Jump to content

User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Hi Paine Ellsworth, I had to delete the sandbox edit where you copied the article from angelfire. It is a violation of our copyright policies. We can't copy the text from another website, and put it anywhere on wikipedia. The original text has copyright, which is incompatable with our licence (that it is freely distributable content). I hope that this is a satisfying explanation for you. Let me know if I haven't been able to explain properly. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I do understand the copyright issue, however if having the material on a non-public User subpage violates WP policy, may I please be pointed directly to the section of said policy that specifies this?
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  15:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Userpages are public too. Anyone can access them, and they shouldn't hold any copyright violations. I'll take a look, and see if I can dig up the appropriate policy page. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
After a quick look I can't find a page that specifically puts you can't have copyright violations in your userspace either, but really, we are not supposed to violate copyright not in article space, and not in userspace either. Feel free to inform further in case you still doubt that. You could ask at the helpdesk WP:HELP, or at WP:CP. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like WP:User pages#Copyright violations & WP:User pages#Handling inappropriate content stand well to justify your action. One thing's still curious, tho: I looked at the edit history of my Sandbox and found that you had "completely obliterated" the questionable material. And yet the material is still found in the edit history of the Roberts article. It seems that there are many places on Wikipedia (in the histories) where copyrighted material can still be found. (And I am impressed by your ability to obliterate a history item!)
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You're right, I should have deleted the content on the article too. Which may be hard since it's been there so long. I'll see what I can do (you can always use the angelfire link to look up the information anyway). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I got them out. And thanks for this! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the IP handled the situation poorly, especially the incivility of "blind bastards", however all things considered, they deserved a good vandal stand-down. Happiest of New Years to you and yours!
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

{{Large category TOC}}

Paine,

You recently changed {{Large category TOC}} so that it is the same as {{LargeCategoryTOC2}} . Is it your intention to have {{LargeCategoryTOC2}} deprecated and deleted?

For the project that is my main concern, Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, this change makes it much more difficult for me to get to the articles whose page names include characters that should not appear in the sort value either for {{DEFAULTSORT}} or |listas=. I am doing this to keep a bot from coming along and concocting a sort value without regard to the characters.

For a moderately large category {{LargeCategoryTOC2}} may be sufficient but for Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, with its 60,000+ entries and the need to search for individual names. Each of the templates has its place. Neither should be deleted but duplicate templates are not necessary either.

Thanks,

JimCubb (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jim,
My sole intent when I converted LCTOC to the same alpha choices as LCTOC2 was to decrease the load time of cats that use LCTOC. My IE8 would take forever to load even your main-concern cat. Also, I felt that using the combination of first letters with each and every letter as a second letter, Aa Ab Ac, etc. was extreme overkill, as there are so many of those combinations that (I felt) are never used. So, for most considerations I think I'm correct. I did not want to take any further action until I received input, such as yours above. The difference is the number of combinations that have to be generated for each application. When /aejot is used, then there are 26 x 5 combinations. When /a-z is used, then there are 26 x 26 combinations that must be loaded each time the page is loaded into a browser. So /aejot loads a great deal faster than /a-z.
If your particular application absolutely requires the need for /a-z, then feel free to revert my edit. I have changed over to LCTOC2 for the cats that concern me. Again, my sole purpose was to "fix" LCTOC. If I have broken it for your app, then please accept my apology.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  12:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am almost certain that each page is loaded separately rather than the entire category loaded all at once. I am equally certain that there is no appreciable gain in the speed of loading a page by converting to /aejot. (I use Firefox on very slow computers.) Whatever gain there might be is eliminated by the time that is taken in loading the pages between, say "Rt" and the first page with "Ré".

As I said, there may be categories for which LCTOC2 is sufficient. Certainly those that get a lot of traffic if there is a difference in loading speed. The current bane of my existence, Category:Biography articles without listas parameter has only two humans working on it at the present, as far as I know, and we both really want to be there. Loading speed is not an issue. I have 43 articles, Régis Campo through Růžena Novotná to do before I need to load another page.

In the future, when you find a category that would benefit by changing LCTOC to LOTOC2, would you change only the TOC and put on the talk page of the individual category why it was done. When you changed the LCTOC template around 250 categories had to be re-formatted. When I revert the change to the template those 250 categories will be re-formatted again.

JimCubb (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Whew! I am so sorry, Jim, so sorry! I know that only the TOP page loads, and then others are linked from there. What I meant was that it was the LCTOC's /a-z page that was taking all the time loading and causing the entire cat page to load very slowly. The single /a-z page looks and loads innocuously enough, however when that load time is multiplied 26 x 26 = 676 times, it just takes forever to load. Merely the change to LCTOC2, and the use of /aejot, was all it took to bring load speed into viable range. Next time, I will try to get more info before conducting such a change.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I can see that it seemed like a really good idea when you thought of it.

