User talk:Butwhatdoiknow

Click here to leave me a message. If you leave a message here then I'll reply here.
(And if I left a message on your talk page then I'll be watching for a response there.)

Archive

Help printable

Saw your change. Note that a succession box can easily be made not to print, by adding the class noprint to {{S-start}}. It probably would require a bit of discussion however. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. But, at this point, I am less interested in doing a workaround than documenting the current state of affairs. (My hidden agenda is to move toward printing all navboxes as the default option because they also have helpful information (for example, Clark County, Wisconsin).) Do you know why those items aren't printed? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would guess because they are linkguides to other topics, but don't contain any actual information (at least, no information that should not also be detailed in the article prose already). Also, they have a tendency of not being that readable in actual print in my personal experience. But I doubt wether it was actually discussed in the community at large. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked it up, it was added way back when navboxes were introduced. Here is the original addition. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've asked the person who made that change. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rowland Reading Foundation

A tag has been placed on Rowland Reading Foundation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ShockMetric 19:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I have responded on the article talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Email

Did you email me? I don't see a way to email you back. What is your proposal? Thanks, Tomer^talk 03:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Butwhatdoiknow. You have new messages at Izno's talk page.
Message added 18:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Suellem Rocha

The article Suellem Rocha has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable election candidate, WP:WIDESPREAD, etc. Physchim62 (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Physchim62 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Seemed like someone that other people would want to know about, hence notable. But I'll not argue the point. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Further reading: Thanks

Thanks for setting up the page. I'm surprised there hasn't been more of an effort before to sort this out.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Aw shucks, it was nothing. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Please do not attack other users as you did at User talk:SandyGeorgia. Graham Colm (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me regarding this. I certainly didn't mean to "attack" SG. Will you please tell me how I did so in order that I may avoid similar behavior in the future? Butwhatdoiknow ([User talk:Butwhatdoiknow#top|talk]]) 21:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The use of upper case typography (= shouting) and accusations of "ownership" here are a cause of concern. Graham Colm (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, thank you. With regard to the first item, the use of upper case was intended for emphasis. Is there some say of putting italics or underline in an edit summary? If so, would that be less objectionable? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Or are you talking about the capitalization in the comment itself? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, I have posted an apology. Butwhatdoiknow 16:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours!

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)

I've just been through all the WikiProject guidelines staring with A and B, and only found one empty guideline. All the others deal with layout. There may be some other guidelines which don't, but it may be more appropriate to deal with those on a case by case basis, than to ignore the others which do have layout and structure guidelines. Listing just one or two doesn't quite make sense. And listing them all would be inappropriate, given that we can link to them. What do you think? SilkTork *^YES! 17:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm convinced. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Marcia Anderson, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Rutgers Law School (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) 11:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Rufus Early Clement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reconstruction (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) 10:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Navbox heading

F.Y.I., wp:APPENDIX does not prohibit navbox headings. For more on this topic, see Wikipedia:Related_information/answers#Generic_objections_and_responses. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss this here. --bender235 (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Is our conversation over?

Well, I thought it was. Section title removed, done for my part. --bender235 (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, R is only the second step in BRD. So I was hoping that you would answer the question I posted. ("Which brings us to the other primary benefit of a navbox heading: Letting readers know in the table of contents that an article contains navbox information and making it easy for them to click to jump to that information. Again, not necessary, but helpful. Why not provide that help for our readers?") Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I already replied at the Luck talk page that I do not consider section titles for navboxes "helpful for our readers", whatsoever. --bender235 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It was not clear from your posting there: Do you reject the general proposition that headings provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily? Or is there something about navboxes that make a heading unhelpful for them only? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Separate navbox info from external links

The point is: section titles seperate sections of texts, because otherwise people would hardly know when one section of text ends and the next one starts. However, everyone can tell where the navboxes are, because they are navboxes. --bender235 (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In my last posting on the Luck page I said "I certainly agree that a heading is not necessary to assist most readers to visually separate navboxes from external links." So I think you and I are in agreement with regard to that. Which still leaves unresolved the potential benefit of using headings to provide information in tables of contents. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I note that I also on the Luck pag that "the lack of a heading still leaves the conceptual problem of internal links in the external links section." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Jump to navboxes

