Jump to content

User talk:John Broughton/Archive 14 January-May 2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Template:WikiProject Telecommunications

Hello. I responded to your request at Wikipedia:Requested templates but I note that you still haven't created the required categories. Could you do this please, to avoid lots of redlinks on talk pages. Alternatively you can just undo my edit if you have changed your mind. Best wishes, Martin 22:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. Any particular reason why you left List and NA uncreated? I notice that neither is empty. Cheers, Martin 21:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:EmailUser feature

Hello John Broughton. Since I'm not sure about this, I've decided to ask you about whether or not: A - it would be appropriate for autoconfirmed users with the email function to have the ability to individually filter/block a user's email, and B - is it feasible enough for it to exist in the first place? I wouldn't have considered thinking about it at all had there not been so many cases where people got junk via Special:EmailUser, let alone the other spam they already receive. I mean, I even got an email bomb from Grawp once a few days after it was blocked on his account (one of many accounts, albeit), so it's certainly not uncommon. ~ Troy (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly right about where any restrictions should be (in theory, of course). As you've suggested, I'll try to look for some more feedback think at WP:VPPR; I'm sure that there are some exceptional cases out there but there might be something related in the thick of this. Thanks for the input, though! I probably wouldn't have thought of all of that myself. ~ Troy (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I read your comment at the Village Pump; I have replied with a descriptive image. This, that and the other [talk] 06:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


Talkback

{{talkback}} This, that and the other [talk] 09:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hoi, I read, liked and reviewed your book. Now that it finds its way on Wikipedia I am really happy that Wikipedia gets more and better Help information. Thank you for this wonderful effort. Thanks GerardM (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

+1 great job. Alvar☮ ☎ 13:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Great Job on adding your book to Wikipedia!! I still bought it though, and very helpful! Do you have a web page or a Kindle, iPhone, .CHM or PDF file on this??Jez t e C 19:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:John Broughton/gallery

Hi, a lot of images in your gallery are in violation of Wikipedia's image use policy, as they contain watermarks. Would it be possible to make the images conform to the IUP? Thanks. — neuro(talk) 20:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to see here, seems to have been O'Reilly. I'll compile a list tomorrow. Do you still have the source images? — neuro(talk) 22:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
If you upload the source images somewhere, I can sort out conversion and border removal. I'll get on that list tomorrow. And by the way (can't believe I haven't said this already), thanks a lot for doing this. It means a lot, it's even being discussed on the mailing lists. :) — neuro(talk) 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Crap, I completely and utterly forgot about this. Do you still want this done? — neuro(talk)(review) 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This is going to sound like deja vu, but I'll get on it tomorrow afternoon. Give me a nudge if I don't seem to be doing anything. :) — neuro(talk)(review) 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Image uploads

I've been looking over the new images for the help book you've created. Great job by the way. For future uploads, and I guess even for the current ones, it would be best to add {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} for licensing. I just came across this gem while I was adding {{Non-free Wikimedia logo}} to some of your uploads. The only other problem I wasn't sure how to resolve without it ending in a deletion was this; I did some looking around and found {{Non-free software screenshot}}. It is my understanding that NFC can only be used in mainspace. Someone at the Graphic Lab might be able to make up a free version that mimics the download. PS I'm messing with AWB to see if I can get those templates linked. §hep • Talk 23:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you have some images that'd you'd like to have multiple "clickable" links in I could do some imagemaps for you. §hep • Talk 02:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia basic information

