User talk:Wikid77/Archive 3

This is Archive_3 for User_talk:Wikid77 (Oct 2008 - Apr 2009)

Archive 1: May2006-Feb2008 Archive 2: Mar2008-Sep2008 Archive 3: Oct2008-Apr2009 Archive 4: May2009-Dec2009 Archive 5: Jan2010-May2010

Stubs

Hi Wikid77 - good to see you making a few new stubs for wildlife reserves in Texas. If you mke any more could I ask you to add {{Texas-geo-stub}} rather than just {{Geo-stub}}? It'll save a bit of sorting further down the line. Cheers, Grutness...wha? 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Horse articles

Hi there, saw some of your edits in the various horse articles. Your attempts to clean some of them up are much appreciated, but be sure you aren't being TOO "helpful," OK? Some of the things are where they are, the way they are, for a reason -- particularly reference sections for articles that are start-class and just contain bibliographical info in absence of footnotes. Please don't make them "external links" when they are actually sources for the article. Also watch red links and disambiguation of links, OK? You may also be interested in looking at the "convert" templates that make it easy to put in both metric and imperial measurements. Overall, your efforts are (mostly) appreciated, but maybe ask a few talk page questions before making drastic changes -- at least to see if there is anyone out there who cares. (grin) Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Answered your reply on my talk page. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 18:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Lady and the Tramp

Claiming someone has "mental problems", and advising someone to "seek professional mental help" because of a content dispute is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please do not make such comments in the future or you may be blocked from editing. Green caterpillar (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it isn't really Wikipedia's job to give mental health advice. And, no, Wikipedia cannot be sued because Wikipedia is not responsible for its users' mental health. So, yes, you could say nicely "I consider your behavior off-balance", but leave the mental health issues outside Wikipedia. Green caterpillar (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ada comments

You wrote:

if you can't understand the details, someone else can - or put 10-word phrases in Simple Wikipedia, not here...

Leaving aside the unwikipedialike insult, let me mention that I was responsible for the Ada Test & Evaluation activity at Intermetrics in 1979-1981, where we worked with Ichbiah to refine his Green language into Ada. I think I understand Ada pretty well. And the use of "nested comments" in this section is completely idiosyncratic. --macrakis (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

04-Nov-2008: I'm sorry that you interpreted my comments against excess simplicity as an insult. I was focused on the idea of over-simplified text, hence the mention of "Simple Wikipedia" there. I have worked with numerous intelligent people, and they can understand "complex" ideas, which should be included in articles, so long as the details are limited to a few sentences. Many people have complained that Wikipedia articles are kept "too simple" in coverage.

Ada comments are in fact not a complex subject. The current text is unnecessarily convoluted, especially since everything it says applies to any end-of-line comments, whether in Ada or in SQL (which also uses the --...EOL convention along with the /*...*/ convention or in Lisp (;...EOL). Please see my remarks in Talk:Ada (programming language)....

Sometimes, when involved with prior conflicts with several other people, it may seem as though "everyone" is tossing insults. However, it might also help to go on wikibreak, and rethink ways to avoid seeing other people's viewpoints as insulting. Could those people be merely expressing a strong opinion about the subject? Typically, when others instantly cite WP:CIVIL, then the situation has already escalated in their minds.

I find your tone condescending. Peremptorily reverting my edits without comment is not "merely expressing a strong opinion".

I don't know what else to say to assure you that I am quite calm and happy. Just remember that many people think Wikipedia is far too over-simplified, or even "baby-fied" (as a "Kid-opedia"), and I hope that focus will ease your troubles and allow you to think of clever ways to include more complex issues without swamping general readers. Anyway, those issues can wait, and I just hope you get feeling better soon. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel just fine, thank you. --macrakis (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Summerdale, Alabama

I am unsure why you repeated the changes to the Summerdale, Alabama article even though you had been reverted. Perhaps we need to take your changes to the article talk page instead of making just making the change. Please drop by there and let's discuss what you are doing. Thanks! JodyB _talk 12:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