I loaded the category just before I made the reversion and it took 5.4 seconds. After I made the reversion it took 4.3 seconds. Something seems wrong.

One other thing I thought about while writing this. Just as some maintenance categories should be empty from time to time because no new problems have been generated, in a maintenance categories that is based upon names there should be alphabetical brackets that are empty so that if something is in one of them there is a problem or there is another overly cute band name.

No one was injured and there was no collateral damage. Even better, there has been a short version of LCTOC identified that can be used when applicable. All in all, it was a good week.

If we ever get to the point that the entire population of WP Biog articles needs to be checked for correct sort values we may talk again because I will want to change the TOC on Category:WikiProject Biography articles to LCTOC from LCTOC2 so that it becomes easier to find the sort value with diacriticals in the third place. I really do not expect that to happen in my lifetime.

JimCubb (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to make me feel better, Jim, but I'm still shaken by the extra work I caused you. Believe me, I tried several things before the conversion, like compatibility view, using IE8 without add-ons, but I didn't try it in FireFox, and I really should have. FireFox loads the page superfast. Since we started this discussion, I also went to MS and downloaded some troubleshooting software. It "fixed" some things, but nothing that made the cat page (after you reverted) load any faster. It still just sits there as if crashed, and if I leave it for a few minutes, it finally loads. So at this point, I still don't know why it loads so slowly in IE8.
The only reason I'm pulling my hair out about it is because others might be having the same problem I'm having. I wonder if you would have any objection to my putting "includeonly" tags in the /a-z template? I don't know if it will help my browser's loading time, but the tags should probably be there anyway. They shouldn't have any adverse affect on your application. Shall I try it?
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  23:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

First, it wasn't real work. It was extra clicks and loading time. Real work involves force and distance. Second, since I have no idea what "includeonly" does or does not do, go for it. JimCubb (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The includeonly is very briefly described here. It just ensures that only the code between the includeonly tags is transcluded. I'll test the change in my sandbox, where I've included only the part of LCTOC that uses the a-z subpage. At present, that page takes 2min53sec to load in my IE8. In fact, I'll use a separate personal page to hold the a-z code and test that before I "go live".
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  23:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, okay. I added the includeonly tags in my Sandbox4, and they had no effect on the code in my Sandbox3; it still took nearly 3mins to load. We can give that a shot. I also got a little clue after making an error while I was entering the codes into by sandboxes. I'll work on that to see if it pans out. Later.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  00:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


Template:American folklore

Well-a-day, you recently changed "fearsome critters" to "fearful beasts" in the American folklore template. So I think it would be safe to assume that you did not know "fearsome critters" is a proper term (not something created by wikipedians) and so naturally it appears in the titles of books on the subject. A simple search will show you that it dates back to 1939, but probably goes back further in view that the very analogous, “fearsome creatures” was around since at least 1910. In addition the term was highlighted by folklorist Richard Dorson. To further clarify here are a few books that contain the term:

In title:

  • Tryon, Henry Harrington. Fearsome Critters. (Cornwall, NY: The Idlewild Press, 1939)
  • Schwartz, Alvin. Kickle Snifters and Other Fearsome Critters. (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1976)
  • Underwood, Muriel. Fearsome Critters: Folktales from the Forest and Desert. (Chicago: Miscellaneous Graphics, 1990)
  • Svensson, Richard. Fearsome Critters. (Sweden: self-published 2008)

In text:

  • Wyman, Walker D. Mythical Creatures of the North Country. (River Falls, WI: River Falls State University Press, 1969.)
  • Wyman, Walker D. Mythical Creatures of the USA and Canada. (River Falls, WI: Univ of Wisconsin Riverfalls Press,1978.)
  • Dorson, Richard M. Man and Beast in American Comic Legend. (Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ. Press, 1982.)

Tripodero (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you, Tripodero, I am neutral on this matter. The only reason I made the group name change was because editor Mcorazao said on the Talk page that he didn't like the name "Fearsome critters" for that group. I still liked it enough and felt that it was notable enough to include the link to Fearsome critters as an introduction to the "critters". I notice that you didn't remove that, and if you still don't like the name I chose for the group, then that should be removed as redundant. Thank you for discussing this with me, and I hope you understand that this was a case of BRD on my part. Cheers!  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  10:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Henrietta Swan Leavitt