I was cleaning up the category wikipedia basic information, you page User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia redirects the wikipedia index page which seems to bring with it the categories, your sub page appears in the category! Is it possible to translude it in the normal way which whould cure this? LeeVJ (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand at all what you're saying. First, when I look at Category:Wikipedia basic information, I do not see the page User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia. Second, redirects don't work the way you describe ("bringing categories with it"). If you've found a case where this actually does occur, I strongly recommend that you raise the issue at WP:VPT instead; this most definitely should be fixed. Third, you seem to be suggesting that the page User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia be changed from a redirect, but I strongly prefer it to stay that way. If I were to make it into a transclusion of Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia, that would put my subpage into various categories, and could mislead editors following (old) links into thinking that somehow this was my index, rather than the community's index. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it is confusing to me too! It might be a problem with the software, I'll try looking into it... To clarify if you check under Category:Wikipedia basic information, you'll find User:Jerry/EditorIndex appears ( under 'E' ), there are other user pages which I haven't got into yet, but they could be the same symptom, I could not locate the category in the pages thus assuming it's the transclusion/redirect at the heart of inconsistenct? LeeVJ (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Transclusions do include categories. If they didn't, then templates wouldn't work, since templates are transclusions, and many templates (such as infoboxes, I think) are explicitly designed with categories. (If you need more information on this, check the editor's index.)
And yes, pages like User:Jerry/EditorIndex are transclusions. If you have problems with that particular page, please post at User talk:Jerry. I'm not responsible for what other editors do, nor do I have any authority to modify a subpage of another editor, regardless of what their subpage might link to. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
How small do I feel ! :( In all the dereferencing - I hadn't noticed that User:Jerry wasn't you ! Ignore this for now - I think it'd better having the actually article robust enough to be used without these category mishaps, when I've more time ... Thanks for the patience! LeeVJ (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem. And, to add to the confusion, I would have thought that this edit, on January 31st, would have ended this problem, since (I would have thought) that putting noincludes around the categories would prevent their transclusion. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know I have tracked down the line in the template

<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:Project}}|[[Category:Wikipedia basic information|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly>

And the reply from technical questions: The line works correctly but the namespace test was only added a week ago in [10]. Affected pages can be removed from the category with a null edit. Purging is not enough. If the job queue works as intended then the pages should eventually be removed automatically but that sort of job has sometimes taken weeks recently. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well there you go! ( just incase you wondered ) LeeVJ (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's something I did not anticipate: "Editors' index" instead of "Editor's index"

A bureaucrat on Commons moved the page:

without discussing the move first, and then he apparently left for a break until February 22. The edit summary for the move:

  • Not just for a single editor, but for all editors (plural)

In the meantime, I can't seem to un-do the move, possibly because my first attempted ended badly with a fat-fingered typo. See my notes at User:Teratornis/Notes#Page move problem. I'd prefer to keep the apostrophe where you've had it since you started the Editor's index to Wikipedia in 2006. Thousands of editors seem to have had no problem identifying as the "Editor" (singular) you originally referred to. --Teratornis (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at commons:User talk:MichaelMaggs#Editor's index since his contributions show recent edits despite the announced break. Incidentally, several other page names on Commons and on the English Wikipedia have titles that use the singular possessive in similar ways, for example {{The Working Man's Barnstar}}. It would seem strange to say "The Working Men's Barnstar". Perhaps this is idiomatic. (It's amazing what sort of minutiae can burn up our time on wikis.) --Teratornis (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Odd. It looks like another editor fixed the problem (put things back as they were). As far as I know, the rule for Wikipedia is the same as at Commons (and probably all other MediaWiki sites: If the new title already exists but is just a redirect to the old title, with just one line in the page history, the creation of the redirect, then you can rename the page. The most common case in which this applies is that of re-renaming a page back to its original name. As mentioned, this works only if the redirect that was automatically created in the first renaming, has not been edited. (From Help:Moving a page. And it should make absolutely no difference who the editor is that did the move, presuming that he/she doesn't move-protect the page after the renaming: admin, bureaucrat, whatever. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It's possible I screwed myself by making a fat-fingered typo on my first attempt to un-do the move, although that shouldn't have affected the redirect at the original name. I accidentally bumped the ↵ Enter key while reaching for the arrow keys to navigate to my typo, which committed the move to the misspelled name. I was able to un-do my mistake, but I still could not un-do the original move. I did not expect to get stuck like that either. Maybe my first botched move somehow counted as an edit. I don't know. I only know that next time I will proceed more carefully when I try to move a page. Thanks to Stepshep for un-doing the original move. I guess MichaelMaggs will see my message when he gets back from his break. --Teratornis (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) For the record, can you recall anyone suggesting to change the word "Editor's" (singular possessive) to "Editors'" (plural possessive) in the title of the Editor's index to Wikipedia? I did not see anything like that on the talk page. Since so many people have used the EIW by now, I'd expect this issue to have come up before, if it is anything like common for people to prefer plural possessives in these kinds of titles. --Teratornis (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but there is one problem, the revision history seems to have vanished. I'd expect the revision history to be back with commons:Commons:Editor's index to Commons, but it's not. The only edits to the index before the move were by me, except for one edit by User:MichaelMaggs, who added one sentence to the lead section before he moved the page. Here are all the pages and redirects:
Actually the revision history is in the page: commons:Commons:Editors' index to Commons which is now a redirect to commons:Commons:Editor's index to Commons. User:Stepshep is apparently not an administrator on Commons. I wonder if he or she did a cut and paste move. If so, yikes. --Teratornis (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, looks like a cut-and-paste move. Not optimal, but .... I suggest you put a note at commons:Commons talk:Editor's index to Commons that notes where the initial page history can be found, and be done with it (hopefully). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:Linklove