BAGHA JATIN

Thanks for the modifications. Is it possible for you to find out on what ground did [122.160.107.146]change Bagha Jatin's date of birth and impose 8 December ? Regards.--BobClive (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Impressed by the serious approach,I am enquiring about it. The only reliable reference we have is from the written notes left by Vinodebala Devi (Jatindranath's elder sister); she mentions the Bengali date 21 Aghrahayana 1286. Thanks for drawing my attentio to the kumarkhali site : it is well written, based on a considerable study of available data.--BobClive (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Commonly misspelled words

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Commonly misspelled words, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Meroe (Sudan_map_narrow)

• dear wikid i've found an error Sudan_map_narrow in the meroe article where you point the city of meroe in the northeast before atabra which is not correct it should be on the northwest of nile in northern state next to Karima Please correct it >

here is a usefull link to locate [1] > Prof.Sherif (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dear User:Fconaway & dear User:wikid77 thanx for givin me that link , I become a ravenous reader probably spent bout 3 hours & u were 100% correct the city which has the name meroe now is totally different from the ancient meroe & now days is known as bagrawiyah only for the local arab tribes >> Thanx for the extra infos.--Prof.Sherif (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Unbekannt

A tag has been placed on Unbekannt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.

If you think ... .... Crusio (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Chocolate Soldier

Delighted to see you added the German musical numbers. Many operetta article sections are based on English adaptations rather than the originals. I wonder if it's possible to edit the synopsis so it is faithful to the German work? What do you think? Best. --Kleinzach 04:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest putting, under "Synopsis", a subheader (triple "===") titled as "German variation" for that plot. Under that subheader, either summarize the total plot, or just note the differences. Because wiki-spoiler tags were outlawed, many people have learned to expect plot-details to be revealed under "Synopsis", so I would keep all plot details within that overall section, in case someone was planning to attend the opera for the first time, without spoiling the ending. Because the German Wikipedia is the 2nd largest, there is a growing interest in the German variations of many topics. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize I misunderstood your "See above" edit because the position of the sections had been reversed by another editor, so now I understand you were referring to the English adaptation list of musical numbers. I don't know how accurate or inaccurate the synopsis is. The Opera Project have a policy of integrating musical numbers into the synopsis, so that may be an option for the future. BTW what was your source for the German musical numbers list? --Kleinzach 04:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Plot Summaries

Hola! Helpful film and book editing Tip-'O-the-Day!

Please read:

Wikipedia:Plot summaries

Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary

Try to only include what is in the film itself in the "Plot" section. Characters come first with (actors in parenthesis and optional). Don't add things that are not in the film into the "Plot" section, add them elsewhere. Facts about an event that are not in the film or book go in the "Background" section.

Hope this helps on your road to higher quality output.

- 209.86.226.21 (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Google Inc.

I see you've been involved with {{Google Inc.}} so maybe you can help. The template has a bug, see the talk page for description... GregorB (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For fixing a complex coding error in Template:Google Inc. when no one else could figure it out! - Ahunt (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary

I think this edit doesn't match the tone of the essay in question. It presents a strong point-of-view that does not seem neutral. Would you consider toning it down a bit? --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• 12-Feb-2009: Okay, I'm thinking about alternative ways to word that section about the Absolute Zero-revert rule, while preserving the importance of the rule as used. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks. Until then, enjoy your break! --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I got tired of waiting, so I attempted to trim the section to tone it down a bit. Please review my edit. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

hi

Interesting information on your user page. I notice you edit year pages. Are you interested in participating in a series of mini-projects as part of WikiProject Years on selected decades in the modern era? Nothing on this has happened yet, although there has been minor discussion. I'm free after the start of March. Also, what is your view on my feeling (expressed on the WPr Y talk page) that there are advantages in merging year-pages from long ago (including those on your "to do" list, I guess) into decade articles, to enable a better fist to be made of each, with a richer information base and a greater ease of giving readers a sense of historical movement in the medium-term? Tony (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• 12-Feb-2009: I cannot commit to any schedules for WikiProject work at this point. I'm still on a limited wikibreak in February. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Asterius of Amasia

On February 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Asterius of Amasia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Ph:Images and other uploaded files

Can i remove the text you added to Template:Ph:Images and other uploaded files? it does not appear to be true any longer. Bawolff (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - thats extremly weird. I can't think of what would cause that (other than someone intentionally being stupid with the javascript). Very weird. Bawolff (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template fix

On behalf of about 5000 asteroids, I thank you. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Math notation

Why would you write this:

-ln(1-p) =

when you could write the following instead?