I deleted the category Women in Technology from that entry because it showed up as a red link at the time. I am assuming that the category was later created and populated. At the time, in any case, it was a red link: hence my deletion MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I fully understand. I placed a msg on the Talk page about the new cat.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  07:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I wish there were a cateogory for 'women in science' or something along that line instead. It's odd to see Henrietta Swan in a category with a video game designer. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
There used to be a Category:Women in science, but it was deleted about five years ago. You're right, of course, I'm sure. The best that I ever reached in my life was "technician", never engineer nor scientist. And that made for an extremely rewarding life. It was really great to troubleshoot a piece of gear, fix it and get it working... so aircraft could find the station and not get lost. There was a very personal feeling of accomplishment in that work. I think Swan was like me. From what I've read about her, I get the feeling that she, too, cared much more for the work than anything else. So while I agree that she would be at home in a science cat, I think she would feel right at home in the tech cat as well. I could be wrong.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  10:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I added a short blip about her to the Women in science article, sadly lacking her presence, along with Annie Jump Cannon. This encyclopedia is coming along!>)  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  12:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

R to plural

Hello. Would I be right in thinking that printworthy redirects to or from plurals are for use with irregular plurals? McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Define "irregular" plurals? If you mean plurals that are those that don't use the standard s or es or ies endings, then yes: This template is used with its first parameter populated by "printworthy", like this...
{{R to plural|printworthy}}
That subdues the Unprintworthy category and adds the redirect to the Printworthy category on such singulars as Scholion, Pochtecatl, etc. Also, as I noted to you regarding the template R from plural, this function is incompatible with the This is a redirect template.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew (a)

Brought over from In ictu oculi's Talk page by that editor:
You have removed this link, Hebrew Gospel, from the second paragraph of the Gospel of Matthew#Composition intro several times without explanation. The inline citation clearly mentions the Hebrew Gospel, so this link should stay in the paragraph per WP:PRESERVE. The link will be once again returned to the article, and I ask that before you remove it again, please first discuss it on the Talk page of the article. — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 12:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The explanation was in the comments line on the change. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw no explanation in the edit summary, so if it was there then you have my sincerest apologies. Please see the Talk page for further discussion on this gospel.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  04:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I don't actually feel particularly strongly but have provided source references on Talk:Hebrew Gospel why a redirect to Gospel of the Hebrews, a specific set of 7 verses in Jerome, 7 verses probably written in Greek originally, is not the best REDIRECT for Hebrew Gospel. Hopefully you'll read the sources, double check with other sources and come to the same conclusion. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Hebrew Gospel. I will revert now to the usual meaning. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad we are discussing this also here in relative privacy, for I must bring to your attention that you are not following the guidelines when you add maint. tags. In the Gospel of the Hebrews article you placed the tags above the {{Italic title}} template. In the future, please be careful to place maint. tags below things like the "Italic title" and hatnote templates. Also, you could improve your editing by helping in the search for sources for claims rather than just slapping {{Citation needed}} templates on the claims. It took me about three minutes to find the cited book at Google Books and find the cited pages and the source information. You really should try harder to HELP Wikipedia in this way. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought the POV and OR tags were meant to go above the italic, but you are right, I stand corrected. As regards citation tags, in a overlong article of duplicate POV content which should probably be deleted it would take a day to check for citations. I know the subject by now well enough to know what claims are either spurious or disputed. Regarding your redirect of Hebrew Gospel to only 1 of 3 Jewish-Christian Gospels I think you are misdirecting. It's a matter of debate which, if any, of the 3 is meant by Hebrew Gospel. But whatever it's up to you. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is how I use the Citation neededs: I see a claim that needs to be cited, and I place a Cn template there to remind me of where the claim is. Then I search a bit of time for a source. As in the case of the cites in the Gospel of the Hebrews article, I just checked the already cited sources and found the answers to your questions. It only takes a few minutes. If I find that I'm spending too much time looking for a source, then I'll just leave the Cn template there and monitor to see if another editor can find a source. If the claim is "damaging", I'll remove it to the Talk page to see if anybody wants to discuss it. As for deleting the entire article? Please read and digest WP:PRESERVE. That article is, as you say, a long article, and it is well-sourced and well-cited, thereby meeting the requirements of WP:BURDEN. Removing it rather than improving it would be a travesty, and would in no means help and improve Wikipedia. Editing can, at times, be a chore, but you gotta love it. If you don't love it, then you must find something else that you love to do. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  08:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

When I said "duplicate POV content which should probably be deleted" I was referring only to two sections which have been duplicated by cut and paste on Nazarenes and elsewhere; no Gospel of the Hebrews certainly should not be deleted. In this particular case these are duplicate claims lacking sources on half a dozen pages. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Since watchlists can be set to view minor edits (as I have set mine) I'm afraid that I view this as an undesired modification. I note that the checkbox has indeed been rm'd from my prefs, and the box is still checked on some pages when I open them to edit. I am prepared to add the java workaround when the checkmark completely disappears. Thank you very much for the notification!  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  08:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Bug 24313, left a note of my dismay and that the Javascript has stopped working