Perhaps not harassment per se, but this cite certainly enables privacy violations by figuring out editor's IP addresses. I see no reason to include this, as it serves no purpose other than to promote WP:STALKing. If someone needs to run a WP:RFCU start a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations for a project-related purpose, we have entrusted certain members of the community with the checkuser ability. -- Kendrick7talk 22:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a few month out of date here, I guess it's WP:SPI now... -- Kendrick7talk 22:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Yes, after John adds his nomination to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Teratornis then I can complete my part. --Teratornis (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good tip, thanks

re: this answer on Maps issue...

  • Your tip on the Maps fora, much appreciated. Sandy Georgia suggested the MOS talk too... which would allow enforcement and pressure via GA/FAC processes. // FrankB 18:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

About your post on Help talk:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual

If you would like to update the pages of your book to better reflect the current Wikipedia tech and practices, go ahead. WP:OWN says anyone may edit a page, even its creator!--Ipatrol (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Special Appreciation

I'm in the process of building my first ever Wiki-Powered website and I wanted to send you a special thank you for all the tremendous progress you've made. You are a true hero to the online community. Www CollegeStock com (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

Books on Wikipedia Article

I added your book for Wikipedia readers, plus another book by Andrew Lih, to the Wikipedia article, but I think it would be useful to be able to find books about how to use books on how to read or edit Wikipedia more easily. Perhaps a link from the search box to the Wikipedia books section would be appropriate. DThomsen (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

Of course, only a few Wikipedia readers ever become editors, but those of us who want more editors should encourage prospective editors with whatever information they need to become effective and active editors. Links to your online book, and for that matter, Phoebe Snow's book, would be entirely appropriate, and perhaps it is better for me to add them than for you to promote your book. I am going to a Philadelphia Wikipedia Meetup this afternoon, and after that I will be back to add links. Incidentally, I removed a LibraryThing.com link to the John Broughton in New York City, after he responded to an email saying that he didn't write the book on Wikipedia. Please consider updating your author information there. DThomsen (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8
Look at the upper right corner of your author page on LibraryThing.com, and you will see links. DThomsen (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

Re: Toolserver/template problem

Thanks for the notes! Just one thing: as far as I remember, I was never attempting to report it as an error. Rather, I was intending to ask whether I had to go somewhere to add the page to the Toolserver: consequently, I believed that the fact of a page's failure to load simply indicated that it wasn't added to wherever it was supposed to go. I am careful to provide details when I attempt to make an error report. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Feedback on an issue in your book

