in trouble.

Thanks, Fleet Command (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I didn't see that there was an ongoing discussion regarding the See also section. And please see my response to the discussion regarding the date format. I hope we can quickly reach consensus on that; your opinion matters greatly to me.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
After reading your response there, I thought you could be interested in commenting here. Cheers, Waldir talk 11:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gyrobo/Archive_2&oldid=1195557546"