Tagspam

Is all that tagspam at the Gospel of the Hebrews legitimate? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Prof., all I did was to find the already used citations and cite them properly. I'm glad you noticed, because I had made a previous notation that inline citations should be kept to a minimum in the lede paragraphs. As you know, the lede is just a highlighted summary of the article's body, so the questionable points in the lede will be cited later in the article. Therefore I corrected the tagspam in hopes that In ictu oculi will select them for use where needed down in the body and will then delete them from the lede. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  14:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Paine, thanks for your effort. Unfortunately two problems. (a) wrong Hebrew Gospel, the primary source you have used, Epiphanius is talking about Gospel of the EbionitesGE not GH. (b) primary sources are to be used sparingly in support of academic references. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 12:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, In ictu oculi, the source that you're accusing of being "primary" is actually a "secondary" source, and the information that I have indicates that Epiphanius mentioned that the GE used by the Ebionites was in actuality the Hebrew Gospel. Is this incorrect? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Review Request

There is an on-going discussion on Talk:Gospel of Matthew between Ret.Prof and In ictu oculi that you may have been following over the past 2-3 weeks. As it has gotten to somewhat of an impass, I and another editor (PiCo) would like your official input. Please go to the referenced page and scroll down to the thread entitled "This needs other Wikipedia editors". Thanks much for your help! Ckruschke (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Playin

Life is meaningless if it is not play. PiCo (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at my latest on the talk page of Matt and tell the world your thoughts. PiCo (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Swallow hole redirect

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at Robertgreer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

coding

I was taught that small amounts of white space — one space — one blank line — made code easier to read and am baffled at the pride that the geek community, which is well represented on Wikipedia, takes in making trivial code incomprehensible. — Robert Greer (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, the problem with the older language was the line wrapping. The Rcats are all supposed to be on the first line right after the target link. With the old language, spaces allowed multiple Rcats to wrap to the second line, which threw everything off. With the new code, the line wraps appear to be acceptable, so it doesn't matter if there are spaces between Rcats. This helps, because some editors back when Rcats were introduced placed them in the same manner as regular cats beginning down on the third line. Until the advent of the upgraded language that really messed things up. As far as incomprehensible goes, that can be a good thing if it motivates editors to learn more about the code, thereby making it more comprehensible to them. Best to you! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  15:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew (b)

I am taking a break from editing this article. My only request is that when the average reader looks up this article, they are able to know what is going on in clear readable prose. It is a hot topic in academic circles, but also a lot of lay people are now interested in finding out if Matthew might have written a Gospel after all. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes going on a break helps with perspective, Ret.Prof. Hopefully, your "only request" is shared by us all. And I also request that the controversy be staged in such a way that is neutral and well-sourced. That's only fair for academics and lay people alike. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  14:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI

User:Dusti (aka User:Random User 937494) exercised his right to vanish and is no longer with the project. 28bytes (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, 28bytes! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded!

The Redirect Barnstar
Your work in the area of redirect categorization and improvement has been recognized and appreciated. :) œ™ 06:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at Talk:Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Diabetes

Well done on making diabetes (disambiguation), which solves some longstanding issues with the hatnote on the main diabetes page. I hope you don't mind that I removed some terms that did not require disambiguating (e.g. animal models with unrelated names). This is all in the spirit of WP:DAB, the guideline on disambiguation. Glossary of diabetes also exists, and perhaps some of the concepts should be taken there instead. JFW | T@lk 21:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, JFW! It's funny where my editing sometimes takes me. I'd decided to study my own diabetes type II that was diagnosed back in '99, especially my associated neuropathies. That's when I found the need for a Dab page. I do appreciate any help I can get with the page, so please don't be shy. I've constructed/reconstructed them before, but never anything with this scope. I can see that you are very knowledgable on the subject, and for the most part, I agree with your changes. Perhaps the animal types are better covered in the See also section? I do think they are subject to dabbing, because there may be interested pet owners who land on the wrong pages. When I finish adding hatnotes where they will be helpful, these would lead pet owners to the right articles. I agree that most of the items you removed are better off in the glossary. For now, I shall continue work on the hatnotes. Thank you again for your kind words and for all your editing help with the Dab page! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  23:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Email received and read. Safe to assume that this is connected with the recent conversation on the Doi talk page? That discussion really had little to do with countering systemic bias on Wikipedia. Can you tell me why? Or would you like me to explain it to you. Best to you! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  18:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • PS. Regarding the notice from Gorilla Warfare on your talk page, how's that coming for you?
Greetings! Actually, my invitation to take the survey was not related to that conversation, which I actually hadn't read. I'm a grad student who is just getting into this subject (and the flow of the Wikipedia community). I definitely would be interested in hearing about your experience and thoughts on that talk page discussion, and on bias in general. At the end of my survey, there's the option to opt-in to a potential interview...if you are interested, please leave your contact preferences there, or you can just let me know via this talk page.
Regarding the notice from Gorilla Warfare, I can certainly fill you in, but the short story is that I've since gone through a screening/guidance process with the Wikimedia Research Committee to have this project approved...Apparently this process is now required for all research on Wikipedia. UOJComm (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
This is the first I've heard about the need to undergo such a process, but I've found that I learn something new about or from this encyclopedia almost everyday. The systemic bias project is attuned to fighting bias much moreso in new articles and in situations where editing out the bias would be uncontroversial. For items like the one at the Declaration of independence talk page, to cite "systemic bias" is to be ready to take on a great deal of heat, as you may see that I did. I test that theory now and then, and nothing's changed. It's always better to fight systemic bias in uncontroversial ways here on Wikipedia. One problem with countering systemic bias is that to remove a biased statement or paragraph sometimes makes the article more POV, or it may even bias the article worse than before. So it has to be a very careful process, mostly because none of us are completely free of some kind of bias. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  00:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