Hi John. I read your manual over the summer and found it useful despite my experience here. I haven't made a detailed list of feedback, but I remember there was one part where (correct me if I'm wrong) you seemed to suggest that a stub is better kept as a draft and that adding to the number of stubs is a more or less bad thing. I don't really follow you; by that logic shouldn't we delete all existing stubs from mainspace (move them to a "stub space" or get people to adopt them perhaps) and bring them back only when they reach a certain quality? I think useful but short articles are much better in mainspace than left lingering as a userspace draft that nobody can find, waiting for their author to expand on them if they ever get around to it. In the mainspace people can at least get some information from them, and there is much greater potential to expand on them with other editors being able to find them more easily. Richard001 (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not simple. There are pros and cons to either approach, and this may vary with time and with the topic area. A subtle danger of stub articles is that many if not most Wikipedia editors do not read very far into the manuals; instead they learn by imitating what they see. If they see lots of stubs, they might feel motivated to create lots more stubs. Since it is far easier to create new stubs than to improve existing stubs, the result could be a stub explosion that never improves. Then there are deletionists, who delete thousands of articles from Wikipedia. Stubs are especially vulnerable to deletion because they don't contain enough content to defend against most of the usual arguments for deletion. One should take into account what other users actually do. If you want to create a new article and have it "stick", the safest approach is to develop the article in your userspace first, and move it to the main article space when it is complete enough to have a chance at surviving. If you don't have enough sources already to know that you could flesh out an article, then by creating a stub you are merely gambling that someone else will provide the information you lack, before the deletionists get to it. Obviously it doesn't help anyone to create a stub in the article space which gets deleted before it improves. On the other hand, if we wanted to turn the battleship (metaphorically speaking) and persuade the whole Wikipedia community to adopt some new rule for dealing with stubs, we would need to base our recommendations on actual data. In the case of stubs, one might like to have some data showing at least the following things:
  • How the number of stub articles has varied over time.
  • How long stub articles remain stubs (this will be a distribution).
  • The factors that influence the time a stub takes to improve (for example, the topic area, the results of a Google test, etc.).
  • The deletion rate for stubs, compared to the deletion rate for better-developed articles.
So many factors influence whether an article gets deleted that I doubt it would be easy to generalize about whether one should create stub articles. It might be foolish to create stub articles in topic areas with high deletion rates, such as in pop culture topics. On the other hand, if a particular topic has a large and active editor community, maybe stubs will get fleshed out quickly - but then one would have to wonder why someone else hadn't already created some stub you have in mind.
There is also a question of whether it is good to deliberately generate work for other Wikipedia users. Wikipedia has many enormous and growing backlogs, which means we have more users who create problems than users who solve them. Creating an obviously deficient article which one expects other users to improve is not as considerate as creating an article which is good enough to be worthwhile right away. If you think about any sort of real-world cooperation, a person who goes around starting lots of jobs and not finishing them will quickly gain a bad reputation. That amounts to treating others as if they are one's personal staff of sherpas. Speaking for myself only, I would never start a new article unless I could write a first draft that would have at least the basic article layout and at least several reliable sources. --Teratornis (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't exactly agree, but I guess it depends what definition of 'stub' is used (I think my rough idea is probably a bit too inclusive) and who the book is aimed at (being aimed at new editors, the advice is probably okay given the possibility of deletions). Richard001 (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia assignments chat time

Please take a look at the proposed time for the chat on Wikipedia classroom assignments works for you, or propose another one.--ragesoss (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My Skype name is ragesoss. Please add me as a contact and/or let me know your Skype name (there are a bunch of John Broughtons) sometime before the chat tonight.--ragesoss (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot

Thanks for the pointer about this discussion. I hope my reply is helpful! Best wishes, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of first name

Hi John, I added the first name since Rick is the one he uses in his ads for Conservatives for Patients' Rights. I did it to delineate between what appears to be a formal business name of Richard L. Scott and the name he appears to be known by of Rick Scott. Also, under the section of "Early life and education," his first name is used in the first sentence. --Navy II (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech RfA ban

