This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Edokter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

April 2015[edit]

Hello, I am AuraSphere999999. I am a beginner in Wikipedia. I just letting you know, that the period MUST be inside the quotation marks ("."), not outside it ("".). Having the period after the close quotations in incorrect punctuation. Thanks. AuraSphere999999 (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC) AuraSphere999999 (talk)

Hello AuraSphere999999. Actually, you are wrong. In English grammar, punctuation is never inside the quotes, unless the punctuation is part of the quoted context. Please review Wikipedia:Manual of style (specifically the section on logical quotations) for reference in the future. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, According to the English language, punctuation is inside the quotation marks. Please stop making edit wars! And Please do NOT REVERT EDITS ON MY USER PAGE! I am a beginner in Wikipedia. AuraSphere999999 (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC) AuraSphere999999 (talk)

Thanks for FontSizer.js[edit]

I've found it very useful in certain specific circumstances. --Dennis J au (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed you removed {{Non-free reduce}} from File:Daredevil-televison.jpg. My understanding is that non-free images were supposed to be smaller than 400 x 400 pixels (or 160,000 square pixels), preferably under 100,000 square pixels. At its current size, the image is 230,400 square pixels and it only has to be 250 pixels wide. Shouldn't it be reduced further? Mosmof (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not a hard limit. Any lower does make some parts (like the Marvel logo) illegible. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. Mosmof (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 main page redesign proposal[edit]

@Guy Macon: I just want to let both of you know that I support a Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal if you should desire to reboot it. Beyond that, I could help drum up support for such a proposal. One thing I would like to recommend: try writing an article about the rebooted proposal in the Signpost to both make your case and to invite people to a new discussion. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

FormWizard gadget debugging[edit]

Hi there. I saw the comment of your revert. What can I do to debug? I have an identical setup for FormWizard on testwiki, and can install charInsert there to see if I can duplicate the conflict, if need be. But any info you can provide to help me get started would be great. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You can still enable both gadgets here and you will probably get the same error. Just edit any page/section in Wikipedia space (not in VE), such as WP:AN, and start debugging. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Intentional disambiguation links[edit]

I've had to revert a couple of changes you made to Master#See also. When we deliberately link to a dab page, the link should point to "Whatever (disambiguation)", even when this is a redirect. So sayeth WP:INTDAB. Favonian (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. Thanks. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello. For this edit, you cited MOS:NUMERAL. This is perplexing, as you replaced the consistent usage of guideline-compliant words with a non-guideline-compliant figure/word combination.

• Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures:

  •  five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.
  •  86 men and 103 women, not eighty-six men and 103 women
  •  There were 3 deaths and 206 injuries (even though 3 would normally be given as three) or Three died and two hundred six were injured (even though two hundred six would normally be given as 206), not There were three deaths and 206 injuries

I routinely watch ITN and adjust the blurbs for optimal compliance with the guideline – resulting, in this instance, in the consistent usage of figures to quantify people; the earthquake item contained two such quantities for which the spelled-out forms are undesirable ("125" and "2,500"), so the train derailment item's single instance of the inverse ("8") was preferable. When the earthquake item was bumped, it became possible to make all of the blurbs optimally compliant by switching to the consistent usage of words. I'm confused as to why you not only undid my edit, but manually modified the train derailment blurb to state that "eight people" were killed and "more than 200" were injured (while citing MOS:NUMERAL, which explicitly advises against doing this). —David Levy 16:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Err... that only applies when two numbers appear in the same sentence. That is not the case here, so we should follow the standard rules (1-9 spelled out, otheriwse numerals). Besides, it saves valuable real-estate. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
But didn't your edit change one sentence to "An Amtrak train derails in Philadelphia, killing eight people and injuring more than 200." thereby mixing numbers and words in the same sentence? So per David's example it should either be "An Amtrak train derails in Philadelphia, killing eight people and injuring more than two hundred." or "An Amtrak train derails in Philadelphia, killing 8 people and injuring more than 200.", right? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I missed that one. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
No worries, it's off the main page now. In other news, thanks so much for your updates to the ITN template for RD and Ongoing, absolutely brilliant. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks from me, as well. I'd been meaning to work on something along these lines, but your implementation is more advanced than mine would have been, so it probably is better that I didn't get around to it. —David Levy 19:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, I've never seen the rule in question interpreted as applicable strictly to individual sentences. It's routinely applied – at a bare minimum – to a full section (if not the entire article).
Secondly, "1-9 spelled out, otherwise numerals" isn't our style convention. Quoting WP:NUMERAL again:

• Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). In spelling out numbers, "components" from 21 to 99 are hyphenated; larger ones are not (fifty-six, five hundred).

The earthquake item contained two numerals not expressible in one or two words ("125" and "2,500"). When it was bumped from ITN, all remaining numerals were expressible in one or two words (and doing so eliminated the non-preferred "8" figure). So even on an individual basis, each blurb seen here was fully compliant with the guideline.
As the Rambling Man noted, the train derailment item has since been bumped, so no relevant problem remains. I just want to ensure that the situation is clear in the future. —David Levy 19:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


If I'm not mistaken, the right-aligned links appear only when neither the "currentevents" parameter nor the "recentdeaths" parameter is used; when only one of the two is unused, the relevant link is omitted entirely. —David Levy 21:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That is correct, and I thought that was the intention. I can't remember what was showing before if only one of them was used. Should both lines be used even if only one is passed? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much. In my opinion, the new setup is an improvement over the one used previously (wherein either of the two links was shifted to the right when its "ticker" was unused, even if the other remained on the left).
I see only one additional (and relatively minor) element in need of fixing: when the Portal:Current events link is unaccompanied by a colon and article links, it should be piped to read "More current events..." instead of "Ongoing" (as it is when it appears on the right).
And as a suggested change (not a fix, per se), I think that it would be preferable to abandon the right-alignment entirely (and have both links always appear on the left, thereby maintaining a consistent layout that's less likely to confuse readers), particularly given the current setup's maintenance of a left-hand link when one of the two is unaccompanied by a colon and article links. (It probably makes sense to continue combining the pair onto a single line, though.) As I noted previously, when I experimented with an always-left-hand layout, no one complained.
Thanks again for all of your hard work. —David Levy 01:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Re the Ongoing line: I've made the line read "Ongoing events". Switching text proves slightly complicated (without having to repeat the template code 4 times). I hope that is an improvement. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we can discuss a more definitive layout on the template page. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)