talk back please

Please talk back.

I was wondering what your "<g>" means; is it some kind of html markup? [1]Curb Chain (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a "throwback" to the many years I've spent on Usenet. The <g> is one of several abbreviations that are used there. It signifies a grin. For example, there is the regular grin: <g> and then there is the wide grin: <<<g>>>. It's a quick way to show someone that you are kidding with them, or that your words are "tongue in cheek". The <g> predates even smilies. Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks for that!Curb Chain (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

lovestrong.

Thank you soooooooooooooooooooooooo much for fixing the head title of lovestrong.!!!! I had no idea how to correct that, and it irked my last nerve to no extent!!! Thank you <3 :D Theuhohreo (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Page move

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at Larry V's talk page.
Message added 13:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lincoln

I removed the category numbers. Thank you for your advise. Kauffner (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help! I did like your idea, so I went ahead and created the new cat: Category:Presidents of the United States by succession. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  03:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The three-digit sort is used for British dukes, like Wellington and Marlborough. It is where I got the idea. You might think, "Why do you need more than two digits? There are only 44 presidents" But names appear under the first digit in the category. Kauffner (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Instead of beginning with "1" as in "1xx", I began the sort with a "*", and then used three digits as in "*xxx", with the first pres. as "*001" and on up to "*044". I guess that makes me an optimist !>) – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  03:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I look at this category a couple of weeks back and their were a lot of problems with it, but it seems fine now. Did you fix it up? I was sorting dukes and kings and so forth and extended the system to this category. But of course they don't have surnames like presidents. Kauffner (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me, Kauffner, you lost me. Which category did you look at? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  07:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant Category:Presidents of the United States. When I looked at it two weeks ago, six presidents were missing and several more alphabetized incorrectly. I guess someone fixed it. Kauffner (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I was only able to find one entry that was out of place (The Presidents (DVD) was embedded with the presidents' articles, so I added a sortkey that placed it up front in the "star" section). Subtract the six leader articles from 49 and that leaves 43. While there are 44 presidential office holders, we must remember that one man, Grover Cleveland, held the office at two separate times, so 43 is right on the money. To answer your previous question, it must have been another editor(s) who made the fixes you saw. Thank you very much for asking, Kauffner! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  08:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

Unfortunately I missed your rename proposal from earlier in June, but I must say I'm astonished that neither you the nom nor anyone commenting in support even mentioned WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, much less the criteria used to determine primary topic. It seems to me that this topic clearly dominates using any of the criteria. Anyway, good job, but next time please consider arguing in terms of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Regardless of how the current discussion goes, I would re-propose your move in a few months. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I was referred to PRIMARYTOPIC during an associated discussion on the Declaration of independence talk page (the discussion that sparked these move requests). However, if minds cannot be swayed by both PRECISION and COMMONNAME policies, citing a guideline probably won't do much good. Thank you, Born2cycle, for your kind words, though! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick DISPLAYTITLE question

Hi, I notice that you made several "DISPLAYTITLE" additions to a number of pages recently and I was wondering if you could help me figure out what I'm doing wrong when I try to use the template. A few weeks ago I added this template to an article but the page title still displays in all italics for me:

  • The article is "Satellaview games from The Legend of Zelda series"
  • and it currently displays as "Satellaview games from The Legend of Zelda series"
  • but I'd prefer "Satellaview games from The Legend of Zelda series"
  • here is my attempt to add DISPLAYTITLE (see at the very top of the page).

