User talk:Dsprc

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

July 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)


I noticed your recent edit to Bump 'n' Jump does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2016‎

Bold link in "See also" section?[edit]

Hi~ I'm not completely familiar with all of the style, format, layout stuff on Wikipedia yet, so I'm just asking out of curiosity. I saw this edit, and was a little confused. What is the purpose of making a wikilink to be bold text in the "See also" section of an article? I'm just wondering. Thank you:) Zeniff (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @Zeniff: No clue. Emphasis? IIRC, at time was using modified mobile client with custom "syntax autocomplete"-ish functionality hacked into it (markup is pain on mobile); possible is typo (or a bug; had plenty of those). Is OK to remove. -- dsprc [talk] 11:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. Thank you for explaining:) Zeniff (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rogers tm rgb.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Rogers tm rgb.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll fix the links and add other sources, from books.[edit]

The broken links I posted here: (which you removed) were not intentional. I'll fix them, and/or put in the article other sources from books. I'm a libertarian myself and I know the topic very well. :) -- (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just get sourcing correct, and be mindful of WP:BLP. You can try using the Wayback Machine; See: WP:WAYBACK. -- dsprc [talk] 18:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

White House Correspondents' Association[edit]

Hi - you replaced the {{prose}} tag that I'd removed on the table of performers. Why do you think that section would be better presented as prose? I personally think that the current table format is much more accessible; a comparable prose section would either end up being something more like proseline, especially considering the scarcity of extra notes in the first half or so of the list, or would become much harder to find pertinent information in. ansh666 21:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • ansh: Prose is the default and preferred format of Wikipedia. We've already partial prose in use on this article. For entries without sufficient prose or notes, separate list is acceptable, even a bulleted list if properly presented. May even simply increase content for entries found lacking. Lengthy text should not be shimmed into a table as it is now. It creates new problems, for example: some versions of the widely-deployed Opera Mini browser can not pan or scroll the tables left and right in the default configuration, making content unaccessible to these users. Also a usability issue for users of mobile clients which render much of tabled content off-screen and under collapsed buttons instead of a unified flow.
  • What other ways could we present the info to ease discovery of specific bits? -- dsprc [talk] 22:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    • What if we kept the table, but removed the "Notes" section and converted the entries there that don't fit into the main table (i.e. the "X also performed") or aren't pointless bits of trivia into prose paragraphs beneath the table? ansh666 07:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I replied[edit]

Just letting you know that I replied here: If you have other questions for me, just ask. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Hey, GL. If want to reach consensus is easier to do line-by-line and one step at a time. Will require compromise and concessions be made as well. Otherwise may end poorly for the both of you (WP:BP). If interested in working together on a draft let me know; can hack one out in user space instead of spamming article or user talk. -- dsprc [talk] 22:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
G. L., do we at least agree that NYT, Boston Globe and Reason are reliable sources? We don't even need the Prof.'s piece in AlterNet since those other three back statement. I'm gonna start hackin' it out under Dsprc/woods, paragraph by paragraph if would like to collab. -- dsprc [talk] 19:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure. They're both reliable sources. But I want also to include the source from the book, since it is academic press coming from the Uni of Texas. I'm referring to this:
--G. L. Talk 13:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Behind what notes[edit]

I got your message about editing the table, but I'm not sure what you mean. What do you want behind notes?

The one thing that I did notice is that the new adblocking columns are in a different order than the rest of the page. Was this intentional?

Teeks99 (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Teeks99: Yes it was intentional. I would like to move the website column so it is behind notes, but in front of the API column; kinda like this (Move A to position X). Whenever I try to move them with simple replace, nesting goes all bonkers. -- dsprc [talk] 16:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments/feedback[edit]

Hi dsprc,

My name is Brittany Lai, and I'm currently a second year university student. As part of a class assignment at my university, I am planning on making revisions to the article Women in Vietnam, and I noticed you've been quite active in improving the article this past year. Thus, I would love to receive feedback from you concerning my plans and revisions for the page. Specifically, I plan on revamping the "Contemporary society influences" section of this article, and details of my plans and sources I have culminated so far can be found on the article's talk page, where I have included an annotated bibliography. Furthermore, additional information regarding what I plan to add can be found on my sandbox page. One of the huge revamps I want to make involve the organization of the article; primarily, I would like to merge current sections 4-9 to be subsections under the "Contemporary society influences" section. I can send you the specific tentative outline I have if you would like. I look forward to hearing back from you, and feel free to let me know if you have any questions or requests for additional information. Thank you! Brittany Lai (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Namaste, Brittany Lai. Welcome to Wikipedia. :) Much of my contributions to this subject were related to copy-editing, source verification or auditing, and vandalism-related cleanup. Must profess I've limited knowledge on subject. You are free to make any constructive additions or redactions you see fit, and we welcome your contributions to the project. If you need specific guidance I can offer that, but you don't have to ask us for permission, just get in there and start editing! :) -- dsprc [talk] 21:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


How can I get other editors involved in the discussion over at Thomas Woods? --G. L. Talk 16:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

GL, can try WP:RFC and stuff; are a couple other resources listed on my user page. Give Stub all the rope they need to hang themselves; disruptive editing will lead to them being blocked. Has to be first time I've had a simple edit request completely hijacked and overwritten as well. :) If continues there is WP:DR/N or simply WP:AIV. Also may be a sock or meat-puppet in user 'Rampantbattleship'. -- dsprc [talk] 16:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Woods[edit]

Hatting was a nice try, but I see Stubbs reverted you. I have deleted the section again and made references to the talk page guidelines. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they do dislike moderation. =) Hopefully they read warning against behaviour and decide to heed your advice as well--so far seem to have ignored most of it. We know where that road leads if advice is rejected. -- dsprc [talk] 17:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
North Shoreman: Now they appear to have reverted you. [1] =) -- dsprc [talk] 18:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)