Feneeth of Borg
==February 2009==
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Garrett A. Morgan has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I apologize about that that was a error that I made when trying to revert certain articles.
Take Care Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 20:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Wipeout HD edit
Thanks for your message. Indeed I do have knowledge of how 3D graphics are rendered, and we can quibble over your semantics all day, but this is besides the point - what you wrote was original research, which means you added your own knowledge into the article that means the sentence is no longer backed up by the citation that follows the sentence. Come back with a reference that explicitly states what you reworded it to, and we can word that sentence better. SynergyBlades (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for being civil, and you are correct, I will find an article about this to back it, one should exist, as it is a common misconception. By the way, do you believe I am correct otherwise? 21:39 (EST)
Section headers edit
Hi, Feneeth! Just so you know, our Manual of Style recommends leaving a blank line above section headings for readability purposes. Please don't remove them; they're there for a reason. =) Thanks! Powers T 14:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, my link was not very precise. Try WP:MOSHEAD. I'll quote: "A blank line below the heading is optional. If there are no blank lines above the heading, one line should be added, for readability in the edit window." Since it has no effect on what the reader sees, it is important to take into consideration editing ease, and the consensus among editors is that a blank line above a heading makes for better readability. You would be wise to bring it up on the talk page if you think otherwise, before continuing to remove those blank lines contrary to policy. Powers T 02:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies; I was using the word "policy" colloquially, not in the strict sense used officially on Wikipedia. A lot of new editors don't understand the distinction between policies and guidelines, so I was speaking in general terms. To address another aspect of your point, though, we also have another guideline: WP:PERFORM, aka "Don't worry about performance". Editing a page to remove blank lines actually uses more resources than leaving it alone. Did you know that? Those blank lines don't go away; they're still there in the page history. By "removing" them, you've really just added a new revision that is functionally identical to the old one, so you've actually increased storage space usage while providing no benefit to the reader or to editors. Please stop. Powers T 13:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad you understood part of my point. However, "don't worry about performance" also extends to other aspects. Even when you're making other edits, don't remove blank lines around section headers. Our guidelines are very clear about this, because it is not only unnecessary, but detrimental to readability. I don't know how many different ways I can tell you to stop before you follow my advice, so please just trust me. Powers T 18:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies; I was using the word "policy" colloquially, not in the strict sense used officially on Wikipedia. A lot of new editors don't understand the distinction between policies and guidelines, so I was speaking in general terms. To address another aspect of your point, though, we also have another guideline: WP:PERFORM, aka "Don't worry about performance". Editing a page to remove blank lines actually uses more resources than leaving it alone. Did you know that? Those blank lines don't go away; they're still there in the page history. By "removing" them, you've really just added a new revision that is functionally identical to the old one, so you've actually increased storage space usage while providing no benefit to the reader or to editors. Please stop. Powers T 13:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"Efficiency patrol" edit
Hi, Feneeth. Your recent edit to {{xt}} broke the template, resulting in the font styles and color to not be displayed. If you must make edits to highly visible templates, please work on them in the sandbox or your own userspace first before deploying them, thus not causing many pages that use the template to appear broken. Best, Matthewedwards : Chat 00:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where the issue was to be honest. I didn't try it in any other browser other than FF, either. I was looking at the MOS, and noticed that all the writing that was being sent through the template was black and regular font face, so I looked at another page where the template is used and the same thing happened. I looked at the template's history and saw your edit, which was the most recent, tried reverting it and then it appeared to be fixed. Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat 22:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- If Feneeth's edit did cause a problem with the template, that problem would not be immediately apparent when going back and looking at the history, because the example text in the documentation is using the current, correct version of the template. That's would explain why Feneeth didn't notice a problem when going back and comparing the edits. Powers T 17:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- When I edited it, I previewed after every little change to make sure I didn't break it, because I wanted to be as efficient as possible without breaking the template, it appeared to be functional because I viewed the template page after I was done as well as the MoS page that LtPowers gave the link to above. I would think improving templates would be a better use of my time than entire articles, because I'm debugger more than a contributor. If it worked in those situations I assumed it would work everywhere, is that not a reasonable assumption? I'm very disappointed with Wikipedia's disorganization and lack of debugger-friendliness in editing. I seem to always be wrong in what I do, just because I'm not familiar with the drawbacks of the system, I'm too used to systems that actually work worth half a glob of dirt because editing wasn't so discouraging to those who were new to Wikipedia, sure it works again but my useless broken version will be logged probably forever because no one ever edits them. Btw, is there an edit number limit in the history? If so it seems pointless to keep the oldest edits if they are highly likely to be irrelevant to the article by that time.--User:Feneeth of Borg 17:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC-5)
- If you're really concerned about performance and efficiency issues, you may want to look into working on the development of MediaWiki. As an editor, there's just not much you can do to affect performance either good or bad. But MediaWiki is an open source project that anyone can work on, and changes there have a much bigger effect on performance. Powers T 00:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hiya, just wanted to respond real quickly cause I'm not going to be around much tonight (Halloween, trick or treating with my son, and then a halloween party), but previewing an edit to a template won't always show you whether it's broke or not because it's transcluded. Something like a table, sure, that would, but when it's just something like {{xt}} which formats text, you would have to save it and refresh a page that transcludes it to see any effect. And as LtPowers said, in order to see whether an old version of a template worked, you'd have to actually save that edit as new and then check a page that uses it. Happy Halloween! Matthewedwards : Chat 01:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you're really concerned about performance and efficiency issues, you may want to look into working on the development of MediaWiki. As an editor, there's just not much you can do to affect performance either good or bad. But MediaWiki is an open source project that anyone can work on, and changes there have a much bigger effect on performance. Powers T 00:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- When I edited it, I previewed after every little change to make sure I didn't break it, because I wanted to be as efficient as possible without breaking the template, it appeared to be functional because I viewed the template page after I was done as well as the MoS page that LtPowers gave the link to above. I would think improving templates would be a better use of my time than entire articles, because I'm debugger more than a contributor. If it worked in those situations I assumed it would work everywhere, is that not a reasonable assumption? I'm very disappointed with Wikipedia's disorganization and lack of debugger-friendliness in editing. I seem to always be wrong in what I do, just because I'm not familiar with the drawbacks of the system, I'm too used to systems that actually work worth half a glob of dirt because editing wasn't so discouraging to those who were new to Wikipedia, sure it works again but my useless broken version will be logged probably forever because no one ever edits them. Btw, is there an edit number limit in the history? If so it seems pointless to keep the oldest edits if they are highly likely to be irrelevant to the article by that time.--User:Feneeth of Borg 17:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC-5)
- If Feneeth's edit did cause a problem with the template, that problem would not be immediately apparent when going back and looking at the history, because the example text in the documentation is using the current, correct version of the template. That's would explain why Feneeth didn't notice a problem when going back and comparing the edits. Powers T 17:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)