User talk:Br'er Rabbit
This is Br'er Rabbit's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Good to see you back
I'm glad you've decided to edit directly again. I've restored your userrights. I hope you will keep to productive editing and this account until ArbCom can spare time from its very important stuff or whatever it is they do, to lift any remaining, vestigial restrictions.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Terima kasih ;) Don't ec/me I'm fussing with Brudage. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- He didn't much care for people fussing with him.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- He didn't know Merridew ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- No great need to fuss with the stuff from Munich on that I didn't write. This is complete makeover, none of that is staying.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I just fix anything in sight ;) I'll leave it to you for a bit. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Welcome back from me as well. :) — Ched : ? 03:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Welcome back! N419BH 04:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Precious! "... very early in the morning ...", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Selamat kembali! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Terima kasih, folks ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Willkommen zurück. PumpkinSky talk 10:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I tell ya, it's those orange banners and /precious/. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- And another welcome from me too. You've clearly been doing a lot of great editing work for the encyclopedia, and it's nice to have you back in the open. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. It will be nice to be able to speak plainly and with institutional knowledge. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC) (since 31 October 2004;)
- Good to see you again, Wikipedia was starting to suck more without you around. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- We do need to work on the suck-factor. I see what you've been up to and help as needed ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Glad to see you back above board. Will try very, very hard not to call you Jack anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll answer to "Jack", it's part of the "designated target" paradigm. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nice to see you back! Buggie111 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fixing some battleships, today. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- We don't know each other, but having seen glimpses of conversations for a while, I get the odd sensation of recognizing a house one's driven by forever. Good to have you back, regardless. Cheers! Dru of Id (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes! :) Glad you're back. Acalamari 08:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- (not really been gone;) Terima kasih, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Welcome indeed - My76Strat (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- see WT:AC. Teh House of FA is in whine-mode.
Help me, Sandy
Help, help me, Sandy
Help me, Sandy, yeah
Get him out of my face
A nice cuppa
![]() |
Just what you need (well, given that they don't have pink gin) Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
|
![]() |
To celebrate the prodigal, they do now :D --RexxS (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
|
![]() |
Dianna has brought you some raspberries! Have fun editing teh wiki :7 -- Dianna (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
|
![]() |
Dutch treat! Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
|
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Crumbs_saucer_fork.jpg/125px-Crumbs_saucer_fork.jpg)
[Breathing out a light spray of stroopwafel crumbs as she speaks :] Darwinbish has stolen your stroopwafels! The stroopwafels made her happy and she'd like to give you a great big hug for leaving them where she could reach them. Spread the WikiLove by giving her some more baked goods, unless you want her boys to pay you a visit! darwinbish BITE 12:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC).
Need An Opinion
Was updating some of the broken references on the Stephens City, Virginia article and one is giving me grief. It is appears the website is having an "internal service error" with the URL for the article itself, so I can't pull of the link for the reference, but it is still on the newspaper's website archives (scroll down and look for "Shull sworn in as mayor of town"). Would the archive link (showing the page I have linked to currently) be enough for a reference or would I have to find an actual article. (Note: User:Wehwalt sent me your way) Welcome Back...Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- That page is not in the wayback machine. If the site doesn't perk up in a few days, you could just cut the link and cite the paper as Wehwalt's saying; or re-source the statement. I'd not bet on the site adding the old content per a request. Sorry. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think so either. I will go the Wehwalt route. Thanks Br'er, glad to have you back on Wiki. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Terima kasih. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Quick question, does this look alright? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ya, except that you seem to have kept the wrong date. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I know, the date on the archive now says "June 30" instead of "June 29", so for the sake of clarity, I went with the online date. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ya, except that you seem to have kept the wrong date. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Quick question, does this look alright? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Terima kasih. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think so either. I will go the Wehwalt route. Thanks Br'er, glad to have you back on Wiki. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Rabbits in the arts
Rabbits in the arts should be work for you (unless "hares" is better, debated) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Ref "improvements"
Why did you bother converting the ISBNs for the books in the USS Texas article over to the 978 prefix? That prefix has only been used in the last five years or so and none of the books cited therein used it as published. The ISBNs were usable as given so why spent time on something that makes no difference to a reader?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Help:ISBN links#Types
- Please use the 13-digit one if available
- Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK, although I always viewed that as applying to newly-published books, not dictating any sort of retrospective conversion. Just wondering why you were spending your time on something that I saw pointless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- There's a cool tool at http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp that gets the job done in only a few minutes. -- Dianna (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK, although I always viewed that as applying to newly-published books, not dictating any sort of retrospective conversion. Just wondering why you were spending your time on something that I saw pointless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Surreal Barnstar |
Welcome back - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC) |
May 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Malleus Fatuorum with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -download ׀ talk 21:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -download ׀ talk 21:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- go away; look, again. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- You know, I like huggle, but it sometimes is hard to get context when looking through the huggle window. And the faster you edit the more mistakes you make. As I think was the case here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies for that - misinterpreted your intent with that image, especially considering the edit summary's section title. Sorry for the misunderstanding. -download ׀ talk 21:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Got ya a baby trout. I thought it was because I momentarily blanked the page dealing with an {ec} Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies for that - misinterpreted your intent with that image, especially considering the edit summary's section title. Sorry for the misunderstanding. -download ׀ talk 21:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- You know, I like huggle, but it sometimes is hard to get context when looking through the huggle window. And the faster you edit the more mistakes you make. As I think was the case here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Teresa Cristina
Thank you very much for having showed the error. I missed it. Glad to see that you're helping everyone. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. And congrats on her day. When it's over, revert most of the shite that happened. nb: I /am/ discriminating in who I'll help. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Use of pictures on user talk page
I just made this edit, removing the picture you added earlier here. I did this for two reasons: (1) The placement implied to those coming to that talk page that Malleus added that picture when he started the thread, and it's only when you look at the page history that it becomes clear that you added it; this coupled with the fact that Malleus last edited the page before you added the image (when his talk page looked like this), led me to think it was best to remove it. If you do re-add it, can you please make clear who added it. (2) The second reason (and this would be a reason for no-one to re-add it) is that using historically sensitive images like that on a user talk page thread feels wrong on several levels. It gives the impression that a flare-up on Wikipedia is being compared to a lynching (you said, referring to Halifax Gibbet: 'Seemed an apt topic given all the shite'; I'm not entirely sure what you meant by reference to the 'cultural gap that drives most of the bat guano insane stuff'). Even if that is not what you intended, could you please consider what I've said here? Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. I'd already seen your removal and intent to post here. It wasn't my intent to make it look like Mally had placed that. At first I just used |right| while editing the section; but when the whole page was there, the archive box caused the picture to drop, so I tried a few other things. Centring similarly had layout issues, so I parked it left, which sort of does make it look like Mally's.
- /He/ may restore it; we're talking about stuff. I certainly was equating lynchings with the more extreme wiki flare-ups, though. The culture that burned Jesse is still with us, thankfully restrained from their more base urges most of the time.edit summary — Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for not restoring it. I don't take quite such a view that anything goes between two users on a user talk page thread, as it is a public discussion venue, not a private one, but that's for another time. Whether or not the comparison is accurate is not the point. Such comparisons can be made without appropriating pictures and using them to make a point. Pictures by their nature are powerful stuff and can be used to sway debates and draw people to read things they wouldn't otherwise have done. Consider the two uses of those images mentioned in the article: (1) as postcards, presumably sold to make money; (2) in that story by Du Bois in a newspaper. Now imagine where the uses of the image today falls on that spectrum: (i) in the article on the lynching; and (ii) on a user talk page thread. Arguably, use (i) and (2) are equivalent in that they spread understanding about the event, while use (1) is reprehensible. There was no internet then, but try and imagine what the reaction then would have been to the use of that image to illustrate a discussion on an emotive topic, but one that didn't involve murder and race and hate crimes. Maybe the effect of such use now has been dulled by time and distance, but I'm not so sure. It's the same reason I'm wary of the use of war recruitment posters to attract Wikipedia editors to edit on a topic. It diminishes the seriousness of the topic and makes an inappropriate juxtaposition between Wikipedia editors and those who fought and (in some cases) died in a war. Taking images out of their historical context and reusing them for other purposes has a long tradition, but it is something that has to be done with care. Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I like Mally; he's right about far more than he's wrong about. Note the he's got a mention of Giano just above that thread. And ya did follow my edit summary link above... (Guess who? I'm wearing the target, again. And you'll have read Fastily's remarks).