−ln(1 − p) =

You used a HYPHEN instead of a minus sign and you didn't use proper spacing. And why set it in bold? This is all codified at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). Michael Hardy (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject discussion

I've raised the issue of your edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Logarithmic distribution

Here is what you found:

$-\ln(1-p)=p+{\frac {p^{2}}{2}}+{\frac {p^{3}}{3}}+\cdots .$

Here is what you put in its place:

  -ln(1-p) = $p+{\frac {p^{2}}{2}}+{\frac {p^{3}}{3}}+\cdots .$

Here is what I first changed it to:

  −ln(1 − p) = $p+{\frac {p^{2}}{2}}+{\frac {p^{3}}{3}}+\cdots .$

Here is what I changed it to after that:

${\begin{aligned}&\quad -\ln(1-p)\\&=p+{\frac {p^{2}}{2}}+{\frac {p^{3}}{3}}+\cdots .\end{aligned}}$

In your edit summaries you've attempted to say something about the nature of your concerns, but they're not clear to me. But if addressing them requires crystal-clear violations of the norms of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics), then you will need to discuss them at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (mathematics), and if you continue doing them they'll get discussed there whether you're the one who brings them up or not. I don't know whether the last edit I did addresses what concerned you. It's clear that you don't have a good idea of what the effect of your edits are, in terms of the appearance of the article after your edits. Using a hyphen instead of a minus sign in non-TeX notation is wrong. Using two side-by-side TeX displays and expecting them to get properly aligned with each other is wrong. Neglecting proper spacing in non-TeX notation is wrong. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Michael Hardy here. Some of your edits are bad style: They damage the spacing and they make the page more difficult to maintain. I'm also not sure what benefit you're hoping to get out of them. Could you explain what's going on to the rest of us? Thanks. Ozob (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You can change the skin in your preferences to remove the navigation bar on the left hand side, see wp:skin to preview. This would leave plenty of room for formulae on a small screen. Not sure how the splitting should be done if one gets down to handhelds and phones but they mostly allow one to have a wider virtual screen nowadays and pan right. Dmcq (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• 24-Feb-2008: Wow, please see below: #Confusion over math formulas. -Wikid77

Confusion over math formulas

24-Feb-2008: Hey, sorry for all the confusion. Thanks for helping with the situation. I was changing those articles to address concerns of WP:Accessibility. The emerging consensus is that 800x600 screens are still considered as "supported" for typesetting, however, smaller (such as hand-held devices or mobile phones) are not the primary focus (yet). Readers had been, perhaps, 80% of them using 800x600 screens in 2005, raising the level as a major concern. Typically, people tend to emulate the past displays, so it is a good idea to expect wide-screen users to narrow some windows as 800x600 pixels (of course, even smaller for side-by-side windows). As you might know, many future computers will have multiple screens, perhaps unfolding from a "laptop" in a style similar to Thomas Jefferson's revolving bookstand that displayed open books on multiple sides of a revolving column (to cross-reference the "windows" by spinning the bookstand). Meanwhile, the display of a math formula could auto-wrap or scroll (left/right) within a page, to allow viewing on either wider or narrowed windows (for multiple windows on same computer screen), because Wikipedia (currently) shoves over-wide lines further down the page (which is "committing a crime" in professional typesetting). It's not just math articles: Everything in Wikipedia started at neophyte levels; even the MediaWiki software (version 1.15) is still primitive or elementary (but keep that on the QT; developers have strong egos), and vandalism is rampant (some articles are 90% vandalism edits - hello, it's out of control in 2009). Again, thanks for helping: I forgot to enlarge one formula by adding "\!" or "\;" ending the formula in <math>...</math>. I've been writing WP:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth, which I think will be perhaps 9 million articles (there are already 800,000? articles about sports), so I appreciate your help. I archived most of my talk-page to allow quicker access here. Again, sorry for the confusion, and thanks for helping to make each math formula easier to read. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I've understood your post. You're saying:

1. Your edits are to address accessibility concerns. Specifically, many users use 800x600 screens for which long math displays are too wide.
2. You are not trying to address accessibility for small devices such as mobile phones.
3. Many future computers will have fancy equipment which renders this unnecessary.
4. You suggest that maybe displays of math formulae could auto-wrap.
5. You believe that adding \! and \; to force PNG rendering is desirable.

