User talk:Waldyrious/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Signpost

Hi Waldir, thanks for contributing the note about the wordmark update! I'd just like to note that Signpost pages normally shouldn't be changed after publication time (which was around midnight UTC on Monday this week), except for minor tweaks and essential corrections. One of the reasons: At the time of your addition, a substantial part of the overall number of readers that this week's Technology Report will be getting had already passed by, and therefore missed your note. I'll leave it in for now; next time add it to the upcoming issue of the Technology Report (linked in the Newsroom) or to the suggestions page. But again, your contribution is much appreciated.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, HaeB. I am aware of the problem you mention, and even though the event happened during the time span covered by this edition, I should have indeed suggested it for the next edition, since it's not like it would lose impact over time. I'll keep this in mind for the future. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 11:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would have been fine to mention it in the following issue - while of course the Signpost is a news publication, the Tech report is not strictly confined to the week prior to publication ;)

By the way, Jarry has indicated that he won't have time to write the upcoming Tech Report, and TheDJ (who is listed as backup for the section and has written a few of them in the past) is not available either. Would you be able to contribute something? (Theo10011 has agreed to write a story on the 1.17 upgrade attempts, but there is more to cover - see the resources for ideas. )

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to add something :) The Tech Report has always been my favorite part of the Signpost and I always save it for the end :D I'll be glad to contribute. --Waldir ^talk 20:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

One-Above-All

Please, could you possibly be willing to add your input on the One-Above-All deletion discussion? A user, by the name of MBelgrano, is trying to delete the article, and now its image, apparently mainly because he is upset that no one supported his proposal to merge the article with Fictional portrayals of God. I have myself made many points on the article, such as comparing it with other comic portrayal of a Supreme Being, but Belgrano avoids addressing many points I have made, ignores my direct pleas for him to possibly consider or at least compromise, compares the One-Above-All with Batman and the Ultimate version of George W. Bush, and mentions irrelevant issues to the article, such as atheism.

This user seems to have nominated many articles for deletion in the past, and what bothers me the most is that, from his own comments, he plans on removing the article now because he feels personally slighted that other users restored much of the content he removed some time ago, and that some apparently disagreed with his choice to have the article merged. Thus, while the article may indeed contain some original research, he is using that as more of an excuse to attempt to justify this than as an actual reason. He does it more to satisfy himself rather than as an effort to help improve Wikipedia.

The article was made in 2006, and has lasted to this day, with overall hundreds of users having edited it. And now, because of a single user's tag, it is about to be permanently deleted. Not a single other person has chosen to have this article deleted and every day, according to the logs, hundreds still view it. And, what is more, many articles and templates link to it; even other language Wikipedias have this article. Please at least consider offering your own input on this, my friend. Aidoflight (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Motorcycle

FYI, what you just did wouldn't have added a caption to {{Infobox Motorcycle}}. I fixed it for you - take a look at the source. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but can you please clarify why the previous version didn't work? It used {{infobox}}'s caption parameter, and it did show up at Roper steam velocipede. --Waldir ^talk 19:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Daimler Motor Company

Can you give me any more detail as to why you believe this image, Jour d'la Libéthâtion Jèrri 9 d'Mai 2010 06.jpg, should not be on the foot of that article and where it seems to me to be so very exactly appropriate? Eddaido (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Eddaido. As I stated in the edit summary, the image was put in the references section (an unusual location and size for images in Wikipedia articles) without any integration on the text. The article is already long and thoroughly illustrated, so unless there's a compelling reason to put that image on that spot and at that size, such as to illustrate a specific passage, I believe it would be best if it is left accessible through the "more images" link in the commons box. --Waldir ^talk 23:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Waldir, thanks for this. The Daimler business made its name by providing the cars and official cars of, in particular, British royalty. These were their most memorable and notable products. I have had to resort to external links to give an idea of what was involved. For some reason none of these limousines appears in any suitable images in Commons - I carry out regular checks.