- I see such use of images as quite useful. As with adverts, imagery gets past the built-in filters people have, to convey a message. How effective would ads be without colour, or sexual titillation? How about Daisy (advertisement)? →
- With Jesse's image, I linked the article, both in the post and layered over the image. I see this as honouring him; his horrific death, and Mark's article, help such thing to happen rather less these days. Similarly, drawing a comparison to loathsome wiki patterns gives some pause about their participation in them. Not using strong imagery because it is out of context results in it being unknown. Many people were exposed to Jesse's article by that postcard being on display on a well-watched page. And it may result in someone not taking a torch with them on their next visit to WP:Great Dismal Swamp (cf Great Dismal Swamp maroons). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Moar image-related stuffs
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Brooklyn_Museum_-_The_Return_of_the_Prodigal_Son_%28Le_retour_de_l%27enfant_prodigue%29_-_James_Tissot.jpg/170px-Brooklyn_Museum_-_The_Return_of_the_Prodigal_Son_%28Le_retour_de_l%27enfant_prodigue%29_-_James_Tissot.jpg)
I don't know my way around commons. File:Mrose rose africa 1.005.jpg looks like a piece of fan-art to me, certainly a derivative work, but the licensing doesn't reflect this. What to do?
And welcome back. pablo 13:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- That image is an obvious composite from unattributed sources. The account that uploaded it did nothing other than also add it as a single image gallery without no context. See WP:IG and cut the gallery, then pop over to commons, say what you did and something such as I said above; teh "Nominate for deletion" link is in the drop-toolbox on the left.
- Terima kasih; what wine is being served? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- What my bro' said ^^. There's also Commons:Commons:Deletion policy which outlines the steps you can take in some detail. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks both. Cunning, hiding the 'nominate for delete button' in plain sight. Obviously my eyes have been damaged by looking at that monstrosity. I may sue.
Am on the wagon myself, though as usual there is no shortage of whine round these parts. pablo 08:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks both. Cunning, hiding the 'nominate for delete button' in plain sight. Obviously my eyes have been damaged by looking at that monstrosity. I may sue.
- They do serve some robust whine, here. Saw a primo example not long ago ;) Cheers, Jack 16:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
A kitteh for you!
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Kitten-stare.jpg/150px-Kitten-stare.jpg)
Thank you for cleaning up the references for the COTS 2 demo flight. Since this is an active event, I'll likely mess it up again, and request your help to fix up my Philistine defiling (it's the only way I can rapidly properly cite the sources to confirm what's happening). Thanks again, great job!
Abebenjoe (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. I've got it watched and will maintain it as things go along. See WP:LDR for background. It's dabomb. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just saw the Falcon 9 article, Oi Vay! Last time I edited the citations, about six-months ago, they were fine. Now, bare urls and other deformaties. I'll work on Dragon C2+ first, but poor Falcon 9 deserves better reference formatting than it currently has.--Abebenjoe (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Done. It's still rather a mess, but at least it's a neater mess. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just saw the Falcon 9 article, Oi Vay! Last time I edited the citations, about six-months ago, they were fine. Now, bare urls and other deformaties. I'll work on Dragon C2+ first, but poor Falcon 9 deserves better reference formatting than it currently has.--Abebenjoe (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/BishKitteh2.png/80px-BishKitteh2.png)
Darwinbish has taught your kitten to bite you shrewdly on the ass. Hopefully that has made your day better. Kittens are cute and have very sharp teeth! Spread the goodness of kittens by giving someone else a bitey kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. little ankle biter 14:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC).
- Bish! Bish! Bish! Bish!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Teh awesome! Her name is Bijou. Teh place seriouz needz moar azzez byted. Moby Dick 16:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Bishou? Hehe, fine name! :-) [Db considers creating a User:Bijou sock for her own hitman kitten.[1] Her other faithful young torpedo, Baby Tex, already is a user: no sock (of hers, ahem), but very helpful and well trained for all that.] darwinbish BITE 09:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC).
- So sorry, User:Bijou, is taken; User:Bishou, not taken (act fast, fuckwits watching). Bijou rl-kitteh, sleeps lots (and moar with teh claws;). Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- [Tiredly :] Don't encourage her, please. As if Bishzilla and I don't have enough to do, traipsing after the incorrigible db herself and apologising to the bitten! The darwin twins aren't allowed to create socks, as they very well know. The proliferation stops here! Bishonen | talk 12:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC).
- Meh; my mom taught me to change my socks everyday. It just feels right ; ) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the great clean-up work you're doing on the battleship articles and for the encouragement on my own work on them. I'll admit, though, that I'm somewhat daunted by all the re-formatting you're doing since my strengths are in writing, editing and layout, not programming, so I'm a little intimidated about adding footnotes after seeing what you've done with the ones there already. BTW, many of the errors you are fixing were already there before I started work on these articles, so you are saving me a tremendous amount of work. Again, thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- There is a small learning curve, true, and it took me watching BR do a couple for me before I learned, but I have found it well worth it in referencing errors no longer made.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I'll keep dropping examples your way. It's straigtforward to copy-paste an {{sfn}} and then tweak the page number, and the page collation is automatic. The script help with broken syntax and missing/unused refs. I know that you're not introducing most of the issues the script is commenting on; no worries. I'm liking the work you're doing. I believe it was on the Maine that I first noticed you; it's now much improved. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The past will come back to haunt you
I was reported at the ANI by Surtsicna. Again, someone remembered that I was blocked once for "battleground mentality". Everyone who disagrees with me loves to remind us of that. What they ignore is that I was blocked precisely for ignoring someone's taunts and for making a ridiculous comment on someone else's talk page. I don't know where the "battleground mentality" sticks. I should thank the administrator who blocked me for that someday, you know? --Lecen (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- A lot of people just figure if they repeat something often enough, everyone will believe them. Unfortunately, that is a frighteningly effective tactic. A lie gets halfway to China before the truth has its morning espresso etc. etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- See my conversation on Jclemens page where they are insisting that I come up with something to replace their untruths about me. Meanwhile the unture statement has sat unredacted for a fortnight. Rich Farmbrough, 08:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC).
- See my conversation on Jclemens page where they are insisting that I come up with something to replace their untruths about me. Meanwhile the unture statement has sat unredacted for a fortnight. Rich Farmbrough, 08:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC).
- And some still think it's not about 'score keeping'. The problem with transparency and scrutiny is the calibre of the people most often doing it. Wikipedia has 'everyone' so it's no surprise that we've the full spectrum of personality types here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I do not consider your block as valid, as Manning Bartlett, another admin (like Steve) who suddenly appears out of retirement, did not allow you any defense. Note that I'm not saying anything nefarious happened, just that an admin who was more up to date on things, might have acted more cluefully.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- @Mark - just as Josef Goebbels said.PumpkinSky talk 12:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
efn
What's up with Pengguna:Crisco 1492/Geger Pacinan? It's showing [lower-alpha 2] and not b. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's nothing wrong with your wiki-text. I think it's a difference in their commons.css. Will look at it a bit... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, cuz both templates are the same. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's the first thing I checked.
- en:wp's MediaWiki:Common.css contains
div.reflist ol.references {
font-size: 100%; /* Reset font-size when nested in div.reflist */
list-style-type: inherit; /* Enable custom list style types */
}
- while id:MediaWiki:Common.css doesn't. It's not as simple as pasting that in, either; something like it, though. id:Pengguna:Farras would be your first stop, there, and User:Gadget850, here. The different projects do their own thing re styling. There are going to be points in common, but some stuff is localised to bahasa Indonesia, some is simply behind and some is simply different. The missing key is that "inherit". Your page and the imported templates are trying, but the style is not getting all the way to the target. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- This didn't do anything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- while id:MediaWiki:Common.css doesn't. It's not as simple as pasting that in, either; something like it, though. id:Pengguna:Farras would be your first stop, there, and User:Gadget850, here. The different projects do their own thing re styling. There are going to be points in common, but some stuff is localised to bahasa Indonesia, some is simply behind and some is simply different. The missing key is that "inherit". Your page and the imported templates are trying, but the style is not getting all the way to the target. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- This should fix it ;) There may be more; you need to find who over there is the best at CSS; they would know much more about the "why" of the local CSS naming. It may be Farras; dunno. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Br'er with me here ... (zilla make pun)
OK ... if I'm understanding right .. the "{{reflist}}" thing is passe, and just putting the parameters in at article level is what I need to improve on.? ... stick with name only in prose .. but define parameters down in the "references" section? I want to get this right .. but it's a big change from what I learned back in my old days. I can get this .. but will need a little help. (thank you by the way) Chedzilla (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Use the ref format style Br'er did on any of my recent articles. PumpkinSky talk 11:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Full citation details embedded in the prose is soo... 2008. What a mess. It used to be that MedaiWiki could only do that; some learned that and then stopped learning. A pity. Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the technology. Better than it was before. Better...stronger...faster. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this way is better on many grounds, not the least of which is that it unclutters what you see and read in edit mode.PumpkinSky talk 18:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- But like learning to walk all over from scratch again .. lol. I'll get there. Chedzilla (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Intuitive, too. Imaging, clicking the [edit] for the references section, and getting to edit the references. The vertical form I use is much easier to scan an edit, too. There's a /reason/ books and journals have long put the details of footnotes outside the prose. They fuck things up when in line. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- But like learning to walk all over from scratch again .. lol. I'll get there. Chedzilla (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this way is better on many grounds, not the least of which is that it unclutters what you see and read in edit mode.PumpkinSky talk 18:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Full citation details embedded in the prose is soo... 2008. What a mess. It used to be that MedaiWiki could only do that; some learned that and then stopped learning. A pity. Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the technology. Better than it was before. Better...stronger...faster. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Be warned, User:CBM is currently going around as "uninvolved admin" saying that adding a citation template is sin against humanity, while he garners little support for that, there is a smidge more for footnote listed references. They are, however, the best thing since sliced bread. Apart from sliced cheese to go on the sliced bread. Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC).