I'm not sure what's going wrong but it seems that the template is being ignored. Does my preferred template not resolve to the true page name? If you have the time could you review this to help me figure out what I'm doing wrong? Thanks -Thibbs (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thibbs. I learned a short while back that the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template must go below the lowest ibox on the page. Cut and paste the template to down below the second ibox in the "BS Zelda no Densetsu: Inishie no Sekiban" section and it will work the way you want. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  10:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, you're great! Thanks so much! -Thibbs (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Glad I could help! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  11:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of:

Category:Presidents of the United States by succession, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the heads up, Justin! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  11:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

1st — George Washington listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1st — George Washington. Since you had some involvement with the 1st — George Washington redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

List of redirects for deletion

1st — George Washington · 2nd — John Adams · 3rd — Thomas Jefferson · 4th — James Madison · 5th — James Monroe · 6th — John Quincy Adams · 7th — Andrew Jackson · 8th — Martin Van Buren · 9th — William Henry Harrison · 10th — John Tyler · 11th — James K. Polk · 12th — Zachary Taylor · 13th — Millard Fillmore · 14th — Franklin Pierce · 15th — James Buchanan · 16th — Abraham Lincoln · 17th — Andrew Johnson · 18th — Ulysses S. Grant · 19th — Rutherford B. Hayes · 20th — James A. Garfield · 21st — Chester A. Arthur · 22nd — Grover Cleveland · 23rd — Benjamin Harrison · 24th — Grover Cleveland · 25th — William McKinley · 26th — Theodore Roosevelt · 27th — William Howard Taft · 28th — Woodrow Wilson · 29th — Warren G. Harding · 30th — Calvin Coolidge · 31st — Herbert Hoover · 32nd — Franklin D. Roosevelt · 33rd — Harry S. Truman · 34th — Dwight D. Eisenhower · 35th — John F. Kennedy · 36th — Lyndon B. Johnson · 37th — Richard Nixon · 38th — Gerald Ford · 39th — Jimmy Carter · 40th — Ronald Reagan · 41st — George H. W. Bush · 42nd — Bill Clinton · 43rd — George W. Bush · 44th — Barack Obama

UseNet Newsgroups

My favorite newsgroups on UseNet! (using Google Groups)

  • alt.astronomy – sometimes a little rough around the fringes
  • sci.astro – more in depth treatment of astronomy
  • sci.physics – you guessed it! all about physics
  • sci.space.news – all sorts of breaking news stories about space
  • alt.test – use this one to test your posts when you make changes

Get your favorite UseNet newsreader today!

As a writer

I write a lot. If I am fortunate to publish popular works, then so be it. The changes will only be temporary. Fame is most fleeting of all. I agree with Connolly, who wrote...

Better still? To write for yourself and have a public, of course!>)

Templates

Re:

Hi, the reason the subtemplate wasn't working as you wanted is that when you do the substitution (or transclusion), all the parameters, parser functions, etc. in the subtemplate will be evaluated. So if you have {{{force|}}} in the subtemplate, you won't get {{{force|}}} in the substituted version - you'll have the evaluation of that expression (which in this case is the defined default value, i.e. the empty string, because from the subtemplate's point of view, no parameter "force" has been defined). What you'll need to do is to pass the main template's "force" parameter to the subtemplate, doing something like this:

  • {{talk header italics|force={{{force|}}}|...}}

where the dots mean you have to do the same thing with every parameter that appears in the subtemplate. Hope this helps,--Kotniski (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Kotniski, that works beautifully! Before I run with it, I have to say that it begs the question, "Why don't these parameters need to be passed to, say, the {{Italics title}} template or the other italics templates that use these same functions?" Does this not mean that there is some "hidden" or other way to define the values? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
You can pass the parameter "force" to {{Italic title}}, as mentioned in the documentation. If you do {{italic title|force=yes}} then the template will be evaluated as if {{{force|}}} (or {{{force}}}, or {{{force|foo}}}) stood for "yes".