Hi. I've seen you commenting on DougsTech's proposed topic ban at WT:RFA, and I just wanted to point you to a discussion about whether to ban him going on at Wikipedia:AN#Proposed topic ban for User:DougsTech. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Timmeh! 15:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hemorheologic-Hemodynamic Theory of Atherogenesis

In reply to your discussion on the section about the Hemorheologic-Hemodynamic theory in the article on "Atherosclerosis": I have added five references to the second paragraph dealing with the hemorheologic-hemodynamic theory. These papers themselves have been referenced a total of 68 times. The paper which put forth the theory, "A unifying theory..." has been referenced 20 times. Another reference, "A critical analysis of the role of cholesterol in atherogenesis" has been referenced 22 times. These numbers are from a Google Scholar search. I was unaware of this resource. Thanks for turning me on to it. Most importantly, I have put a link to the article devoted to the H-H theory, which has references by quite a number of authors.

The second paragraph is where it is because intellectual honesty suggests that the limitations of a theory should be listed after it is put forth. Thus, I think the proper location for the "attack" paragraph is immediately after the mainstream theory. As noted at the end of the article on "Atheroma," "in spite of popular belief, cholesterol is not the villain that causes atherosclerosis." For practical reasons, I think it is appropriate to place that material before putting forth the H-H theory because otherwise, why else would one read on?

Finally, I object to the word "attack." This material is simply a dispassionate listing of shortcomings of the mainstream theory, with supporting references. Is Wikipedia an appropriate place for negative emotional words such as "attack" in evaluation of scientific material?

Bigdaddypathologist (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdaddypathologist (talk • contribs) 03:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Your book as a Book

I've collated your book at Wikipedia:Books/The Missing Manual. There, it can be maintained as a giant PDF (and, of course, redistributed as necessary). Hopefully, your publisher won't have any problems with this, but best to give you (and, by extension, them) a heads-up.

I know a few people will try to get this book from PediaPress, and so I *should* put something at the beginning of it to warn users that the book's published by a guy who'd really appreciate it if you bought a real copy from his real publisher (will look that up soon's I get this note finished). Have a nice day (and use {{tb}} if you reply, please)! ~user:orngjce223 ☺ how am I typing? 04:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Syniverse page

Thanks for your feedback about the page I created about Syniverse. Do you recommend I delete portions that are not cited so that it doesn't get the advertisement flag? What other actions need to be taken so I can ensure it's a high-quality article? Thanks again. Ealcoop23 (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea for you to go ahead and make changes where you see fit. I appreciate your help!Ealcoop23 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you made any changes to the page? Will I be able to view them in the history section? Thanks. Ealcoop23 (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I modeled the page after Telcordia's page, one of Syniverse's competitors. I noticed Telcordia's page does not have as many citations, and both pages have about the same amount of information. It also has no flags as an advertisement. Can you please point out the areas of the Syniverse page that need attention. Thank you! Ealcoop23 (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your revisions. I saw 2 sentences have citations needed. If I don't have a way to cite (other than the company web site's history section) should I remove those sentences? At what point can we make this a live page? Thanks again! Ealcoop23 (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Ealcoop23 (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The 7th DC Meetup

Please be advised that a proposed Meetup/DC 7 is being discussed here. We need your help to figure out some of the details! You are being sent this notice because you previously expressed interest in such meetups. If you no longer wish to receive such notices, then please leave your user name here.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


Odin Brotherhood

Hello, I just noticed your old post on the Odin Brotherhood, at the Germanic Mysticism WikiProject. If you are interested in the subject, consider joining our forum. Follow the link here: (The spammer here blocks the original:)

Odin Brotherhood Discussion Forum Meanwhile, I am going to buy that new book you have written!

Cheers.