- That's called having an agenda that's anti-wiki. LDR is best for things sourced to websites; {sfn} rulz for book/journals. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's only until the Next Great Thing comes along. Then, we will have to be flexible enough to change yet again. Think of it as yoga for teh wiki. -- Dianna (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's called having an agenda that's anti-wiki. LDR is best for things sourced to websites; {sfn} rulz for book/journals. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Sticking to one user name
Just in case you missed my request, let me repeat it here: Would you be okay with sticking to this one user name for now? With the exception of some important reasons that I probably don't need to know about, regularly creating new user names rarely has any use and only creates lots of confusion among everyone involved. And confusion only distracts from writing an awesome encyclopedia. :) --Conti|✉ 22:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't miss it. I'm sticking to this account for now. There's a lot about all this that I'm not going to comment on in public. They know. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can confirm that. He is blameless in that, and ArbCom was made very aware.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. :) --Conti|✉ 23:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can confirm that. He is blameless in that, and ArbCom was made very aware.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Good day
I am curious, have you decided the main areas of Wikipedia you want to edit, or are you considering possible new areas? My76Strat (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- I edit new areas every day. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable, If your interests extend into topics related to record production, I'd like you to consider assisting with a fledgling WikiProject. Especially if you are good with templates and code. My76Strat (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Meh. I've run into the WP:DISCOG; am the one who had MOS:DISCOG deleted ;) And I've yet to meet a WikiProject that wasn't largely about ownership and turf-guarding. So, I'm a tad sceptical... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- You have every reason to be skeptical about damn near everything that approaches you. I don't know your entire history nor when your problems began, but I have often wondered. For there was a time perhaps 18 months ago when you and I were party to the same ANI brought by gimmetoo regarding edits to the p-diddy article. If that marks the beginning of your trouble, Then I bear witness to the fact that you were wronged by that process. Regarding the WP, I need help, to ensure it doesn't become a thing like what you mentioned. We have a Project and a Portal and I'm certain there are many areas your experience could immediately improve. Do you know much about templates, parser functions, and html? My76Strat (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- My problems? /Wiki's/ problems. I recall that thread, and your participation. Gimme's more than a little off most of the time and I hear that's been the case since at least 2006. I, of course, have been right since 2004 (on wiki;)
- Don't be coy about it; links, pls. And yes, I know more than a bit about technical things ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- I did feel odd labeling those as "your problems". "Your headaches" would have conveyed my meaning better. I hadn't considered that I was being coy, but I can see how it would look that way. Best regards - My76Strat (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- No worries – gnats is more like it, really. The 'coy' was asking aster what project and portal, not 'problems; ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I did feel odd labeling those as "your problems". "Your headaches" would have conveyed my meaning better. I hadn't considered that I was being coy, but I can see how it would look that way. Best regards - My76Strat (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- You have every reason to be skeptical about damn near everything that approaches you. I don't know your entire history nor when your problems began, but I have often wondered. For there was a time perhaps 18 months ago when you and I were party to the same ANI brought by gimmetoo regarding edits to the p-diddy article. If that marks the beginning of your trouble, Then I bear witness to the fact that you were wronged by that process. Regarding the WP, I need help, to ensure it doesn't become a thing like what you mentioned. We have a Project and a Portal and I'm certain there are many areas your experience could immediately improve. Do you know much about templates, parser functions, and html? My76Strat (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Meh. I've run into the WP:DISCOG; am the one who had MOS:DISCOG deleted ;) And I've yet to meet a WikiProject that wasn't largely about ownership and turf-guarding. So, I'm a tad sceptical... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- While I have no ongoing interest in record labels, I have written a few articles on indy labels and they are interesting. They are also disproportionately important because the story of the label is often vital to the story of the artists. So the two big errors we make here are deleting rather than merging or otherwise preserving small record label articles and categorising the massive (EMI - as was - actually consists of hundreds if not thousands of labels) labels in one category - this latter reflects our appalling coverage of business, where companies that are taken over often loose their article and become reduced to "Foo inc was acquired by Bar Corp" in 2012. Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
- And consequently there might be something I'm interested in...Rich Farmbrough, 01:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
- ^^^Jump, Strat, jump^^^ ; Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- And consequently there might be something I'm interested in...Rich Farmbrough, 01:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
- That sounds reasonable, If your interests extend into topics related to record production, I'd like you to consider assisting with a fledgling WikiProject. Especially if you are good with templates and code. My76Strat (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Fellowes
- Please review: (I did both move to WP:LDR and one WP:SFN .. link. comments, tips, or laughter welcome. Chedzilla (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not bad; you do have to spell the author name right ;) Years need to agree, too. The Olson ref needed to have "| ref = harv" for {sfn} (or {harvnb}) to work. I did a few other bits of cleanup; {{plainlist}} is useful in infoboxes. The LDR was fine; I just fussed with the names and added spaces for readability. Cheers, Br'erZilla (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- d'oh *facepalm* on the spelling. :) ... was my first shot at the LDR stuff .. not nearly as difficult as I was afraid it would be. I'll read up on the "sfn" stuff (the "|ref = harv" thing), and try to get that under my belt as well. Thanks very much for the help and education - greatly appreciated. Chedzilla (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC) (aka User:Ched Davis)
- Not bad; you do have to spell the author name right ;) Years need to agree, too. The Olson ref needed to have "| ref = harv" for {sfn} (or {harvnb}) to work. I did a few other bits of cleanup; {{plainlist}} is useful in infoboxes. The LDR was fine; I just fussed with the names and added spaces for readability. Cheers, Br'erZilla (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- You should add:
var SegregateRefsJsAllowConversion = true; importScript('User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js');
- to Chedzilla/common.js. Documentation is at:
- Tip: name all the refs first.
- Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Kitteh
Hi, I noticed you gave out a Kitteh, recently. I wanna know how to do too! --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- You just copy-paste the code you saw and change the message to what you like ;) For mundane kitties, use the WikiLove button. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Has the End of the World happened?
So, has anyone tried to kill you recently? Is everything ok? --Lecen (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Taht still tehre? Tehy missed the money shot. Things are ok ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Archive is two weeks on that page.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- (I know that;) Isn't that great? "for everyone to see." Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- So your 47 TPS (pretty good) don't see that, only me?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Up from 41, last I looked. And the battlegrounders are about to forum-shop their war to WP:AE; bottom of Teh Raul's talk page. So it will go up further ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC) (Raul, don't miss this)
- I put in my own 2 cents in Jack's defense on the above-listed thread. I bet everyone will get a nice chuckle out of the last couple lines. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Terima Kasih. I got Teh Orange Bar while opening that diff. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Bravely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I got his back. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- If I get blocked for telling it like it is, so be it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- It does happen, but you've got friends. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- That I do, thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently, Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.
Posting of personal information Shortcuts: WP:OUTING WP:PRIVACY "WP:OUTING" redirects here. For the alternate meaning of outing, as in excursion, see Wikipedia:Meetup. For the Wikimedia privacy policy, see Wikimedia:Privacy policy. Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by Oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing.
The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to constantly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority.
If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and it should be made clear to the users blocked for outing that the block log and notice does not confirm the information.
Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.
Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Bzzt. See this Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention report. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- And this: ANI:user:samuraiantiqueworld and false claims of outing. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've sworn off certain venues (ok, I slip sometimes) but it seems as though the outing occurred in the edit that created a certain user page and was posted there thru [| late December, 2011 ]. - UnbelievableError (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The only "outing" is by them self, which seems to be what you're saying. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rephrasing: Given the evidence in my prior post, which has been available in the history of the user page since its creation, why are others still asking and wondering if there is a link between the user and the website? - UnbelievableError (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's clear from an image on commons that the .com is theirs, but that bit on their en:userpage is even better. Thanks for that. Since you're not interested in the WP:Great Dismal Swamp, I'll mention it. Should be checking back there, anyway. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rephrasing: Given the evidence in my prior post, which has been available in the history of the user page since its creation, why are others still asking and wondering if there is a link between the user and the website? - UnbelievableError (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The only "outing" is by them self, which seems to be what you're saying. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've sworn off certain venues (ok, I slip sometimes) but it seems as though the outing occurred in the edit that created a certain user page and was posted there thru [| late December, 2011 ]. - UnbelievableError (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- And this: ANI:user:samuraiantiqueworld and false claims of outing. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Bzzt; indef'd
Surrender of Japan
G'day! Obviously I'm missing something. I don't see any value added by this edit. There must be, or you wouldn't have gone to the effort. So, please could I bother you to explain the value added? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Nice photo on your user page! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- it's from User:The Inheritance of Loss, and the quote is from the book.
- (talk page stalker) One of the problems of having 6,870,784 articles and only 113,251 active users is that it's a lot of articles for each editor to keep maintained. One way of helping out is to make an article's wiki-text as readable as possible; another way is to use scripts and bots to do the simple, repetitive work for you.
- Looking at Br'er's edit, there are several examples of where he's inserted white space (space or newline) - that's surely just to improve readability of the wiki-text.
- We would all agree that it doesn't matter whether template names have an initial capital or not, so if a script happens to render all template names in lower case, it does no harm, but can make the writing of the script simpler. You won't see it there, but a common example is where scripts substitute both {{Fact}} and {{fact}} with {{citation needed}} - it would be wasteful to have to check what the original capitalisation was, because {{citation needed}} is as good as {{Citation needed}}. These are the sort of things that ought to be going on "under-the-hood" as it were.
- Again, it makes it easier for scripts to check and maintain references if they contain some degree of consistency. Strictly, an HTML attribute such as name="XYZ" requires quotes because its type is string. Often it makes no difference if the quotes are omitted, but whenever the name contains a space or certain other characters, then it needs the quotes. It's better to stick to the convention of always using quotes for the name of references because: (i) it complies with good practice for HTML; (ii) it makes it easier to write scripts which can find named references; (iii) it avoids a new editor struggling with an unquoted name that contains spaces when they copy and then modify the example they have seen in a Featured Article.
- Our guidance on ISBN numbers says "Use 13-digit ISBNs, if available, as these are now standard as of January 1, 2007 and issued to new books". Replacing a 10-digit ISBN with a 13-digit one can only improve the citation, and again provide a better example for newer editors to copy and modify for their own use.
- Finally there were these sort of bot inserted messages |postscript= Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. inconsistent citations that Br'er acted on to make the citations consistent.
- All-in-all, I'd say there was a lot of very minor edits in that diff you gave; each of them only of very tiny value; but taken together, a worthwhile effort to make the article more maintainable and a better example for others to copy. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK. So although n*0=0, n*(something small) = (something bigger). Fair enough. Thanks Rex. Yes, that does help.
- However, I do wonder if the return-on-investment justifies the effort. Never mind. Looking at it another way, ALL improvements are, ... improvements. And it's up to the individual as to where they devote their time and effort, and whether the "return-on-investment" is adequate for their own criteria. So I will now crawl back into my corner and keep my subjective opinions to myself. Thanks Rex. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- What-Ralph-said. When I first visit an article I'll typically do this sort of remediation in the first few edits to get the lint out of the picture. On the quotes on named-refs, it's more than proper form, it's practical. While there is foolishness about saying that the quotes may be omitted if the name is without spaces (like /that's/ helpful;), fact is some tools only function properly if the quotes are present; WP:RefToolbar being the obvious one. It's presented to every user, including anons; see the "{{ }}" button. Also, on several of the restructured {{quote}} usages, removing the inline <br/><br/> and instead using two newlines both makes the wikitext more canonical and results in proper spacing in the rendered page.Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
New project
Hi Br'er Rabbit, I've just moved my new project (Clarence 13X) out of a sandbox into mainspace. Did I do ok with the templates? Feel free to work your magic on it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- found a missing curly! and {{sfnRef}} will protect the article from future changes to the anchor encoding. interesting article. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, after writing about so many white supremacists I needed a palate cleanse. Apologies for the EC, I thought I could finish my copyediting before you woke up—guess not! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't actually /get/ an (edit conflict), but I saw it coming and went around it ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay smartypants
Dear Mr Rabbit,
Could you do me a favour, and check these two if you have time? and make sure I didn't mess them up. Thanks.
Also, when the | below =
consists of another template, should they be bodyclass? Does it matter? There doesn't seem to be any visible difference. -- Dianna (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- wo/looking, you can use bodyclass on a higher-level template and it will "be there" for whatever is pulled-up as a contained template. But it's usually better to leave that business to the other template; it "knows" what it needs. There will be exceptions. Mebbe. I'll look at the others; if they're the sort I expect, they'll be the sort that nobody outside will much want to fuss with. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Made some tweaks. That suite of templates is overly customised and it makes them more difficult to upgrade and maintain. Suggest leaving it to those who had the bad ideas to suffer with their work falling behind. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I just wanted to finish the "A"s. No letter left behind, as it were. On to "B". -- Dianna (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- you should work in vowel-order... Br'er Rabbit (talk)
- "Weird alphabet jokes" gets 57,800,000 Google results, yet I was still unable to come up with a snappy comeback. Alas. -- Dianna (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's just a myth - but it appears that the poor letter "Y" was left out again in that deployment. sigh. Chedzilla (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
assert(!y);
Br'er Rabbit (talk)- I think Mr Oeiaaaa could use some consonants. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- He should do a film on location in Bosnia ;) Congrats. Br'er Rabbit (talk)
- Hmm, that would be interesting. I think Indonesia did a peacekeeping mission there too. Or at least, that's what Garuda Contingent tells me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I knew they did a mission in Lebanon. I miss the people. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- He should do a film on location in Bosnia ;) Congrats. Br'er Rabbit (talk)
Thanks for !voting
![]() |
at my successful RFA |
Thank you, Br'er Rabbit, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. (And yes, you cut in line) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
- You rock. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll finish it, promise! Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Do you like have a script for that? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- That would be telling. It does help to use a better editbox ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, or a better computer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- That would be telling. It does help to use a better editbox ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll finish it, promise! Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Trust no one at Sim Lim Square. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't buy anything if I can't see a price tag. Drives Mrs Crisco insane, since she's 100% Indonesian in her shopping. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Trust no one at Sim Lim Square. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Let her do all the local shopping. For "edit boxes", just order online; FedEx-pays off customs and it works fine. Tip the delivery guy. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fed-Ex? Argh, burning my money would be more efficient. Yeah, I do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- You want to actually /get/ what you ordered ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Rupiah_swath.jpg/220px-Rupiah_swath.jpg)
- I do, don't worry. Now, if someone sends me a million dollars I'd rather have a direct transfer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Picturing that as IDR 10,000,000,000… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- A million is decent. Thanks, that pretty much covers how much I spent on Chrisye ... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Picturing that as IDR 10,000,000,000… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Citation question
Hi Br'er Rabbit, I have a question about a templates that just came up in an article I'm writing. What do you do if one author published a journal article and a book in the same year? (Of course, I'd usually use {{sfn|Smith|2012|p=1}} for a book or journal article published by Smith, but I can't do both.) Should I add the titles to the sfn ({{sfn|Smith, Journal Article Title|2012|p=1}} & {{sfn|Smith, Book Title|2012|p=1}}) or is there a better way to do it? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Use {{sfnRef}} and {{sfn}} pretty much as above. I'd suggest italics on the book title and quotes on the journal title, so nikkimaria will be able to sleep nights. Br'erRabbit 00:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- lol, will do, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- See what I just did here; the book in two volumes. I did one with quotes in the last day or so, but don't recall where. Br'erRabbit 00:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, that should work. I'll just have to remember to do the .27.27 business in the cite book template. (I like the new sig) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- See what I just did here; the book in two volumes. I did one with quotes in the last day or so, but don't recall where. Br'erRabbit 00:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for introducing me to it! Good to know. I've needed it before!--Milowent • hasspoken 11:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar you deserve
Δ This user has endured a wide breadth of the institutional ignorance that darkens this organization, yet loves it still. Δ |
This is the "Black barnstar of institutional shame" that unfortunately you and some others from this site deserve. The message only displays when highlighted as if to copy. I hope you will treasure the fact that many users, like me, are glad you remain a colleague. My76Strat (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- and like me, glad --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks ;) See also: {{blackout}} Br'erRabbit 11:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Why did it cut the words after yet? My76Strat (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- NM it didn't; I like your new sig. My76Strat (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
float:center;
is invalid ;> I'm seeing the words after "yet". Br'erRabbit 11:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)- Very nice and appropriate.PumpkinSky talk 14:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Very nice and appropriate.PumpkinSky talk 14:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Why did it cut the words after yet? My76Strat (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Question for you
On Garret Hobart#Electoral history, your work after I had written it, I had had an asterisk designate "incumbent". That's a fairly-well understood convention, I think, and I'd like to restore it. Is there a way of doing it that wouldn't be an absolute mess? Hope you're doing well, it's been quiet recently.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
done. That was just an off-the-cuff tweak to show how to use {{efn}} in another context. It would have precluded using a regular explanatory notes section (could have been tweaked to something link I did on Philippine–American War, i.e. lower-roman). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's fine. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Care to elaborate?
