User talk:sroc

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Canvassing[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll[edit]

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Documentation edits[edit]

As you might have noticed, I reversed your edits in {{Convert/doc}} subpages. I'll explain. These are documentation notes, and they are in a list (a table list even). That is because the Reader (the template editor) arrives there searching for a specific parameter value. That is why there is no Overlink error, becuase that editor does not arrive there by reading the page in sequence (in an article, that happens and then an overlink can be removed). In this /doc, the reader does not know that the link (to MOS) is already somewhere above. An then again, the edttor can sort the table in searching, which could put the single link below the row they are reading.

Also, the greyed text (for 'deprecated') does not convey its meaning clearly enough. The message is simple: "do not use A, use B". Red/green is the simplest form for this, and is also used this way in MOS pages. (Plus: personally I do not understand the meaning of grey fonts, without research). On top of this, having to bold=stress deprecated parameters has the adverse effect. Hope this helps. -DePiep (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@DePiep: Thanks for your message. I hadn't noticed your reversions yet, but thank you for taking the time to explain.
Regarding the overlink, note that I only removed the duplicate links in the deprecated options list. It is not in a table, so could not be sorted so that order changes. The duplicate links are all within the same section, in nearly consecutive bullet points. I therefore respectfully disagree with your reasoning.
Regarding the deprecated formatting, note that {{xtd}} and {{bxtd}} are specifically formatted for deprecated text, and are therefore appropriate in this context, whereas {{!xt}} is for incorrect examples, which is not quite apt here. Admittedly, the correct templates are probably not encountered as frequently and therefore may not be as recognisable, but they are correct. If you disagree with this formatting, it is perhaps something you could raise at Template talk:Xtd, but whether you understand the reasoning for a template is a poor reason not to use it if it is the correct one. It would perhaps be preferable to create a non-bold monospaced version ({{mxtd}}) to show deprecated examples of code. In any case, colour alone should not be used to indicate meaning (per WP:COLOR), so the documentation should always clearly mark where an option is deprecated regardless of the formatting used. sroc 💬 08:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively, there's the {{deprecated code}} template designed expressly for this purpose which marks up the text with correct <del> markup (but hides the strikethrough) and accommodates a parameter to make the text red if desired, e.g.:
<code>{{dc|red=y|1=|abbr=comma}}</code>|abbr=comma
sroc 💬 08:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
You were able to keep calm in a heated situation. You've truly earned this. Keep up the good work. -- Calidum 05:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map[edit]

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Not "extraordinary": good. But perhaps not even factual.[edit]

Hello, I notice this series of edits of yours, in which you slightly reduced the horribleness of the article on Peter Lik. But you let stand the claim that Lik sold a print for a humongous pile of money. The claim is there sourced to [fanfare] Peter Lik. This is a "textbook example" of an unreliable source. Can you think of any reason why this large claim shouldn't be removed from both Peter Lik and List of most expensive photographs?

No need to respond here, but I do invite you to comment in the talk page of "List of most expensive photographs". Thanks! -- Hoary (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIL Flag[edit]

Hi!

Please feel free to view the 'ISIL Flag' section on this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis#Demand_of_ISIL_flag --JT2958 (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis#Demand is the link they meant, or Talk:2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis#Demand--220 of Borg 09:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, I've seen it. sroc 💬 09:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh fucking come on, do you expect it NOT to be Islamic terrorism? They made them fucking old up Al-Nusra's flag. I know your agenda.[edit]

Yezohtz2 (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't expect anything except reliable sources for claims, especially bold claims of Islamic terrorism. It hasn't been claimed as such by officials or media and your source infers "suspecting Islamist". Wait for a credible source to declare the motive. sroc 💬 09:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
thanks for your efforts on that Sydney article today Gnangarra 13:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sydney hostage Crisis[edit]

You don't stop mentioning the worlds population because it changes every second, Take a deep breath, take a few minutes off and try not to OWN this article too much.  A m i t  웃   17:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to cite your sources, especially for major details like deaths in an incident. sroc 💬 17:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
By the way, someone who says "This stays until more information comes" in edit summaries might want to avoid throwing OWN-shaped stones from their glasshouse. sroc 💬 17:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Man Haron Monis[edit]

Hi Sroc,

You and User:AlanSiegrist seem to be engaged in an edit war on Man Haron Monis over whether the subject has been confirmed to have been shot. Please don't keep changing the article back and forth between the two positions, and instead start a discussion on the talk page to reach a consensus on which position is correct. Calathan (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Calathan that a discussion should be held on the talk page. I did add a comment to this effect on the talk page, but it was apparently ignored. AlanSiegrist (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@AlanSiegrist: How so? sroc 💬 22:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, sroc. I found where you had replied to my comment on the talk page. Would you mind citing your source? Thanks! AlanSiegrist (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you found it exactly below your comment? I went to great pains to gather those references including quotes to substantiate the content that I proposed hours ago when the page was still protected, yet you have failed to so much as read them, instead repeatedly reverting the edits and arguing. It was there the whole time! sroc 💬 22:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I must admit to be somewhat of a novice at this Wikipedia editing game, so I am sorry about that. I do see that you have cited several sources. I am not arguing with you at all. You cited and quoted one specific source, and I am just asking you which source that was. AlanSiegrist (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I have told you. It is the ABC article. The one with the words "shot dead", which are quoted in the footnote. Will you put that reference back in the article now? sroc 💬 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@AlanSiegrist: Sorry if I've been grumpy this morning. I may be tried from staying up all night watching events unfold and agitated by Haron's article being frozen without being updated for so long, and then I took offence at the suggested I was making up the "shot dead" line after having gone to the trouble of including quotes in the footnotes and the insinuation that I'd ignored your post on the talk page. Things tend to seem harsher when you put words in writing without the benefit of non-verbal communication. Anyway, sorry for being snappy. sroc 💬 23:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)