--Tsmollet (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Text removal

If a reference is non-existent, then how do you know that the text is ok?--138.88.103.233 (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Interested

Since you had a look my post on the Village proposal page, you might be interested to have a look at the deletion discussion as well. BTW, please have a look at what I wrote in the post above that, where you also commented. Debresser (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There's some discussion now at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#CfD_categories_renamed where editors seem to be offended they weren't consulted beforehand. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Inkscape as an external editor for SVG files

In my search for whether it is possible, I noticed your comment:

which appears to contradict:

I have not tried this yet. I noticed that SVG files on Commons have a link at the bottom which says "Edit this file using an external application". --Teratornis (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

reason for removing my edits

The reason which you have provided for removing my edits are false how come geosynchrous satellite launching vehical and satellite launching related to missiles system of india when both are headed by different organizations n different use and secondly why is negative comment made by some admiral of navy abt DRDO get importance here(which are being interpretted in wrong terms) and about Arjun(tank) i have corrected vandalism example what sense comments about DRDO by admiral(which i mentioned above)makes in this topic and what sense it makes by adding words like very,commonly,so called or believed to makes when it is already mentioned about flaws and all the information which I deleted or in my words corrected where given referances of some pakistan based news network while topic is about Indian subject so how could you establish neutrality of this whole topic when it is being updated by anit-india elements giving wrong information and misleading, all this information n words which i mentioned above are added by 1 perticular users as a disguised anti-india statements and i futher request you(thinking you are wiki admistrator to have a look at all the edits made by that perticular user). I can only advice you to take a good look at topic read it twice before you jump to any results and you yourself correct the topic.I am going to add neutrality dispute tag to topic if i am wrong in this then your welcome to correct my mistakes but with neutral mind set. ( Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC) )

Re: File:RfA edit count chart.png

Hi! Thanks for the feedback. I'll correct the picture first thing tomorrow and reupload it. Totally slipped my mind that usually people read from left to right :) Jafeluv (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The corrected version is now uploaded. Jafeluv (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Emilio Pucci Statement from March 4, 2009

OK, will do. Also, I would like to cite a Pucci Statement from March 4, 2009 addressed to New York Times (Quote New York Times: "We finally heard back from Pucci representatives who in fact agree that Pucci is NOT credited with the capri pants.") What are the Wikipedia guidelines for documents such as this? thanks. Hello John, thanks for working on the site. --Roboray (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Categorization

Hi, do you mind if I move the book page images out of Category:Wikipedia help into a subcategory? They make browsing that category rather awkward. Any suggestions as to the name of the subcategory?--Kotniski (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No objection whatsoever. I suggest Category:Wikipedia help images, but feel free to pick whatever makes the most sense to you. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that. There seem to be other subcategories related to the book as well - perhaps you could check sometime that everything's in order. I've put everything I could find (including subcategories, like the one above) into Category:Wikipedia Missing Manual.--Kotniski (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi John

Concerning Frederick Sontag. I have seen some cases where the "owner" of an article adds extra material seemingly to make the article uninteresting to an average reader. I'm not saying that that's what's happening in this case. However the book review quotes were extremely boring and uninteresting. I don't want to say so where it might hurt someone's feelings. I did kind of hope that aspect would have been obvious to those checking out the discussion. Anyway thanks for your help with the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD_categories_renamed

Please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CfD_categories_renamed

Re: Signature size

About my signature´s size, the text size is increased because the nature of the typeface (it´s small). However, I can´t see any line spacing disruption at all, are you sure about that? Maybe you can show me if I´m wrong, but maybe you (your computer) are not diplaying my French Script MT typeface, it has happened to me in some computers (sometimes public computers) that the typeface is not in the computer´s database and it only displays a big-green-standard text saying: "Damërung". You can check here and here for a conversation about that. - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_ . --  18:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

About this matter of my signature, I want to tell you two things: that I really love my Frenach Script typeface --and-- that having it in a smaller size will take away the charm of my sign (here is a screenshot of how does it looks (not disrupting linespacing)).
Now that I have said that, I want to ask you:
  • Do you think that the number of users who lack of this typeface is big enough?
    .... more like:
  • Do you think that the number of users who see a line-spacing disruption due to the lack of the french script and find it somewhat deserving of a changed is big enough to make me alter my beloved signature?
    ... or also:
  • Do you definitely want my signature to be changed and consider that you couldn´t tolerate it as it is?

