Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there is one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfold fear.
– Thomas Jefferson –
The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.
– Ayn Rand –
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
– William G. McAdoo –
Unbeknownst to most people, the default settings of their web browsers displays pages using extremely crappy typesettings. For example, the default font in Internet Explorer and Firefox for 99% of the text found in Wikipedia is Arial. Arial is a sans serif font, which is fine for everyday life, however, in technical articles, some symbols can be confused. Are you a victim of bad typesetting? Well here's how you can tell.
Do some or all of these look alike or of unequal height?
As on Wikipedia:
iι ; eéèêë ; EÉÈÊË ; Il1 ; vν ; uυ οoOΟ0 *
iι ; eéèêë ; EÉÈÊË ; Il1 ; vν ; uυ οoOΟ0
* This is a test for mostly technical readers who are likely to encounter the omicron Greek letter, whose use is extremely rare because it just looks too damn much like an o (letter). You should at least be able to tell the difference between oO0 (lowercase o, capital O, and zero ).
Yes: You have a bad sans serif type of font. No: Congratulations, you have a well-designed typeface!
Is this hard to read (looks all bunched up)?
As on Wikipedia:
Yes: You have a sans serif font (or browser) with bad kerning. No: Congratulations, you have a well-designed typeface / browser!
Solution: Go in your browser, check for fonts (in Firefox this is located in Tools > Options > Content > Advanced > Sans serif). And it's trial and error from there. I personally use DejaVu Sans, which I find rather nice. However, it causes some problems with tables (some dividing lines might not show up).
For dealing with the mess that the isotope articles were in, and categorizing them, and for the work put on creating Wikipedia books on the chemical elements, you deserve at least a little double barnstar.
Your diligent work in the area of redirect categorization and improvement is duly recognized and greatly appreciated. You are truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia, and we hope you continue to enjoy your improvement of this awesome encyclopedia! To Headbomb, thank you for updating redirects about the Cochrane Collaboration.
I really appreciate your insightful and detailed proposal for revising open access icons. Please continue to take coffee breaks when things get heated. Every good idea needs its champion and my wish for you is that to the extent you are representing the idea, you appear as measured, helpful, conciliatory, and inclusive as the idea itself.
Thanks for all the effort you make to resolve a very weird situation that is formulated in Wikipedia. I really appreciate your comments and your willingness to help Wikipedia project by establishing a safe environment for everyone.
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!