User talk:Hyperzonk

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

A Welcome Message[edit]

I am hoping the box below is just a general boilerplate welcome and not the result of bad style! Or maybe it's to get me to use — (—) instead of --, who knows? HyperZonk 17:55, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

You might find these pages useful:

You can always experiment in the sandbox.

If you like, you can introduce yourself at the new user log, or write something about yourself on your user page.

One more thing: if you leave a note on any kind of discussion page it's always helpful to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~), which is automatically converted to your username and the date and time. Don't do this in articles themselves though as they are not 'owned' by any particular contributor.

If you have any questions, see help, leave a question at the help desk, or feel free to drop me a line on my talk page.

Thanks again and happy editing!

Trilobite (Talk) 17:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello. The welcome message was indeed a standard one and certainly not a criticism of any edits you may have made. In fact it appears from a brief glance at your contributions that you've got the hang of everything very quickly. Perhaps I need to rephrase the welcome: it is simply a few suggested links new users might find useful. We try to give a welcome message of some kind to all newly-registered users, as a lot of the time they don't know where to look for information on guidelines and policy. My apologies if I inadvertently criticised the standard of your work! -- Trilobite (Talk) 00:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Infobox quest[edit]

(Continued from "A Welcome Message" above.) I figured as much ... just having a little fun, here. But I consider you, based on what I have seen so far, a distinguished wikipedian, so if you ever do have hints or tips for me, please let me know. As a matter of fact, I've been trying to find the definitive guide to boxes of all sorts. Is the markup above the answer when you want to do something of that nature, or is there a slicker template? HyperZonktalk 01:09, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Ha! I wouldn't call myself a distinguished Wikipedian. I have just been here long enough to get used to how it all works. For example, I am not one of the 400 or so administrators. As for boxes, I'm not sure that there is a definitive guide, because Wikipedia just uses standard HTML markup for this. Tables can be made using a special markup recognised by the wiki software (see how to use tables). One place where you may notice boxes is for standard template messages reproduced across a series of articles. So for example, the Gibraltar House of Assembly article has a box at the side, which is inserted into the article using {{Politics of Gibraltar}}. What this means is that the contents of the Template:Politics of Gibraltar page is inserted at that point. The Template namespace (which means all the pages whose names begin with "Template:") tends to be full of boxes of all sorts, so for example Template:Cleanup uses the HTML <div> tag like you've used above. I hope this goes some way to explaining how boxes are used in Wikipedia. The best thing to do is to have a look round at some articles to see how certain things are implemented if you want to create something similar yourself. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you, I had a suspicion that such was the case. I had a heck of a time finding a definitive guide to those subject dependent boxes, too ... but I think I have now at Infoboxes, Infobox templates, Information templates, Miscellaneous templates, Infobox templates, Taxoboxes, and through the various WikiProjects. However, that is the problem that originally caused me to ask the question; these infobox-like structures are described in many different places as several different things. I have a feeling that someday I will be inspired to begin a meta-project to bring all of the items in this class into one easy-to-browse space. Note that I am not now talking about the simplest boxes like the VfD and cleanup templates (I was in my original question), but the more complicated infobox-like structures. Also, I am aware that these structures serve several different purposes (quick facts in a uniform layout, quick navigation of related subjects, etc.), but I still think they are all of a type in some ways. BTW, I'm reasonably sure that I still haven't found all of the places where such structures are defined. Help alway appreciated from anyone! HyperZonktalk 19:22, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Definitive Infobox-like Structure Directory[edit]

In progress. Here is the list of current places to find infobox-like lists ... please add any that you know of that aren't here.

Wabash Case[edit]

Hey there. Thanks for editing the Wabash case I've expanded from a stub (Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company v. Illinois). I've noticed, however, that you had removed the Bench section and incorporated it instead into the main body text. In writing the article, I followed the outline listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases which includes, among other things, a Bench section. Has that been revised? Thanks again for the contribution, and cheers from a fellow San Franciscan (well...Berkeley currently, but San Francisco resident at heart ;D). RidG (talk) 22:30, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

DVB ASI[edit]

Thanks for the note on my talk page. You are correct, I was influenced by your "proprietary internal schema" comment. I did more research and changed my vote on that VfD. Barno 17:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chicago aldermen[edit]

Hi there! Since the discussion seemed finished, I've closed up the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Local_politicians discussion for now. I believe consensus has been established that local politicians deserve mention in Wikipedia, but not in a separate article UNLESS they have done something exceptional. Would you please check if you find this a reasonable conclusion, and leave a short note on that page's talk page? Thanks.

Yours, Radiant! 10:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

National longevity recordholders[edit]

I created the National longevity recordholders article and after defending it from efforts to deleted it,return to find that it has been changed enormously.I strongly prefer things being organized the way I had them,though I'm willing to discuss reasons with you.Key issues of difference (now that you understand what a supercentenarian is,a field of study that I have worked on for years) are:

  • Nations ordered by age of the recordholder (you alphabetized them instead).
  • Overall recordholder goes first and is female unless stated otherwise,as mentioned in the introduction,overall recordholder then followed by recordholder of other sex where known.
  • Recognized/documented cases only,as for the list I maintain (linked under References in the Supercentenarian article),the Guinness Book of World Records,or some other authority (Margaret Dolan of Ireland does not qualify,for instance).
  • Only countries where someone has reached at least 112 or it will get too large.

Those are what I can think of now.I'm not going to do a "mass revert",as has gotten people mad at me elsewhere,but I want you to understand these issues...Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 04:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry,I've given you weeks to respond and I'm going ahead with a revert at this time.--Louis E/12.144.5.2 16:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you would have taken the effort to look at my user page, you would have noted that I was on jury duty. However I note from your own talk page that you seemingly can't be bothered to consult community consensus and edit by it. As I have noted, I don't really have any interest in the supercentenarian subject, so I will leave you to your games on that page, despite the fact that several people agree that alpha is the correct order, and that anything other than the supercentenarian cutoff is artificial. Your imputation of "rules" by the way is particularly smelly as you can't be bothered to conform yourself to the simplest and most widely accepted rules of style. Sorry if you feel like you are being "discriminated against" because of your "unpopular" views regarding spaces after punctuation, but that's just tough. Your way is currently wrong. Go complain to the ghost of Dewey; his spelling preferences never made the grade, either. HyperZonktalk 15:34, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I looked before...and felt the time you had indicated your jury duty would last had certainly expired.I don't see any good reason for alphabetical order,and having spent years compiling the most widely-used list of supercentenarians I know how much the complications increase as you lower cutoff ages.Where did I say "rules" here anyway?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 16:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New LGBT noticeboard.[edit]

Hi, I've created a LGBT noticeboard for wikipedians to post issues and concerns. Please take a look. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 08:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back...[edit]

...from jury duty. It seems relatively unusual to get assigned to such a long trial. I hope it was interesting, at least. -- Beland 04:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

So, not so much jury duty now.[edit]

Well, as I hope is obvious, I got dragged into other things after jury duty ended (it was a somewhat long trial, but it certainly didn't last more than a few weeks). You know, work, then other interests came to the fore, and then more work. I doubt I'll spend anywhere near as much time editing here as I did for a month or so back in early 2005, though ... HyperZonktalk 22:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)