Rogerhc
User:Rogerhc <- why does not this link in Wikipedia App work?
thanks from wp:citations
editThanks for your edits improving wikipedia-namespace citation articles, such as Wikipedia:Embedded citations. Much appreciated.. ∴ here…♠ 00:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
XHTML
editWikipedia's pages declare themselves to be XHTML (use your browser's View Source to see this declaration at page top):
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en" dir="ltr">
Examples
editXHTML requires tag attribute values be enclosed in quotes, like this:
Some text with a reference<ref name="The Humble Standard">The Humble Standard, page 333.3333</ref> More text from that same source<ref name="The Humble Standard" />
Some text with a reference[1]
More text from that same source[1]
However, the wiki parser converts quoteless-single-word-attribute-values to validly quoted values (see page source). So this is okay wiki markup, too:
Some text with a reference<ref name=standard>The Humble Standard, page 999.9999</ref> More text from that same source<ref name=standard />
Some text with a reference[2]
More text from that same source[2]
Notes
editWP meetup
edit
|
In the area? You're invited to | |
| San Francisco Meetup 3 | ||
| Date: September 16th, 2007 | ||
| Place: Yerba Buena Gardens, 3pm | ||
| San Francisco Meetup 2 | ||
February 2008
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Teaching English as a second language. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Skid steer
editHi. You obviously have views on the current skid steer page as a redirect to skid. I might well agree with your reasoning if I knew what it was, but until then I will continue to think that the current redirect is the best option. Before making more changes, could you please explain your views on the Talk:Skid steer page, and give me an opportunity to explain mine. Thanks. --Richard New Forest (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Answered on Talk:Skid steer. --Rogerhc (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Engineering vehicle
editDiscussing the pages Engineering vehicle and Heavy equipment operator
Please don't change the list too much. Though to someone from outside the industry it may not seem so, the construction pages are in good hands by industry professionals. I do appreciate your edits to grammer, spelling and style. Forestry equipment is intentionally on the list, not by mistake. Same with agricultural equipment. We do log before building roads, and use agricultural equipment for construction if warranted. Air-track (machine), if the red link bothers you then remove the hyperlink. Most of this equipment comes directly from the CAT handbook, something of a standard for us heavy equipment managers. This page is here to help construction management students study for the equipment exams. Someone is going to lose points on the question about Air-tracks...Granite07 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Just visited the heavy equipment operator page, "remove erroneous name Front shovel" google "Front shovel". I suppose you are the one who thinks there is only one type of haul truck, the generic "dump truck". There are about eight different haul trucks, again all exam questions and part of a complete article on heavy equipment. Sorry if I seem a bit terse, but it takes longer to create these pages in precious spare time, than you to delete them.Granite07 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Answered on Talk:Engineering vehicle#Types. --Rogerhc (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- That an excavator and front shovel appear to be similar is where the similarity ends. They are used very differently (i.e. excavator loads-out from top of stockpile while shovel loads from bottom), the hydraulics are different and the structural design is different, the same person is not capable of operating both easily. You can not swap excavator and shovel buckets to change the equipment type.
- This web link has photos to compare. http://www.cat.com/cda/files/253707/7/AECQ1042-06.pdf You really should put the front shovel back. The trucks is up to you, in my mind they should all be on the same page. Field engineers have a hard enough time as it is and you spreading everything around just makes it that much harder to figure out what a superintendent is talking about when they ask for six belly dump trains. The goal is to replicate the CAT handbook here on wikipedia, this article is the table of contents. Use this website for reference in your future edits. http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=37840&x=7, glad to see you have an interest in heavy equipment, if there is anything I can help you with, or you have any more questions, feel free to ask, happy editing.Granite07 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Roger, I am reverting your edits, please open a discussion on why your edits should be considered, present your logic and likely everyone will agree. As it is now, nobody has a clue what you are doing. There is a large group of people who watch this page and it may take some time for everyone to notice the discussion. We should give it a few weeks to give everyone a chance to comment before making any further changes, OK.Granite07 (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I formally request this discussion be held on the article's talk page -- Talk:Engineering vehicle; I will answer specific questions you may ask there. --01:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Roger, I am reverting your edits, please open a discussion on why your edits should be considered, present your logic and likely everyone will agree. As it is now, nobody has a clue what you are doing. There is a large group of people who watch this page and it may take some time for everyone to notice the discussion. We should give it a few weeks to give everyone a chance to comment before making any further changes, OK.Granite07 (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Roger, if you plan on, or have volunteered to review the heavy equipment articles, I have an extra CAT handbook (they give them out for free every year), it is several years old but for your purposes just fine. They have been issuing these several hundred page books for almost 40 years. Give me an address and I will ship it to you. Also found this forum that seems ok http://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=20763 this looks like an online electronic source http://www.southworthmilton.com/products/PerformanceHandbook/Pages/default.aspx Granite07 (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Granite07, I would love a copy. I have emailed you my mailing address (via your email address in your Wikipedia preferences -- call me if you don't get it: my phone number is on my user page). Thanks! --Rogerhc (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Move
editPlease move Engineering vehicle → Construction equipment WikiDon (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- might want to hold on that one, "construction equipment" seems too specific, (bit much power), heavy equipment or something along those lines sounds more general. This equipment is used in mining, forestry and construction to give three examples.