Do you reject the general proposition that headings provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily? Or is there something about navboxes that makes linking to them in a table of contents unhelpful? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the number of people who want to jump from the WP:LEAD directly to the navboxes via ToC is pretty small. I willing to take the risk that among these people there are some who don't know the general direction of where to find navboxes if quickly needed. --bender235 (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Give notice of navboxes

Let us further agree that only small percentage of folks actually want to jump to the navbox "section" from the ToC. What is your opinion of the "overview" benefit (since some articles have navboxes and others don't, having a navbox listing in the ToC lets readers know up front that an article has navigation aids)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I simply do not consider it useful. Nor do it like it aesthetically. I just don't like it. --bender235 (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully request that you provide a response that speaks to the issue of having a navbox listing in the table of contents. See WP:I just don't like it. If you honor this request then I authorize you to delete this posting. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of WP:JDLI, and since this is not a AfD discussion, it does not apply here. WP:CONSENSUS on the Luck article is not to add a navbox section title, period. --bender235 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus "means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Only two editors have expressed concern regarding the navbox heading on Luck. Eagle 24/7's concern was that the heading was prohibited by MOS. I responded to that concern and Eagle 24/7 did not reply to my response. Putting aside "I don't like it," your concern is that it is unhelpful. I am trying work through that with you. Would you please provide a specific response to "What is your opinion of the "overview" benefit (since some articles have navboxes and others don't, having a navbox listing in the ToC lets readers know up front that an article has navigation aids)?" Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No one needs it. --bender235 (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To say that something is unnecessary is not to say it is unhelpful. Is it your position that having a navbox listing in the ToC does not let readers know that an article has navigation aids? Or are you saying that such information has no benefit to readers whatsoever? Or are you saying something else? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If readers are familar with how Wikipedia articles look like, they will know that navboxes are at the end of the article, or nowhere. If readers are not familar with Wikipedia articles, they won't know what navboxes are, anyway. So either way, giving them their own section title is useless, unnecessary, and unhelpful. Could you please let go now? --bender235 (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with the length of this conversation. I hope that you will understand my frustration with responses such as "Dude ... I just don't like it." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

To the extent your most recent response is a repeat of your earlier point that a heading is not required to distinguish navboxes themselves from the proceeding material then I can only repeat, for the third time: "I certainly agree that a heading is not necessary to assist most readers to visually separate navboxes from external links." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot argue with the proposition that putting a "Related information" heading in the ToC is a silly way to educate folks about the general concept of navboxes and where they appear in articles. My point is that, without a listing in the ToC, the readers of a specific article - including those familiar with Wikipedia - do not know whether that article has a navbox unless they migrate to the end of that article. So, I suggest, having a listing in the ToC is a benefit. While you may take the position that the benefit is minimal, would you agree that there is a benefit? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

Shall I deduce from your silence that you agree there is a benefit (however minimal) but that you are uncomfortable conceding the point? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You shall deduce that I said all I wanted to say. I do not want Navbox section titles, period. But since I do not own Wikipedia, I'm not the one in charge to conclusively decide this. So please get off my back. --bender235 (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If I "get off your back" you will continue to revert navbox headings because you don't like them and don't want them. Good solution for you (almost as if you did own Wikipedia). I suggest that a fairer solution would be to work through our disagreement with a reasoned discussion of the relative benefits and drawbacks of the proposed heading. However, I can't do that all by myself. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually yes, I would likely revert it. Or somebody else, like User:Eagles247. There is just no consensus for that personal style preference of yours. --bender235 (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

We have previously discussed the invalidity of "I don't like it" as a reason to revert. As it turns out, "no consensus" is also invalid. And, so far, you refuse to discuss the merits and drawbacks of the proposed heading. So we are left with this: You will keep on reverting because you want to and you can, not because you should. I am sorry, but I still say that looks a lot like taking ownership. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, what you're doing looks a lot like WP:POINT. --bender235 (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I would welcome a separate discussion of the propriety of my behavior if you want to start a new thread. Meanwhile, I note that you are not contradicting my assessment of your behavior. Are you now taking the position that you are acting improperly, but that your behavior is justified by by what you are alleging is my improper conduct? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess we'll leave it at "[y]ou will keep on reverting because you want to and you can, not because you should." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Butwhatdoiknow. You have new messages at Tgeairn's talk page.
Message added 04:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tgeairn (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)