Yes? But while I agree that there are accessibility concerns for those using 800x600 screens (and even moreso for small devices), this is a more complicated problem than you are making it out to be.

First, displays of math formulae will never auto-wrap. When Knuth designed TeX, he made the decision to not automatically break equations. He writes about this in the TeXBook, somewhere in chapter 19, I think. After much deliberation, his conclusion was that choosing good line breaks for equations requires knowing what the equation is saying. That is, it requires semantic markup, which TeX does not do. He could find no way of automatically breaking equations that did not regularly produce bad line breaks, and a bad line break can make an equation nearly illegible. Consequently Knuth required typists to break equations by hand. He explicitly states that if a line break is necessary, then it should be chosen by the original author, because only the author understands the underlying mathematics well enough to know what makes sense.

What this means for Wikipedia is that <math> tags will never automatically break lines. It is impossible with the current system, and nobody's going to solve that problem any time soon; quite frankly, if Knuth couldn't solve it, then neither can anyone else here.

That leaves manual line breaking, which is what you've been trying to do. But this has spacing and legibility issues. Compare the following three equations:

$\displaystyle X+Y=A+9$

$\displaystyle X+Y=$$\displaystyle A+9$

$\displaystyle X+Y=\;$$\displaystyle \;A+9$

$\displaystyle X+Y=\$$\displaystyle \ A+9$

These are generated with

<math>\displaystyle X + Y = A + 9</math>

<math>\displaystyle X + Y =</math><math>\displaystyle A + 9</math>

<math>\displaystyle X + Y =\;</math><math>\displaystyle\; A + 9</math>

<math>\displaystyle X + Y =\ </math><math>\displaystyle\ A + 9</math>

The first one does not attempt to allow line breaks. Notice the spacing around the equal sign: There's the same distance between "Y" and "=" as there is between "=" and "A". The other three attempt to allow line breaks. But none of them get the spacing around the equal sign right. The second makes no attempt to correct spacing. The third and fourth use a thin space and a space character, respectively. All of them run into the same problem: Wikipedia's TeX engine, texvc, trims whitespace off of the ends of equations. It does not matter what kind of whitespace, as you can see above, so the spacing around the equal sign is always wrong.

A better-looking method of line breaking is something like:

${\begin{aligned}&\;X+Y\\=&\;A+9\end{aligned}}$

which is generated by

 <math>
 \begin{align}
  &\; X + Y \\
 =&\; A + 9
 \end{align}
 </math>

As you can see, it's a little complicated! A much nicer solution would be

 <math>
 \begin{align}
 &\phantom\mathrel{=} X + Y \\
 &= A + 9
 \end{align}
 </math>

which is a trick I use all the time in my own work. Unfortunately texvc does not support \phantom.

Both of these methods, however, have the disadvantage of always breaking the line. They will not collapse the line if there is horizontal space available on the page; in fact, they don't have the slightest idea how much horizontal space there is. This goes back to the fact that TeX has no facility for automatic line breaking in equations.

There's no easy solution to this. The best solution I can think of, actually, is to modify texvc so that it generates a smaller font. This is in fact a long-standing issue at the math WikiProject: Everyone agrees that sometimes the output of texvc is ugly or broken or undesirable in some other way, but nobody has the technical skill and the time to fix it. We've filed bug reports with the developers, but no action has been taken for years.

Finally, a last comment on using \; and \! to force PNG rendering. In addition to all the issues I mentioned above, PNG rendering itself causes accessibility issues. PNGs cannot be put through a screen reader (and the automatically generated alt attribute of the PNG is the TeX source, which is not helpful to most people), and they cannot easily be magnified, unlike ordinary fonts. Forcing PNG rendering is rarely desirable and should be done only under unusual circumstances.