"You think you've been helpful enough here, George?" What do you mean about what you said? --George Ho (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- rhetorical question; I don't think you were being helpful. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree, the article was improved ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, George added two spaces. The other improvements would have occurred regardless. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- WP:DYKSG#H2: If I substantially expanded the article or make one ALT hook of a nomination, then my reviews would have been invalid. In other words, adding two spaces is just minor, not substantial. --George Ho (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- missed the point, again. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- T:TDYK#How to review a nomination says so, as well. --George Ho (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Move along, George. I get the last word on my talk page. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
i replied on the FAC, but
- i did reply on the FAC page, but shouldn't do so again. if you wanna upbraid me further, please do it on Talk. Tks. – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll reply where I see fit, tks. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, that does look like I'm telling you what to do.. but no, I was just saying that the remarks are off-topic for that forum. But OK, then. – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- They're on-topic because that's where you're making your attacks. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry that I am engaging an editor who may be close you about a topic that you have personal feelings regarding. I only want the topic approached with careful thought. The key point: Hasty corrections of major facts are a huge red flag... – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- This? It's only you reading the former as meaning that is was all Chinese Indonesians killed; it wasn't of course, and the linked article would offer the whole story.
- Stay off my talk about this; I see it as you seeking to keep the criticism of your participation in that FAC anywhere but where it's most apt. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Acknowledged. I was also saying that FAC talk might be better than FAC page.. but... last post here on this topic. I hope all things in your life go well. – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I can read. If you post in this thread again, I'll simply revert. It is inappropriate to seek to discuss this other than where you're making poor posts. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Acknowledged. I was also saying that FAC talk might be better than FAC page.. but... last post here on this topic. I hope all things in your life go well. – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry that I am engaging an editor who may be close you about a topic that you have personal feelings regarding. I only want the topic approached with careful thought. The key point: Hasty corrections of major facts are a huge red flag... – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- They're on-topic because that's where you're making your attacks. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, that does look like I'm telling you what to do.. but no, I was just saying that the remarks are off-topic for that forum. But OK, then. – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll reply where I see fit, tks. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Dale Chock
Thanks for your support here. I both wanted to see it run a bit longer and was hoping that someone else would take action as I might have been considered uninvolved. I thought it would end up the way it did, but that was even faster than I expected. Glad you are working on the article for GA also I know little about GA. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Doug. Things seems to have found their way to an appropriate conclusion. The IPs I'm seeing should be considered in any unblock request because my Jack-sense says same voice pretty clearly. I'll do the work I offered on the articles Maunus has been working on and hopefully we'll see him back soonish. Cheers, Br'erRabbit 02:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Question about P-functions
How difficult (and would you assist) would it be to parse a function allowing an editor to post an accolade from an essay instead of having to copy paste the template code manually? Thanks for considering this. My76Strat (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like you want something like the WikiLove tool, which would be non-trivial. Better to ask Ryan about that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you BR, I'll do that in short order. I have plucked rabbit hairs trying to figure how to remove the white space atop P:RECP It would be great if this were an easy fix and if perhaps you could save a few hares. My76Strat (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- newlines fuckin' up in transcluded pages ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you sir, you are the genuine article. Anyone can claim to be Jack Merridew, but only one can achieve the man's measure. My76Strat (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- newlines fuckin' up in transcluded pages ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you BR, I'll do that in short order. I have plucked rabbit hairs trying to figure how to remove the white space atop P:RECP It would be great if this were an easy fix and if perhaps you could save a few hares. My76Strat (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Signature
Hey Br'er Rabbit. I noticed your new signature, and was very impressed, it's easily the best looking sig I've seen on wikipedia. Having said that, I was wondering if you'd consider changing it, or at least keeping it to this page - at 664 characters it blows the 256 char limit from WP:SIG out of the water. Cheers WormTT(talk) 09:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's just code I've pasted in a few times on this page and a few others. This is my sig: Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
another:
—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Br'erRabbit 10:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- In which case, please accept my apologies! I remember snooping at how you made your Gold Hat signature a while back, taught me a few tricks for a website I was building. Didn't end up using them, the guy wanted something simpler, but I liked it! WormTT(talk) 10:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Much better; you may stay. /That's/ the point of an occasional over the top sig; to demonstrate a coding technique. Do you understand how it works? Br'erRabbit 10:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- (hint: see: User talk:Diannaa#on trapezoids) (moar silliness;)
- As far as I can see, it's a sneaky use of the border to the centre of the bordered area and making one transparent, leaving an empty triangle. Would never have occurred to me to do that, but what really stunned me is that IE coped with it! As for the trapezoids discussion on Diannaa's page you've managed to make my head hurt. So thanks. (Still looking at it...) WormTT(talk) 10:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- All border tricks ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. Took a little while, but I think I've got it.
- All border tricks ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, it's a sneaky use of the border to the centre of the bordered area and making one transparent, leaving an empty triangle. Would never have occurred to me to do that, but what really stunned me is that IE coped with it! As for the trapezoids discussion on Diannaa's page you've managed to make my head hurt. So thanks. (Still looking at it...) WormTT(talk) 10:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Had no idea borders were so versatile. Will keep in mind for the future! WormTT(talk) 10:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Tsk, tsk, that's 304 bytes ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I can't win... can I
WormTT(talk) 10:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I can't win... can I
- Tsk, tsk, that's 304 bytes ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Had no idea borders were so versatile. Will keep in mind for the future! WormTT(talk) 10:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Deja vu, I see you're no stranger to this conversation! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering why we didn't see cool signatures like that more often, guess it must be the character limit. Too bad. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- So WP:IAR = ""Bollocks to the rules! We're strong — we hunt! If there's a beast, we'll hunt it down! We'll close in and beat and beat and beat — !" ? Chedzilla (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
That ribbon signature is epic. Seriously impressive. Jesse V. (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Rundstedt
Please don't waste your time tinkering with the later parts of this article, because I am going to rewrite the whole thing. Thanks for fixing up my referencing. I suggest you wait until I rewrite each section and then fix up my text afterwards. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sure; I was done for the time being. For most of what I do, I edit whole pages, and it matters little what part of an article is 'fresh'. I have it watched and will return if I see anything needful. Or just let me know when you're at a good pausing point. Nice work. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Cinema of the Philippines
thought you might have an opinion in this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
RFAR Perch opened
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 5, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar for you
![]() |
The Minor Barnstar | |
For letting Dave1185 know that his behavior is destructive. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
sfn for Video
Hi. I want to use this documentary [2] as reference. What is the best to do so using sfn? Do you suggest I give minutes for loc.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- You should be able to use {{cite video}} and set footnote text with
|ref=
{{sfnRef}}
. Using |loc= for a time is correct. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)- Exactly. Pretty sure its done right at Ruma Maida — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- yup; like that ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks :) --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- yup; like that ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Greetings -- I noticed you reverted a section which I had deleted from this article. The reference for the CBS5.com link is invalid because it does not link to an article supporting the statement about park closures under Governor Schwarzenegger. When I clicked on the link it lead me to the website for the TV station without any specific connection or data to support the statement. Let me know if you can resolve this issue. Best regards ChesPal (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I did? I think that was an edit conflict. I'll look and probably restore if you've not. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I added this archive link. Feel free to take things where you like. I have to go for now. Sorry for any hassle. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for straightening this out. I plan to add some photos from my archives soon. ChesPal (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Photos were added yesterday. :-). ChesPal (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looking nice; thank you for contributing those. I fussed with the page a bit, combining two duplicates to the state's website. I also made the link to the specific page about this page instead of the whole parks site. That will help people get there quickly. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Help a bunny
In the same manner that you removed white space on P:RECP, will you look to remove white space at WP:RECP making the header and tabs seamless? My76Strat (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- They're just newlines; they create gaps, just like they do between article paragraphs. Removed ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, as I see how you append the fix's I request, I also learn a new thing, so make it a double thanks! And here's a chance to double down. In my browser view it renders as if the file sits directly on the "R" of Record. Can you create some space there? My76Strat (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what "File" really. Any better? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- It still looks the same. re "File:78RPM styled icon .png" inside the /header template. Also I enlarge my view 4X so that probably contributes. I am also curious as to why my tabs don't display the open tab in a darker color like most others I have seen? My76Strat (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- The "WikiProject Record Production" line-wrapping for you and dropping under the gramophone? You need a wider screen ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, you have got the header looking much better now. Very nice - My76Strat (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- The "WikiProject Record Production" line-wrapping for you and dropping under the gramophone? You need a wider screen ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I think I made it better, I hope...
