Miscellaneous desk
< October 29	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 30

Visual Editor

Hi, what happened to the Visual Editor? I don't see the Edit/Edit Source buttons anymore and I have not changed anything in my preferences. If you have a link to the latest updates or discussions about VE I'd be interested in reading them. Thanks. Odeon guy (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Visual Editor is now something that has to be enabled in preferences. When did this happen? Odeon guy (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall exactly when it happened, but it's been awhile. If you poke around at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Updates maybe you can find if it was announced. RudolfRed (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suddenly feel like singing "Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(double edit conflict) Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and Wikipedia:VisualEditor might assist you if you haven't checked there already, I haven't been keeping up with it personally.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the links. I found where VE became available only by actively turning it on, on 23 September 2013. So the experiment with VE lasted for less than three months: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_117#VisualEditor_now_opt-in_only_for_all_users_on_English_Wikipedia.Odeon guy (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had great hopes for Visual Editor, as a wysiwyg editing function, but I saw no way to include references, so it seemed to be merely an aid for vandalism and for including unreferenced statements. Edison (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article includes some more details about what happened to Visual Editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lag time difference between passage of state assembly bill and actual signage

I-880 interstate-guide said Interstate 880 were approved by AASHTO in July 1983 and passage of State Assembly Bill 2741 in 1984, completely signed by 1985. Is there any difference between passage of State Assembly Bill and AASHTO approval? I thought AASHTO assigns the interstate number, what does State Assembly Bill Do? Is CSAB in charge of California roads on California system are allowed? For I-980 it cites the same thing designated by the Federal Highway Administration in 1983, added to the California State Highway System in 1984, and opened on March 6, 1985. Because kurumi said the actual signage for these routes are 1986. Does passage of Assembly Bill means the signage are done right away, or it only means the routes are assigned by state of California and there are still lag time until the roads actually goes through actual sign-change? --69.226.33.83 (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest reason the states need to pass things like this is because they are responsible for a large chunk of the funding and maintenance, most signed interstates also have state route numbers assigned to them.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 09:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a difference between passage by the state assembly and approval by AASHTO. AASHTO is an interstate organization (NOT federal, that is, it is organized by the states themselves outside of the Federal government) which, among other things, approves the numbering of highways. The State Assembly would be the legislature of the state, responsible for passing laws, among which, would including the funding of specific highway construction and maintenance projects. AASHTO approves the number, the State then approves the money to do whatever it takes to get the road built/signs put up, etc. etc. And also, as you were informed before "right away" is impossible to determine. Once it is funded, there needs to be contracts bid on and awarded, signs made, signs put up. It takes some time to do all of that, so it isn't possble for signs to be hung the day after the legislature approves it. --Jayron32 12:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a word for people who syn flood IRL

I mean people with no sense for when a conversation is over. For example, as customers, when they need some info, they will overtext the staff long past the point when the person had anything new to say because they obviously already said all they knew and helped all they could. Conversely, if these people, for example, would like to meet, they fix the date like this:
A: Let's go there and there at 10 AM.
B: Sure, why not. [...] 10 AM it is, then? (← note the question mark)
A: (silence)
In other words, the conversation is cut short by sudden silence at the most interesting point and one is left wondering whether the thing is settled yet or not, which is slightly infuriating if one's a person who doesn't multitask easily.

Asmrulz (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the above example, A's probably saying to himself "I proposed we meet at 10am, and B agreed with me, and now B wants me to agree all over again to the thing that I already proposed and he's already agreed to. This pointlessness could go on forever. Best to stop NOW. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, after the then?, A probably hears a blah-blah. That's what we --my mates from school and I-- did in a Math class :) Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 19:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having dabbled a bit in aviation I think in the example above B is being entirely logical - in the jargon it's called a "read-back" and allows B to confirm they heard the correct time, it's an error checking procedure, not pointless! Perhaps a bit over the top for a normal conversation, but not if e.g. the environment is noisy. Silence after a read-back is interpreted as implicit confirmation though, so A wouldn't actually have to reply in this situation (although, in aviation, it is best practice to give a reply if convenient). Equisetum (talk | contributions) 23:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wonder, as to which type of English the OP speaks in? There is a saying that the “The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language”. [1]. Thus, it sound like the OP was using a high rising terminal to indicated a question and failing to realize that he was not communicating what he meant. The OP's age and geographical location would help to take this analysis further (as would the estmated age and location of the 'customer').. I think it is likely that the OP was speaking to someone that could only speak and understand Americana.--Aspro (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’m seeing two different things here… the last example seems just lack of attention

the first one could be more likely a staff fault… see, if the customer is fully satisfied why to bother and keep asking things and yanking the poor staff?

if that is the case (the costumer is fine but keep speaking endlessly), i guess then it could be lack of attention or focus, or maybe… the costumer likes the staff and the only thing that come to his mind is to stay saying her non-senses

all of this have happened to me sometimes, luckily not altogether!

Iskánder Vigoa Pérez (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]