Ozob (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• See below: #Formula auto-wrapping outside the box. -Wikid77

Formula auto-wrapping outside the box

25-Feb-2009: I can understand the Knuth viewpoint that TeX could not auto-wrap a formula based on pure mathematical notation, within the TeX language. There is the old saying of "thinking outside the box" or in this case, outside the TeX language. That is the solution: although the TeX language does not provide logical auto-wrap capabilities, other languages, such as the MediaWiki markup language can provide auto-wrapping, in conjunction with TeX. It is a case of synergy (a "win-win" situation), where both languages work together, and the two languages can perform more than either separately. TeX markup can generate Greek letters, symbols & fractions, while MediaWiki markup can group expressions to pre-determine where they should be split & wrapped, even testing the values of variables. For example, if "X > 10999200999" then allow more space for X to be displayed because it is a longer string of digits (over 10 billion). Note how the conditional expressions could even decide "(long result, see box below)" where testing the value of X could even generate an overflow-box to fit an entire formula that could not be split within the given space, but must be shown inside a different box.

Anyway, in the case of a 2-part equation, just insert an HTML non-breaking space "&nbsp;" between the 2 math-tag parts, generating:

$\displaystyle X+Y=$ $\displaystyle \ A+9$

The above result is generated by:

<math>\displaystyle X + Y =</math>&nbsp;<math>A + 9</math>.

Again, the solution is to think outside the box, outside the TeX language, to combine TeX with features of MediaWiki markup, and outside an infobox that would not fit a very-long formula. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Compare the first line, which has no line break, to the second, which uses your method: (You may have to get really close to your screen to see this)

$\displaystyle X+Y=A+9$

$\displaystyle X+Y=$ $\displaystyle A+9$

Notice that the spacing is different! On my default settings, the "A + 9" in the second equation is slightly closer to the equals sign in the first equation than in the second equation. But if I increase the font size, then this reverses itself: The "A + 9" in the second equation eventually gets further away from the equals sign than it does in the first equation! Furthermore, if you try to break equations not along equal signs or inequalities, but instead along binary operators such as the plus sign in "A + 9", then the results are horrific:

$\displaystyle X+Y=A+9$

$\displaystyle X+Y=A+$ $\displaystyle 9$

Here the second line is generated by <math>\displaystyle X + Y = A +</math>&nbsp;<math>\displaystyle 9</math>. The problem is that, without anything to the right of the plus sign, TeX thinks the plus sign is a unary operator, not a binary one. (I.e., TeX thinks it's setting the grade "A+", not the first part of "A plus something".) So it spaces it wrong; and as far as I know, there's no way to tell texvc to fix it.

Professional quality typesetting requires a certain amount of rigidity: There's supposed to be exactly the same amount of space on the left of the equal sign as there is on the right. That can't be fixed with  s because  s don't know whether or not they're next to equal signs. Your technique will result in incorrect spacing, and I don't see any way to fix it. Ozob (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Extended growth

I took the liberty of adding two more aspects to your very nice essay, Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth. Oddly, I've never seen these mentioned. It should be possible to get numerical estimates for these. I don;t thing they've been discussed semi-quantitatively yet. DGG (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Africa infobox

One of your recent edits to Template:Africa infobox caused a formatting problem. I have reverted it since I have no idea how to read all that code, but you may want to take a look. - BanyanTree 03:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I can change it to list those countries in a collapsed list. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Florida NHL

FYI, I left a comment on [[2]] about some of your edits. Thanks dm (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• I will response on that talk-page. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

NRHP and NHL Tables

Hi,

I see you're changing more NHL tables to fit different formats. Rather than have you touch these piecemeal, could you please bring the topic to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places? We went to a fair amount of trouble to make them all look the same last year, and I'd like to ensure we keep uniformity, regardless of what that might turn out to be. Thanks dm (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you will please discuss at wt:NRHP as Dm suggests, which is a reasonable request. I'm not sure if the South Dakota NHL list change in your contribution log was just a few minutes ago or one or two hours ago. But perhaps it needs more than just one hour that Dm asked for, as this is kind of technical. In fact there are over 1,000 wp:NRHP list articles that changes could apply to, and there are more tables yet to be generated. I for one am interested in learning what you have to say about how these should be created and/or revised, but I also agree with Dm that I would like for me and others to understand and agree and do it systematically. I am not sure whether or not your changes are the best for all browsers, although you do sound like you know what you are talking about. So I am glad you've raised the issue, please discuss at wt:NRHP. :)