However if you don't pass the parameter, then {{{force|}}} will be evaluated as the empty string (in general {{{force|foo}}} will be evaluated as "foo"), while or {{{force}}} will be evaluated as "{{{force}}}". So the parameter doesn't need to be passed as long as you're happy for it to take the default values that are defined in the template code.--Kotniski (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Damn, you're good! I get it. Okay, let me wrap myself around this a bit. Meanwhile, I'll go help Dispenser with that list mentioned at the VP. Thank you, beyond words! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
UPDATED RESPONSE
As you'll remember, Kotniski, the goal is to transclude the subtemplate, {{Talk header italics}}, into the main template, {{Talk header}}. Your parameters solution works well, however I would like to transclude the subtemplate with no parameters. I found a way to pass the subtemplate without parameters by use of safesubst:. I found that if I safesubst: the pipes in all of the 3-brace expressions using the pipe template, {{!}}, either by {{safesubst:!}} or by {{{{{|safesubst:}}}!}}, I can get the subtemplate to work without parameters, but only if I substitute it into the Talk header/sandbox. I have tried every possible usage of safesubst: that I can think of, even using it on every template, every magic word, and every parser function within the Talk header italics subtemplate. I've used your and Anomie's suggestions that I found in the discussion on this page, as well as tips I found in other discussions about safesubst:, but whatever I do, I just can't get it to work by transcluding the subtemplate. Your updates to Help:Safesubst earlier this year indicate that transclusion is possible. So I must be doing something wrong. Is it possible to transclude Talk header italics into the Talk header template without parameters by use of safesubst:? I've been trying all this in the {{Talk header/sandbox}} and checking the outcome on the {{Talk header/testcases}} page. It would really be great, Kotniski, if you could look at this and tell me where I'm going wrong. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  13:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'd be glad to help, but I can't work out what it is you've been trying to do. Can you give me one link to an edit you've done that didn't work, and explain what result you were hoping to see?--Kotniski (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Kotniski, thank you very much! Okay, as you'll recall, I am trying to transclude the raw code found in the {{Talk header italics}} template into the {{Talk header/sandbox}}. The result to achieve is found on the testcases page in the Template:Talk header/testcases#Plain / italic title section. The first box in that section is the result of the "live" Talk header template. The second box is transcluded from the Talk header/sandbox, and what you see there now is the end result I want to achieve, specifically, the top line that reads: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk header/testcases article (with the page title in italics). I try to achieve this end by transcluding the Talk header italics template into the Talk header/sandbox without specifying parameters.
After much experimenting, I finally came to this edit, where I used safesubst: to substitute the pipes (using the pipe template {{!}}) in the 3-brace expressions. It did not work when I tried to transclude the Talk header italics template into the Talk header/sandbox, but it did work when I substituted the Talk header italics template. This edit also works when substituted. I felt that I had made some headway with these edits, because they were the first things that worked at least when substituted. I tried several things after that to include various forms of {{safesubst:Talk header italics}} in the Talk header/sandbox, and this edit, where I safesubst: every template within the Talk header italics code. None of this works when transcluded.
After all this, I feel like I've tried everything that I know how to do. I think that usage of safesubst: will ultimately work, but I just can't figure out how. I hope you can help me with this, and thank you so much for your help this far and for any more help you can offer. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  18:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
OK as far as I can make out, the problem is with the order the parser does things. If you substitute one template into another (the italics template into the sandbox template), then of course you end up with the pipes (from the ! subtemplate) in the text of the sandbox template, and if you then transclude the sandbox template into another page, the pipes will be treated as pipes and you'll get the behaviour you want. However, if you just transclude the italics template into the sandbox template and then transclude the sandbox template onto another page, you won't get what you want, because the parser will first parse the sandbox template (the template it finds directly on the page it's handling), and only after that will it parse the instances of the italics template that it now finds. So by the time it's changed the {!}'s into pipes, it's too late for those pipes to be treated as pipes in the parsing of the sandbox template. Is that understandable? The end result, I think, is that it's not possible to do what you're trying to do - you have to pass all the parameters explicitly. (Unless someone who's cleverer than me can think of a way round it.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think I understand, however I will read your response several more times to be sure, and then go from there. However it turns out, I know that I couldn't have gotten this far without your awesome help. Can't thank you enough, Kotniski! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  05:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • PS. Okay, waitasec, I'm thinking...

Further thoughts

Kotniski, it seems to be indicated at Help:Safesubst via...

and...

(my bolds) that by somehow using safesubst:, transclusion is possible. If it is not possible, then why would these statements be included in those paragraphs?

What is safesubst:? It's not a template like {{subst}} is... {{safesubst}}. I realize that, since {{subst}} contains {{subst:{{{1}}}}}, the subst: (with a colon) must be some sort of function, so the lack of a safesubst template probably just means that there is no template yet that includes the {{safesubst:{{{1}}}}} "function". Should there be such a template? What's really going on with "safesubst:"? I mean, what is it really? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, safesubst: is just a software function (keyword), like subst: is. And transclusion is possible using safesubst: (that's why we have it), but as far as I can make out, it can't be made to do the kind of transclusion that you're trying to do (like I say, because of the order in which the parser does the various transclusion operations).--Kotniski (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that this is correct. I think I've tried the safesubst: function every which way I can, and nothing works. So I will resign myself to upgrading the Talk header italics template to italicize titles that are prefixed with non-italic letters, such as Talk:HMS Beagle, and titles with a lowercase first letter. Then I shall decide if I want to transclude it with parameters into the Talk header template or just substitute it. Or, perhaps while I'm finding ways to make the template better, I might find a way to elegantly transclude it. Thank you again for your help and your thoughts! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

fyi, re next edition of the paper

Hi. I thought you'd like to see these; the first mentions the second.