... yes?
Thanks for nudging me toward the big girl citation system :) Accedietalk to me 00:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- You took to that like a fish to water; nicely done. I took it further, too. Br'erRabbit 00:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Portals
Do you know anything about the automatic cycling of portals? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- You mean dynamically changing page content? Yeah ;) Please undelete:
- user:Jack Merridew and I'll show you how it's done.
- (unprotect, too; and talk). The page does quite a bit of dynamic change of content, colours, layout, imagery. Be good to see that again; people like copying my user pages (there are dozens, if not more, based on various pages of mine). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- You've got it, but I won't wheel war over it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Terima kasih. Please unprotect, too. No one serious is gonna hassle, at this point. Purge the page and stuff changes, on different cycles. The main cycles is daily, but there are others.
- I'm looking at List of battlecruisers. That's full of nbsp and needs more re-thinking. there are lot of such tables, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Gonna need:
- User:Jack Merridew/Sock drawer dan
- User:Jack Merridew/Accounts map restored, too
- I'm gonna do a soft redirect at the bottom
- Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll get to fussing with some of the details of the page. I may update or not use those subpages. And there is more than one userpage design in the history of the page, some of which use other subpages that will need undeleting.
- If you review the source of the page, you'll find {{#switch:…}}. Thirty of them, with lots inside them. This is the mechanism for dynamic content. In this page, the switch keys off things like the date, hour, numberofedit (which amounts to a random). /What/ it changes is a lot; text, pictures, CSS. If you look again tomorrow, you'll a page design using File:Narzisse.jpg, the day after, another.
- A simpler example of using a switch would be User:Jack Merridew/Note switch 2:
- “Each affects the other and the other affects the next,
and the world is full of stories, but the stories are all one.”
- “Each affects the other and the other affects the next,
- Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- K, I think I get this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just a side note, I had only forgotten to unprotect the page; wasn't deliberate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- is ok; ma'af ;) Let me know if you need help with that portal. fyi, you may be hearing from a mate of mine in Jakarta. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Done the selected biographies and DYKs so far. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Can you get the related portals bar at Portal:Indonesia to look like the rest but stay hidden? Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was just noticing that; should be forcable to white... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- like that? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, but I couldn't get that border to disappear or change colour. :( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- That wasn't a border, it was 2px of cellpadding. It was also what was keeping the content off the left edge. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ah. I've no clue how to deal with it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- You removed that whole thing, and used the same as the others (which is prolly for the best). I fixed-up some of the modules. One's not really "good enough" ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I know jack (no pun intended) about template coding. I'm just worried about the prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ah. I've no clue how to deal with it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- That wasn't a border, it was 2px of cellpadding. It was also what was keeping the content off the left edge. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, but I couldn't get that border to disappear or change colour. :( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- BTW rabbit thanks for helping crisco with the portal - it had been sitting comatose like a bintang soaked frog outside an expats bar in un-named location somewhere in java - all i see in his edit history is a fevered re-building. ta SatuSuro 10:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I worked on some bits, again. It's all far behind the times and unmaintained. The id topics module was full of redirects and may be missing newer provinces and the like. It's a pity most of the wiki is failing. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- BTW rabbit thanks for helping crisco with the portal - it had been sitting comatose like a bintang soaked frog outside an expats bar in un-named location somewhere in java - all i see in his edit history is a fevered re-building. ta SatuSuro 10:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
You're a hero. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
poem box overlap on my user page
I have noticed (Chrome and Safari, Mac; not able to use FF atm) that if I shrink the browser window, the quotation text to the left overlaps the two poem boxes. A minor niggle, but possibly one that you could bring your teh massive skillz to bear upon? pablo 13:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I saw this being talked about, somewhere. Got an example you could point at? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- My user page - transcluded from /Quotes. It's mainly the lower box, with the French poem in. pablo13:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, like the section header says? I'll look. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, yeah - that's where I hid it! pablo 13:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am seeing a slight overlap in the top-left corner of the quote box at smaller widths. I've run Chrome for stretches and have seen this sort of thing elsewhere, too. I'm thinking it's a webkit bug because there are margins in place and they should be preventing this. There are some interesting bits going on in quote box, but it doesn't seem broken. I'll marinate on it. Hope you're well. Br'erRabbit 13:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Cheers, I thought it might have been something I'd caused fannying about with extra
<div>
s etc. I'm well thanks; very busy, which is a mixed blessing!
Fancy new bogus sig is well impressive. Diagonals eh ... Mr.X (talk)15:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Cheers, I thought it might have been something I'd caused fannying about with extra
- I am seeing a slight overlap in the top-left corner of the quote box at smaller widths. I've run Chrome for stretches and have seen this sort of thing elsewhere, too. I'm thinking it's a webkit bug because there are margins in place and they should be preventing this. There are some interesting bits going on in quote box, but it doesn't seem broken. I'll marinate on it. Hope you're well. Br'erRabbit 13:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, yeah - that's where I hid it! pablo 13:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, like the section header says? I'll look. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- My user page - transcluded from /Quotes. It's mainly the lower box, with the French poem in. pablo13:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I was looking at in the {{quote box}}; extra divs. But it's a fairly common things for styling hooks. Busy can be good; makes your life fly by, though. There's talk above about the sig, and an example of the technique. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
← Well I can live with it. Minor niggle. And anything is better than the last resort. pablo 22:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I stopped supporting anything IE-specific quite a while ago. I'll let you know if I spot a webkit solution. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Prettifying....
O-kay, heres something you might enjoy. Wikipedia:The Core Contest (and subpages) could do with some formatting and prettifying. I thought you might be happy to as it is about promoting core encyclopedic material.....any colour scheme is ok, as long as it is encyclopedic ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Inceidentally, looks like we're running it again soon, so might gain some impetus :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- While Br'er is the one to prettify, I'd be interested in the actual project, which I'd never heard of before. I'd mostly be interested in plants, animals, geography and history. I've long thought it embarrassing how bad so many core/vital articles are.PumpkinSky talk 01:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Funny how you think you've posted enough places that everyone'd know and still forget how big wikipedia actually is....read up and go for it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, 3.9 million+ articles alone is bigger than most people can comprehend. Yet we're still terribly lacking coverage on Indonesia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Funny how you think you've posted enough places that everyone'd know and still forget how big wikipedia actually is....read up and go for it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- While Br'er is the one to prettify, I'd be interested in the actual project, which I'd never heard of before. I'd mostly be interested in plants, animals, geography and history. I've long thought it embarrassing how bad so many core/vital articles are.PumpkinSky talk 01:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Did you know… that the article on the most powerful volcanic eruption in recorded history is a /stub/?
