User talk:SlimVirgin/August 2014

SVG turned template black

Hmmm, when I plugged Mind the gap1.svg and Mind_the_gap1.svg into the user box template the background of image turned black. Do you know how to fix that? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's picking up the black from the black border, I think. Will take a look. I'm not very good with those things though, so we may just have to use the original one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, I've produced a white version, but it doesn't have your black borders around the image. Please rv if you prefer the original. I can't see how to get the borders with that new svg image. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. Thanks.

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 3 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the User:SlimVirgin/FGM page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your good work all over the place--and just now on Female genital mutilation. As an old-fashioned liberal I believe such articles have an importance reaching far beyond the merely encyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind, Drmies, thank you! That kind of feedback makes a big difference (fuel for another few days/weeks, at least). :) Thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANRFC

Hello: I've seen your commentary at WT:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. One concern that popped up for me were the recent requests for closure on RFCs that had been archived. In the latest batch of ANRFCs, which contained a few such requests, I said Not done, and commented that archived discussions were "immutable". Assuming I'm doing the best thing, would it be a good idea to add a line in the ANRFC instructions that says "Don't you dare request a closure on an RFC or any other discussion that has been archived least you be held up for ridicule on every WikiProject newsletter that gets distributed by WikiMedia for the next 6 months!" (Of course, more diplomatic language might work as well.) What say you? – S. Rich (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now I see a particular editor unarchiving an ANI that had died out [1]. What limits should there be? Carte blanc to unarchive any discussion? Seems disruptive. Many thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srich, the unarchiving was a problem – things that had been dealt with de facto were being resurrected for no purpose – but I gave up trying to deal with it, so I'm sorry that I can't think of a way forward. An RfC might work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that true?

Women edit less because of the design layout? Really?Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Night with quotation template.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Night with quotation template.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Night on WikiWand.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Night on WikiWand.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwand and gendergap

I just wanted to stop by and thank you (visibly) for the posts about Wikiwand at the Village Pump. It's really amazing to see the layout on Wikiwand and it's satisfying to look for articles I've written to see them in a sparkly new wrapper, so to speak. Which brings me to the next thanks - I guess I am interested in making things look pretty! Edmund Evans was the second article I took to FAC, and the reason I like working on altarpiece articles is to see and learn about the art and play with the images. So tying layout and images to the gendergap was interesting, and yes, I agree with you. The response has been nice to see too, particularly this comment Jayen made. I'm off to thank him personally too. But wanted to say, nice job! Thanks too for the copyedits at Beaune. Victoria (tk) 23:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you for the thanks! I agree about the altarpiece articles; it would be so nice to have more choices about image placement. Edmund Evans looks really interesting. I'll sit down later and read through it. Looks fabulous on WikiWand! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quote boxes really do look better with a background shading. I've not looked at that page in ages and the writing would probably make me cringe right now, but I had a lot of fun writing it. Johnbod guided me through immensely - it's not a subject I knew a lot about but it interested me. Victoria (tk) 00:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've played around a little with quote boxes to use for blockquotes: see here. This is a template I stole from another page years ago and have never been able to find the documentation for it (perhaps a TPS will know where it is); it can be aligned left or right (or center), the color can be changed (I think this example is a little dark), but I can't figure out how to get rid of the surrounding line. The biggest problem is that because it doesn't recognize the image's existence, and there's space on the right, it's putting the next line of text there - in this case the references. Anyway, thought I'd show you. It's a start to the type of blockquotes you, and I too, would like to see, but it's obviously not workable. So, on that note, back to work. Victoria (tk) 20:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a good start. WhatamIdoing seems to have come up with a solution to preventing the quote from being positioned in the wrong place, which I'm about to try out on Night (book). It would be wonderful to have pages created by the Foundation's developers with tools for doing various design things, so that we could make each page unique looking. That would bring in new editors, and I think women. I can imagine design competitions for the best-looking page, maybe even a new featured-article process for page design. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had Night on my watchlist for years, so I'll be watching to see how it goes and if you find a solution that works we can use it for the blockquotes on Ezra's page too. Good luck! I got frustrated rather quickly. Victoria (tk) 20:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A table might be a more reliable method of doing this. Victoria, have a look at what I did in your sandbox here and tell us what you think of the results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent! Thank you. I'll give it a try in a few articles. Victoria (tk) 21:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

…Except the text still renders between the quoted text and the image, [2]. But thanks for trying. I might play with it more later. Victoria (tk) 21:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which really won't do. Please have a look at what TheDJ just posted at WP:VPT. His approach (in a template) is probably going to be much easier to use, as well as much more technically sound. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks better but I'll have to test-drive it in a section with an image. Victoria (tk) 16:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, have you looked at the altarpiece on Wikiwand? [3] It's not one of its triumphs because the image of the altarpiece is hidden behind the text and header and you can't scroll far enough to uncover the bottom (that could have come out better; I mean the lower part of the painting, we don't want any exposed bottoms, they all need painting over for the sake of decency). I let them know and got a very nice email from the CEO (I'm sure it was from him personally and not sent on his behalf; sure; 100%; why would they lie to me?) saying they'd look at fixing it (though that was two days ago and it is still not fixed; honestly, it's like they aren't even concerned about what I want [stamps foot and holds breath]). Belle (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that. Generally I've noticed that the top image selection is sometimes a little arbitrary there. But still, they do have a nice presentation - much better than here. Interesting that you emailed them and they replied. Btw - SV, sorry for taking over your page like this! Victoria (tk) 16:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been wondering how they choose the top image. Andreas pointed out Frog, which in case they change it is currently a frog in bits in a bowl. And it was interesting that they chose Ezra Pound's house in Kensington (which is now just an image at the side, rather than along the top). It looked good along the top, but it was an odd choice. I wonder if it's always the highest-resolution image. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I used TheDJ's version here and it's not colliding with the image. Not bad. Victoria (tk) 00:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That does look good. I wish I understood the differences between these things. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top 100 editors by volume of edits

Hi SlimVirgin, Have you ever seen a top 100 list for active editors compiled by volume of edits? Do you know if this is maintained anywhere or if it is accessible in tools and apps? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]