Alarbus (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, and thank you! If you go a little further back in the edit history of the template, you'll see that I tried to add succession numbers from July through October, but met with heavy opposition to the idea, as noted on the talk page. So good luck with that! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  00:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't miss that. Cartoon Boy uses a lot of IPs disruptively. The numbers will stick, now. {{US Vice Presidents}}, too. It's enabled by adding hlist, hnum, and using '#'. You can also use ';', and ':', nest lists. Alarbus (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Pretty cool. It wasn't just CB that didn't like the numbering. I think the templates have little meaning without the numbers. And the hlist will be a whole lot better for those with screen readers. Thank you very much for the heads up! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
CB seems to have gotten the message; elsewhere, too. The semantics are solid, and important. /ordered/ lists don't have to actually show the numbers, if the order is not sequential of one-based. That's why class hnum. GoogleBot and such will also 'see' the list structure. Alarbus (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Sputnik 3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanguard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed – PIE ( CLIMAX )  04:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Glorification (theology)

Hi
Is it possible we could discuss the merger of Glorification (theology)? What were you're reasons for the merger? Glorification contains a long unreferenced section from the Eastern Orthodox perspective which creates the impression it's primarily an Eastern Orthodox term. Given the often completely divergent views within Christianity wouldn't it be better to have separate articles? Knobbly (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Knobbly, I see where another editor reverted a previous attempt to redirect this article. I will, of course, discuss this with you, however since other editors are involved, the place for the discussion is the article's talk page. So I will continue this discussion with you there. – p i e (Climax!)  15:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Tina Louise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlstadt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed – Paine (Climax!)  21:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

revert on Li'l Abner (musical)

Hello! I'd like to explain why I reverted your recent good-faith edit to this page. In a musical, the "book" is the dialogue, which is considered a seperate entity from the music and lyrics (and often, the music, lyrics, and book are written by seperate people). So, for Li'l Abner, the dialogue (the "book") was written specifically for the musical by Norman Panama and Melvin Frank. Also, musical theatre pieces are not necessarily considered plays, and scholars often draw distinctions between plays with music, musical plays, and musical comedies. MarianWilde (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, MarianWilde, and I'm far from expert in such things. Thank you for your clarifications. It still sounds odd to me, though, to say that it's a musical "with" a book. Readers like myself, who are not experts, might not understand that the book is the dialogue of the musical. How can this be written so that a lay person would gain a sharp understanding of what is meant? From what you say, it may be better if linked: "Li'l Abner is a musical with a book by Norman Panama and Melvin Frank, . . ."
Also, I'm curious as to how scholars would categorize this musical (comedy?), and if we might include the correct distinction in the lede of this article? ("musical" what?) – Paine (Climax!)  21:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Sticking my nose in here as a long-time editor of musicals here on WP. In the first sentence of every musical, we try to link to musical, which explains that a musical typically has a book, lyrics and music. The book is the script of a musical, which includes dialogue, stage directions and other non-musical aspects of the musical. I think that most English speakers, when told that x wrote the music, y wrote the lyrics and z wrote the book, will understand pretty clearly that the book is the written form of the musical minus the music and lyrics. Note that the Tony Awards include an award for Best Book of a Musical. Per WP:OVERLINK, I would argue that it is a common English word. As to your second question, I would disagree that there is a principled distinction between a musical play, a musical comedy, musikdrama, etc. A musical may be more or less comic - is Carousel a musical comedy? Is Hair? Clearly Little Shop of Horrors is a comedy, even though the main characters die at the end. There are jukebox musicals, rock musicals, etc., but they are all musicals. Unless you mean a specific genre, like Edwardian musical comedy or revue, then all modern book musicals are better considered "musicals", and the link to our article on musical theatre is intended to be broad enough to explain the historical and artistic relationships among these various musicals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Ssilvers, your input here is both welcome and enlightening. My main concern was for the general reader who lacks the expertise to know the diff between a book for a musical and a regular book. Yes, the link to Musical theatre begins in the first section to clarify the "book" term within the confines of musical theatre, so I haven't a single leg to stand on except to say that my edit was rash and well-reverted by MarianWilde. I am neutral on the principled distinctions, and if I may say so, I am very glad that there are editors like yourself and MarianWilde to help those of us who blunder and who need to learn such lessons. Thank you both very much for taking the time to open my eyes! – Paine (Climax!)  05:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth/Archive_8&oldid=1076459255"