    I hope to have your reply soon. - Damërung (talk)(c) 21:45, Sunday 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I got your point.
You said that my example image wasn´t useful, so I uploaded a new one (note that I have firefox and I´m using only three tildes (right, that was irrelevant))
You also said that in the Mac software, my typeface has not a free availability, do you really have solid evidence of this?
This may look like I´m trying to fight, but no, actually, I´m thinking in creating the article about my typeface and I´m looking for references to start the article, since you suggest that I do not contribute with constructive edits on wikipedia with your comment about my 500 last edits, for that reason, I cordially invite you to read the welcome message at my 'under construction', yet-not-developed shop, which talks about this matter................... and .... Ohh yes! also take a look at this (I do work constructively, but I have been focusing on translations) (can you read spanish?).
p.s. Please, do not misunderstand me, I´m not a stubborn wikipedian, it is not my intention to be obstinate, the truth is that I´m just testing all the possible solutions to this problem before the last one, I was also thinking that this could be a helpful thing, but now I realize that it´s not necessary and you are right.
After reading your comments I comprehend and I tell you this: How about if I keep my signature as it is for her last days (how about an exact month)? Just to enjoy for another month my french script typeface and to have time to create a totally new one.
p.s. This comment / talkpage section has an evil twin (check the bottom). -
Damërung (talk)(c) 03:46, Monday 25 May 2009 (UTC)
So what do you think? - Damërung (talk)(c) 19:57, Monday 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Right, I won´t absorb your time in discussion or clarifying of this matter anymore, I have just one last thing to say:
About the free availability of typefaces in Mac (or any other software), all what I just wanted and still want is some reference that I could use while creating the article about the typeface (and now that I´ve made up my mind, also other missing articles). A line like this: "This typeface in only available for free in latest versions of Windows Vista, and is not free-available in others like Mac" is an example of what would I type on the article, but I need to cite references, so if you got some, I will apreciate if you show me some. If you don´t have any or don´t have time to search for them, you can avoid making a reply to this comment, I will take that simply as a nicely:
-Excuse me, but I don´t have any and/or I rather not spending much time in that so I continue in wikipedia improvement. Sorry
Goodbye and happy editings! - Damërung (talk)(c) 21:29, Monday 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. - Damërung (talk) (c) 21:56, Monday 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desks

Dear John Broughton,

As mentioned under two headings on the Reference Desk talk pages, the bot which archives the reference desks is out of action for the next two weeks. For example, this is all it is doing every day for the next two weeks. If people do not manually archive the desks, at least three of them will become unusably long after not many days.

I would willingly leave this manual archiving to others, if other people were actually doing it. However, since there doesn't seem to be a lot of archiving going on when I don't, I will continue to do so. Otherwise, the desks will not function until Steve gets back in a week and a half.

I did not 'mung' creating a table of contents: I added a list of the contents of the link above the list, in the same manner we used to before the bot was built. There is no pressing need for the individual headers to be individually linked, and when doing it manually it is more important that the stuff just gets archived. I could have not added a list at all, but then it's harder to browse the archives. Or I could have not archived it, and then it would not be archived. Because the bot is not archiving.

If you'd like to help by manually archiving some pages (for example, it is now passed midnight UTC. All the questions asked on 18th May should now be archived), that would save me a lot of hassle and avoid issues with Cluebot. The more people who help with the manual archiving until Steve is back, the less effort it is for everyone. Or you could scold me and suggest I do something else and watch the desks burn. 80.41.42.73 (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Less edit clutter

Hi John, I've made some alterations to my script. I hope they are sufficient. Cheers, Magnus Manske (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Confused

For the record, I have not made any posts, argumentative or otherwise, to wikipedia.

In fact, I just opened this account to make that clear to you.

Thanks

Bigfatwoofus (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Broughton/Archive_14_January-May_2009&oldid=1088341859"