- As for the power shovel and front shovel, if you look close you will see the power shovel has cable and pulleys while the front shovel has hydraulics. I understand they look similar, but very different. Additionally one could likely fit in the bucket of the other. Are there any other qualified experts on the topic around other than me? Maybe with this recession more equipment guys will be out of work and will pass their time on Wikipeda.Granite07 (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiDon was indefinitely blocked after a failed attempt to frame another editor for death threats. —SlamDiego←T 04:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
editUser talk:Mr. Stradivarius on tour#Trouted 07:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 07:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Service Awards, thumb or frame?
edit
Hello. You have a new message at PartTimeGnome's talk page. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
"More" template
editWhen I look at WP:SMOS now, the More template is completely invisible. I looked on four different computers.
Also, I don't understand changing the word "more" to "MOS". How is the reader going to guess that more information is available, and why would he be more interested in knowing which bureaucratic document that information comes from? Art LaPella (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Art, Thanks for dropping me this note and sorry for the confusion. The More template was not invisible, I had simply changed it to display as a link instead of as a box, and tried variations on the link text, first "more..." and then "(MOS)". However, I'm not sure I improved things. So I have reverted my edits and returned the "More" template back to the box version. I have an idea that making the Headers into links to the relevant section of the MOS might make the page more readable and less distracting than having "More" links or boxes at the end of so many lines. However, I will propose this on the SMOS talk page instead of implementing it. By the way, thanks for your contributions to the SMOS page. It is really important to have a simple to read overview of MOS, in my view. Cheers, --Rogerhc (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly looked for the links and didn't see them. I wouldn't have known that they were intended to say "MOS" if I hadn't looked at how the template was coded. But that's moot now, short of reverting just to look at it.
- If the headers became links and MORE disappeared, do you understand the tradeoff? The existing MORE links go to specific guidelines. The headers, in some cases, correspond to much longer lists of guidelines, and wouldn't fulfill the same function at all. Most cases are worse: the MORE links go to completely different parts of the main MoS page, or even to different pages, and a single link from the header would steer the reader in the wrong direction altogether. Art LaPella (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Art, you are quite right. Yes. I'm kinda stumped regarding my desire to make the SMOS less visually distracting. Perhaps toning down the link colors of the MORE box would help but I don't know. It is rather cleaver and useful to have each MORE box colored by its link status. Maybe specifying lighter link colors for the boxes via CSS instead of using the default dark link colors would help. I have caused enough confusion for one day however. So I will leave that thought in the hands of others, and maybe just do a mock up here on the talk page tomorrow to see what it looks like instead of editing the template. Thank you for explaining your thinking to me. It is a mystery how the links I replaced the box with in the template were invisible to you while visible to me. Quite strange. Maybe you were viewing Wikipedia via a different cache than I was. A purge of the template page might have cleared that up. Not sure. And as you noted, moot point now. --Rogerhc (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Sister sites
editThis discussion is for changing the sister sites on Wikipedia's main page not WV's main page :-) This will occur on the launch of WV. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks, I was confused at first but figured it out. Looks good to me either way for Wikipedia's main page. Happy holidays to you! I will be away now till Dec 30. Sorry about not replying on your page but splitting a conversation thread like that just doesn't make sense to me and I know you will find this reply if it is important to you. Cheers, :-) --Rogerhc (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
New Article Feedback version available for testing
editHey all.
As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).
A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.
Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Pending release of Notifications
editHey Rogerhc :). I'm dropping you a note because you have signed up for the Notifications, or Echo, newsletter.
If all goes according to plan, we should be launching Echo on en-wiki either tomorrow, or next Tuesday - I'll drop a followup tomorrow when we know what's happening. Should the launch succeed, we'll begin the process of triaging bugs and gathering feedback on what features work, what cause problems, and what we should do next; I hope you'll help us out on these fronts by leaving any comments you might have on the talkpage.
Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Notifications box replacement prototypes released
editHey Rogerhc; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
New newsletter for Notifications
editHello
You are subscribing to the Notifications newsletter on English Wikipedia.
That newsletter is now replaced by the monthly and multilingual Collaboration team newsletter, which will include information and updates concerning Notifications but also concerning Flow and Edit Review Improvements.
Please subscribe!
All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
editThank you for your email. I am not yet sure whether I will be at the Stanford event. It depends on my work schedule. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
edit | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
edit Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)