- Br'erRabbit 02:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Considering I looked at it not 4 hours ago, yes. Terrible... absolutely terrible. The article on the volcano has more information. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I like the tidying up of references you did recently, especially that {{efn}} template, which I'd not seen before; makes adding notes so much easier. I have a question though: why did you change ;Bibliography to '''Bibliography''', for instance? (I'm not complaining, simply curious.) George Ponderevo (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- {efn} is nice, glad you like. The use of ';' for bold is an inappropriate shortcut. The ';' syntax is for definition lists: Help:Lists#List basics. You also restored the {{HighBeam}} templates, which seems a new bit of /spam/. It both links to their article and to the WP:namespace. I don't think this appropriate; the generic {{subscription required}} is quite adequate. I'll have to have a talk with Andy about it. Anyway, I'm going to clean it back up. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I understood that one of the conditions for the allocation of those free HighBeam accounts was that HighBeam was explicitly credited as the source, at least in part because what's on their site isn't a direct copy of the original source, and may therefore potentially differ from it. Therefore, pending a definitive outcome from your discussions with Andy I've cleaned up your cleaning up. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nice little edit war you're starting, George. You also removed the inappropriate ';'s. And you're wrong about the use of that template be required (or any in-article attribution being required). It's simply spam. Please back up your assertion. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- It takes two to tango Mr Rabbit. Have you taken the trouble to look at the conditions under which the HighBeam accounts were made available? Get back to me when you have. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Drop the condescension, George. You added these, I removed them (along with other editing), you re-added them (which puts you into edit warring territory). You are also discussing it, here, but explain to me the part about you getting to overrule me, ok? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations: You should provide the normal citation information for the source (i.e., author, title, date, etc.). You may provide a convenience link to HighBeam (and HighBeam Research would presumably appreciate it); if you do so, it should be labeled as "subscription required". I read that as stating that providing a link to HighBeam is a courtesy, not an obligation – and that a "subscription required" is sufficient. HTH. --RexxS (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- yup; as I was discussing with Mally on his talk. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- So can you explain to me Rexxs why it is that I'm being subjected to Br'er Rabbit's harassment for choosing to extend that optional courtesy to HighBeam? George Ponderevo (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Bullshite, George. Just Bullshite. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- ... thus proving my point. Is it your intention to do any significant work to The Coral Island or simply to harrass those that do? George Ponderevo (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- One 'r' in harass, George. And that's /Mally's/ article, not your article. I'm going remove the spam-tag again, since you're the one that's gone and added it. See WP:BRD, and make your case on the article talk page (not here, please). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's not my article, Mally's article, or your article, it's Wikipedia's article, and I've seen no evidence that Mally has objected to the use of the {{HighBeam}} template in any case, so why should you? . And please do not accuse me of adding a spam tag again. I have made my case, and Rexxs has agreed on your talk page that the tag is an optional courtesy, which the documentation appears to confirm. When you have a consensus to have the {{HighBeam}} template deleted is the time for you to be forcing your views down the throats of others. Until then, the template stays. George Ponderevo (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia, George. Bzzt. ↑↑↑ that's not how it works. You're edit warring, pure and simple, over corporate spam, and making inappropriate claims of harassment. I don't respond mildly to that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would really like to get worked up about all this, but I can't override my Apathy Reflex. Anyhow, wasn't there a FAC thread recently? There should be some very discreet way to send a little love to Highbeam... templates do not tend to be the soul of discretion, BTW...howzabout just one of those thingies, atop the refs, perhaps? But I defer to WT:FAC... – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- This Wikipedia talk:HighBeam/Applications#"Original citation"? Or this Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 95#Citing Highbeam sources? Seems to support /optional/. Not George's way or the highway. Do please get worked up about this ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I never doubted they were optional! I thought we were all sorta moving to that understanding in the thread above. My point was a compromise suggestion: One and only one of the template thingies, atop the refs. But just a suggestion. – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- But it's important to know precisely which sources were accessed via HighBeam, not that one or more unspecified ones may have been. George Ponderevo (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- The way to avoid accusations of harassment is quite simple; don't harass other editors. And by what contorted logic is it me who's edit warring and not you? If attributing to HighBeam is optional, then why are you insisting on removing my attribution to HighBeam? George Ponderevo (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Cut the harassment bullshite, George, I already told you I don't react mildly to such bollocks. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) Oh, we all just need to have a nice cuppa tea or a smoke or something. We can work this out. Disagreements about optional things are inevitable... I wish WT:FAC had said something conclusive... anyhow, most FAC regulars are (or were, i am a bit behind) conservative about the text, and would consider a downpour of templates to be unappealing... but there is no rule against it per se... so a compromise, then, maybe..? – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)×2 Optional, obviously! Edit warring is not the way to make things happen. That's n00b-101. My take is that the /link/ is sufficient. It's the core thing they're after, anyway. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- SEO? Wikipedia uses nofollow tags. No SEO help from template or links, I'm afraid... that why a single shout-out might be done discreetly... – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I know that; the links are still valuable to them, just not /as/ valuable. The links alone attribute to them. This needs discussion and this is not the page for it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Then why have you been edit warring? In reply to Ling.Nut3, there's no objection to templates per se: just look at how often {{subscription}} or {{ODNBsub}} are used without even a murmur of disapproval. If the perceived problem here is the style of attribution to HighBeam, then the appropriate thing to do would be to start a discussion on the {{HighBeam}} template and reach some kind of consensus. George Ponderevo (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- We've struck agreement! both of you agree that "This needs discussion and this is not the page for it. "– Ling.Nut (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like this page isn't wide enough for all three of us. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)×2 Funny, you said above "the template stays" until I get it deleted. That sounds like you think your view trumps. here You say there is no dispute, when I clearly indicated so in the edit summary of the edit you're edit warring over. And it's laughable that you're calling me the edit warrior. Bzzt. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- i suggest that both of you conclude that you are the one who is really right, but graciously permit the other to live unmolested. meanwhile, i further suggest you start a thread somewhere which discusses template usage, and not each other's obvious wrongness.– Ling.Nut (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
For your outstanding support and dedication in getting Yogo sapphire from a new article to DYK to GA to FA and FOUR. The team effort of the uncountable people involved in getting this unique article to FA is a textbook case of teamwork in article improvement, ie, what Wikipedia should be, not what it all too often is. I can never thank everyone enough. PumpkinSky talk 23:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
- Terima kasih. You enjoy teh bottle, tonight. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
IRC
Hello Br'er Rabbit. I am curious, do you ever use irc? My76Strat (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. Evil place, full of idiots. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. Let me ask if you would look at a series of templates to see where areas of immediate improvement might be available. User:My76Strat/tem3 outlines some questions I have as they relate to a record producers discography as illustrated in Richard Landis production discography. Any ideas or help will be greatly appreciated. My76Strat (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ow, my eye!!! Don't you know that I'm quite critical of lurid colours and poor table structure? Those are the first things I'd seek to improve. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm open to all suggestions. The structure is likely poor because I am very novice as you can probably tell. The colors can be toned down if you feel it detracts too much. Perhaps I can do something with the border only. I did want to coordinate the colors with the infobox colors. That was my goal. I got to go to work soon but I am interested in your opinion and help. My76Strat (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Level up, player one!
Role-playing game bling aplenty available with this merry crowd! pablo 11:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Whole thing was driven by 24 (TV series)'s "Counter Terrorist Unit". cf: Rupert Murdoch's world view. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
For saying that IRC is an evil place, full of idiots, I award you this Cheesy Smile Barnstar. KUTGW! – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
help?
Hi,
I'm reviewing Blackford County, Indiana and it has a "Harv error: link to #CITEREFShockley1914-03 doesn't point to any citation." for ref 60. The editor fixed one of those errors, but he doesn't see the problem with one. Can you help?
Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Beat me to it. I tweaked the Gbook urls, but they still have other debris in them. Gbooks offers a link button that provides a cleaner url than copying out of the address bar; would be a good fix to go through them. Best, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that! (What do you mean Gbooks offers a link button? I don't see where that button is.) MathewTownsend (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
HighBeam
Thanks for alerting me to the discussion and I apologize for the delay in responding. Using the ' – via HighBeam (subscription required) ' template is not explicitly required. I do think it is appropriate in most cases where HighBeam is used to specifically, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which would alert the reader that HighBeam was the source and also that a subscription is required. That allows the reader to find the exact place where the source is located (as the editor used it) and also courteously alerts them to the fact that it is not free. This should always be done in addition to linking the full citation details of the original source so that a reader may seek out that source in an other, preferably free location. It is indeed a nice way to give something back to HighBeam, but that's not my main motivation for suggesting it. More important to me is giving the reader all the information they need to locate the source and see it in the form the editor saw it in. I'm sorry this caused some dispute. Where heated cases or disagreements come up, we'll just have to discuss the details and come to a consensus. This is a new program so it's quite possible that consensus doesn't exist in full yet, and my instructions, while an attempt to lay the groundwork for such a consensus, cannot substitute for the community actually coming to it on its own. Please let me know if there are further disputes or if I can help clarify things in any way. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 19:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is certainly not required. And I don't think it at all appropriate. For example, we have a huge number of links to works on gbooks, but we typically don't say so explicitly. My view is the the url itself is sufficient; it locates a resource. They're quite specific about where someone's saying they got a source. I'm a strong supporter of full citation details: the /original/ source. These links are dead ends for most readers, but with a lure of a seven day trial. This undermines most of the value of the url. I would be fine with people using Highbeam and omitting the near-useless link. If they do include it, then {{|subscription required}} is more than enough. I'm not sure where the best place to sort a consensus on the whole spammy nature of this is, but am thinking that a wp:tfd would be a good place to start. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Trying to get whatever good I can from the bad
Despite our recent disagreement about wiki markup on the The Coral Island I have learned something from you about alternative citation styles. I'm working on a bunch of other articles on childrens' topics including this one. The article itself obviously still needs a lot of work, but I'm wondering if the citation style is now one you approve of? Anyway, no hard feelings I hope. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Glad to see you're using {{efn}}, including the named form, as well as LDR. You are using a rather scrunched together format which is needlessly difficult to read. On the named refs, you really should use quotation marks (doc say they can be omitted in simple form, but there are problems with that approach; breaks some tools). I'd also suggest eschewing {{citation}} in favour of {{cite book}} and kin; they're more standard; are what the toolbar offers. And I saw that you've seen that sometimes, simple bold is sufficient. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to stick with the {{citation}} template, as I can't be bothered with all the fiddly {{cite}} templates. But what do you mean by "scrunched together format"? George Ponderevo (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Lack of whitespace where? And what's the argument for quotation marks in named references where they're unnecessary to emit correct HTML? George Ponderevo (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- there, George. Quotes are part of what's called "well formed" markup. It's in the spec. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- You misunderstand what what "well-formed" means in the context of HTML Br'er Rabbit, but what I'm learning from this is that whatever I do will never satisfy you. So I will from now on concentrate on content; you can of course follow me around and fix up all of my citation "errors" if that might amuse you. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Right, George; I really don't know shit about markup. Whatever you say ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, you don't. But I don't want to fight with you Mr Rabbit, so I hope we'll be able to avoid each other in the future; what you think you know is of no interest to me. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Time for you to get off my page, George. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Rexxs had persuaded me that you were a reasonable person, but I see that I was mistaken in believing him. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, George, I'm such a clueless n00b; all willful and cocksure in my zeal to gnome teh wiki. I'll be sure to ask your expert opinion next time a have trouble closing a break tag. May I have my page let alone, now? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Remarkable
What sneaks through FAC sometimes. Thanks for the fix, I'll probably nominate Clarence 13X at FAC next week, just waiting for my copyeditor to get back from a business trip. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed starring that on ;) was busy playing "fetch". Clarence need any help? I'll look… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- You should see this.(old) They passed it in that shape. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Off topic, but could you make a "Crybaby barnstar" for people who spend a lot of time complaining about minor things. I think this would be the perfect picture. I've been really tempted to use it a few times. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- You should see this.(old) They passed it in that shape. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Mark, Mark. Don't ever express surprise at what has been passed. For dark ages now, I have kept silent. But, someday, I will shake off the trappings of imbecility (or pretend to). And then... I shall take actions that will astound you! (I hope I'm quoting Alec Guinness here.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I look forward to being astounded :) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Mark, Mark. Don't ever express surprise at what has been passed. For dark ages now, I have kept silent. But, someday, I will shake off the trappings of imbecility (or pretend to). And then... I shall take actions that will astound you! (I hope I'm quoting Alec Guinness here.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Before I went to FAC with the Stephens City, Virginia article, I had a peer review done on it. Before taking it to TFA, another peer review. I always checked to make sure, but then again, I had a couple really good teachers (Wehwalt being one) teaching me what to do. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- You had a peer review after it made FA? Wow, that's a lot of effort. With the article I linked to above (Sadler) I had two peer reviews, but both after GA and before FA. I had two PRs on Elias Abraham Rosenberg too. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't mind keeping up the tinkering, it is important to encourage the next generation of editors. Unfortunately, not much encouragement from the top, but I learned in business school successor planning is everyone's responsibility.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The Burges article is probably a good article (I should actually read it). But the FAC process failed it miserably. The errors I fixed should have been addressed earlier, but they certainly should have been caught by any process that purports to result in our best work. The tools and methods to find and fix those issues are available and reasonably well known. But the process isn't really about getting things firing smoothly on all cylinders, it's about a power hierarchy and kissing the ring. Bzzt ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree, but I think that the delegates are overall doing a better job now, compared to how things have worked in the past year or two. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's not the “delegates”, it's the lack of participation by the technically astute. The process is unfriendly to that; it's not part of what's valued. It's a bril-prose-only mindset. That the references actually be coherent and verifiable is not a value that's encouraged, there. There's no excuse for basic issues like the following to have gotten through a review that purports to showcase our best work. There were also seven {{harvnb}} footnotes that did not link properly to a full citation. /And/ there's the crap a simple run of citation bot sorted out.
{{harvnb|Lawrence & Wilson|p=15}} Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead {{harvnb|Crook|1981a|p=84}} Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead {{harvnb|Gillingham|p=37}} Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead {{harvnb|Cherry & Pevsner (2004), ''The Buildings of England:Devon''|p=527}} Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead {{harvnb|Crook|1981a|p=231}} Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead {{harvnb|Crook|1981a|p=308}} Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead {{harvnb|Crook|1981a|p=309}} Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead {{harvnb|Crook|1981a|p=317}} Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead {{harvnb|Crook|1981a|p=325}} Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead {{harvnb|Crook|1981a|p=91}} Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead Country life Multiple references are given the same name BanhamGallery1984 Multiple references are given the same name Crook, 1981, 84 Multiple references are given the same name Crook, 1981, 283 Multiple references are given the same name Sherwood & Pevsner, 1974, 222 Multiple references are given the same name Sherwood & Pevsner, 1974, 223 Multiple references are given the same name The Building news and engineering journal Multiple references are given the same name Gillingham, 37 Multiple references are given the same name Cherry & Pevsner, 2004, 527 Multiple references are given the same name Crook, 1981, 231 Multiple references are given the same name Crook, 1981, 308 Multiple references are given the same name Crook, 1981, 309 Multiple references are given the same name Crook, 1981, 317 Multiple references are given the same name Crook, 1981, 325 Multiple references are given the same name Crook, 1981, 91 Multiple references are given the same name Crook, 1981, Appendix B Multiple references are given the same name
← Incidentally, but on a related note, shouldn't this include the instruction to use quotes in named refs? pablo 16:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah; it's a terrible shortcut that should be deprecated. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Discouragement of contributors
I was sorry to see your comments at User:KJP1's page. Prefacing your comments with "I'm not criticising the article per se; my concern is the values of the FA-process itself" is about as unhelpful and negative (and to KJP1, irrelevant) a comment to a first time FA editor as I can imagine. Despite your comments I hope KJP1 will remain a contributor to Wikipedia, but I know from the sidelines that KJP1 has found it tough getting this magnificent article to FA and I just hope your comment is not the thing that decides KJP1 to abandon us rather than contribute more top-flight articles. Sincere wishes, Tim riley (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Tim, it wasn't my intention to discourage KJP1; that was about clarifying that the issue is not his article, but the review process. See the section just above and User talk:GrahamColm#Script. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure it wasn't, and I don't know who was responsible for complicating the citation arrangements with the mind-bogglingly user-unfriendly citation system adopted here, rather than the straightforward usual <ref></ref> system that has seen me through more than a dozen FACs. Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't me; I never saw that article before yesterday. I just fixed it up; I do a lot of that. The harv/sfn system is really very useful. I've sold a lot of editors on it: Wehwalt, Brianboulton, for example, whom I know you know. Many others, too. I could explain the advantages, if you're open to listening. See above for some of the disadvantages to <ref></ref> (and there are other disadvantages)Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would agree that the system isn't always intuitive. But I think FA is evolving , because the tiller is unattended and responds to any firm direction, in favor of not allowing the sort of citation error that the system advocated by Br'er fixes. It is vital not to discourage new FA editors, but still their articles need to avoid these errors, which is something easily checked, easily corrected.. You don't use it, but then, you are very careful about references. The important thing is that these errors get fixed, which I think you both agree on.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Wehwalt. PumpkinSky talk 20:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would agree that the system isn't always intuitive. But I think FA is evolving , because the tiller is unattended and responds to any firm direction, in favor of not allowing the sort of citation error that the system advocated by Br'er fixes. It is vital not to discourage new FA editors, but still their articles need to avoid these errors, which is something easily checked, easily corrected.. You don't use it, but then, you are very careful about references. The important thing is that these errors get fixed, which I think you both agree on.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure this has been told to me before, but Alarbus was helping me learn how to correct these mistakes and I've lost his tips. Is there a page where how to deal with all this discussed? I have the error script installed but I'm fearful of what to do when I see the errors. (perhaps too timid) (some of us who aren't technically brilliant would like to be!) MathewTownsend (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. Looks like it's gonna be this page, for a bit. That other talk was on template talk:sfn, I think. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- You kindly formatted the refs in Manfred von Richthofen (general) in what I call Alarbus style. New sources were added, could you handle those as well or should I try? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I did a first pass. They still need better names, cite templates and such. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you! (thinking of Messiah) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Tiramasu. Wasn't that the old saying. ;-) 64.134.168.97 (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)