Also, I don't terribly mind this one instance, but you deleted a question in the South Dakota NHL list which was probably stated there by me, "Are there any that have been delisted or moved out of the state?" There are other stray questions and research issues noted in some of these articles which are more valuable notes to keep track of, although you are correct that they don't properly belong on the main article. It would be more helpful if you would move such questions to the Talk page, instead of simply deleting them, please! doncram (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment at Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Boston, about pasting or not from the NHL webpages. The NHL webpage site is having problems right now, i can't access it, but maybe you have access still. Anyhow, perhaps you may want to pause. I don't want for you to put in work pasting from there, which I or others will rip out because we disagree about the best approach to developing these pages. Please let's discuss. Please understand, I do very much appreciate your taking an interest in these articles, which have been under-developed recently, and I do expect that we can sort out something good. I am happy to work with you. Thanks! doncram (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

vandalsims won by 2009

I just had an oppertunity to read your essay, and I must say I was impressed. Kudos for taking the time to put it together. If you have some extra time I was thinking of puting an essay together myself, any pointers? Good job Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Use_of_NRHPdts

I created a section at the NRHP talk page for your switch to your new template NRHPdts on the Alabama NHL list. Changing from January 21, 2001 to 21 Jan 2001 on US based articles is a bit questionable. I realize you prefer to tinker rather than talk, but I wanted you to know .... dm (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am interested to discuss there too. doncram (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice your mention at List of NHLs in CA that you/others are translating it to German. That's great! About the date formatting thing, I want to say that I am not opposed to applying the NRHPdts date-formatting template which you wanted to you. I don't quite understand how it helps, but I sense that you have good reason. I'd like to support your good efforts, so hope you might take some more time to explain at the WikiProject NRHP conversation.

Also, I don't know if you are aware of new Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites, to cover historic sites world-wide. I would be very glad if you would join and share about your translation or other experiences there, too. doncram (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Skeptical of Zodiac

Maybe you just read my birthday on my userpage and realized I was a Scorpio. Just because I'm aware of the astrological signs, doesn't mean I believe they control our fate. Nor do I believe whether or not you were born by Caesarean section has any relevance to how you live. There's a line in the Guadalcanal Diary song "Everything But Good Luck" that goes "When the stars come out at night, they shine on everyone." I think that says it all. ----DanTD (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth

Your essay Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth looks very good. I would suggest to add an introduction and a link to Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growth. As you might know I introduced the 3, 4 and 5M limit as the maximum number of articles on the english wikipedia (the logistic model). This as contrast to the belief that growth was exponential. My model was created in March 2006, THREE YEARS ago. Until this essay I have not seen new models. HenkvD (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Kudos for the work on image placement

Thanks for the effort you put into dealing with the issue of placing images when there is already a floating table. I fear that there were quite a few nights put into it. I'd given up worrying about a response after a week. I'll have to look more carefully at it when I can find the headspace. And thanks for the border + cellpadding tip. Cheers. -- spin^control 23:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Please stop making disruptive edits to the disambiguation guidelines, like you did here. I see that you're a regular, and the warning templates won't be needed, but other editors have already pointed out WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT in the edit summaries and on the talk pages. Please respect the consensus, even if you disagree with it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I had tagged the MOS:DAB with {{pov|guideline}} to indicate an ongoing WP:NPOV dispute. Per long-term Wikipedia policy, such a tag should not be removed during the process of resolving the dispute. I am NOT angry at you for ranting with your message "Disruptive edits" but please, let this be a wake-up, that you tend to jump to conclusions, which violate Wikipedia policy. Here's a hint: If a Wikipedia editor is experienced enough to use a POV-tag and/or Template:ombox, then consider, politely, asking them why they added those into a page, rather than claim disruption. Just a word to the wise... -Wikid77 (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lighthouse maps (Isle Royale, etc.)

Nice addition. Thanks for doing that. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Dysm

Template:Location map many

Hi Wikid77! Do you have an idea how to deal with this problem? bamse (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)