• http://www.car-brochures.eu/Adverts/Daimler/Daimler0077.JPG
• http://www.car-brochures.eu/Adverts/Daimler/Daimler0086.JPG
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/albertsbite/4486209633/in/set-72157615183368589/lightbox/

Yesterday I found this image under discussion. The vehicle illustrated is an example of the very last of that long line of Daimler limousines* and on its proper official business, carrying a head of state on a day of national celebration though the vehicle concerned must by now be at least 15 years old. The image is so formal yet so intimate (a very small island) I felt it was exactly fitting for the end to the whole article - why I placed it there. Furthermore, and this was coincidental though apt, many completely mistakenly presume there is a link to the German business making Mercedes-Benz products and I have recently gone to some effort to dispel these casual assumptions which hitherto appeared in the article as fact. So I felt I was freeing Daimler from the German link - a day of liberation :).

So - location, the end, because this picture is of the last of a century of Daimler limousines going about its normal business. Size - to terminate the article (and in any case a very good picture in its own right) reinforcing the point that Daimlers have a particular position in British history. I found it had disappeared when I went to add a caption. That was to have been: A Daimler goes quietly about its proper business.Jersey C.I. Liberation Day 2010. Not in the caption but to explain to you "During World War II, Jersey was occupied by Nazi Germany from 1 July 1940 until 9 May 1945 (when Germany surrendered)". Have a look at the people in the picture too. *Note for these purposes a limousine is defined as a car with a permanent division between the driver and passengers.

What do you think? Eddaido (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you definitely should add all this information to the article (with proper sourcing) and use the image to illustrate that section of the text. That would be a win-win solution! :)

I'm sure that after a bit more of editing, you'll figure out that your rationale, though commendable, for adding the image the way it was, does not really fit Wikipedia's Manual of Style; please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Images carefully. The caption you intended to place on the image was not the appropriate tone either. Make sure to read that link as well. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 04:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please may we take this step by step. How would I recast the caption (A Daimler goes quietly about its proper business.Jersey C.I. Liberation Day 2010) in the right tone? Eddaido (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixing the tone would not solve the main problem, which is the placement of the image. I'll quote the relevant passages from the links above:

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Images:

• You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can.
• Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in. (...) An image that would otherwise overwhelm the available text space on a 800×600 window should be shrunk
• If an article has many images (...) you can use a gallery. Another solution might be to create a page or category combining all of them at Wikimedia Commons and use a relevant template ({{commons}}, {{commonscat}}, {{commons-inline}} or {{commonscat-inline}}) to link to it instead, so that further images are readily found and available when the article is expanded. Please see WP:IG for further information on the use of galleries.

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images:

• Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate
• An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest monitors in common use. [Examples of cases where using large image sizes are appropriate:]
  • Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart), and which may need larger sizes than usual.
  • Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image.
• Use {{Commons}} to link to more images on Commons, wherever possible.

I hope this makes it clear that, per Wikipedia standards, the image can't stand as it was before. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 12:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Waldir, please would you answer my question? thanks, Eddaido (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Just don't personalize the car. As an inanimate object, it doesn't have any business to go about, and even less "quietly". Those are attributes of a person or at most an animated being. Just state what the picture depicts objectively, such as "A Daimler in Jersey C.I. Liberation Day 2010" or something along those lines. Btw, I just need to make sure that you don't interpret this as my endorsement to re-add the picture at the same location but with a different caption. The placement is still the main problem, as I stated above. --Waldir ^talk 10:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand why you feel the car (which is the reason for the picture) is personalised. Historically quiet (read the full article) it is a particularly large car in international terms, six metres long, designed to be an official carriage i.e. its proper business. Are you some how reading in something else? Here's a side view (of another but same model). Eddaido (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe personalized was the wrong term. The thing is, a caption should describe the image objectively, and the fact that the car was quiet simply can not be directly inferred from the image. I also recommend that you avoid value judgments (such as "proper"). See MOS:OPED for the relevant guideline.

Anyway, I already gave you the links to the policies, and quoted the relevant bits, so I trust you to use your common sense to include the image in the article in a way that doesn't go against those guidelines. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 12:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I must protest. This is all very strange, as if you and I use two different languages. It can't be inferred that is why I point it out! I'd like to have enough cheek to copy and paste in here a dictionary definition of value judgment. The correct/proper use is the use it was designed and constructed for. Eddaido (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, writing style is a very subjective matter. I am probably using the wrong terms to describe the issues I see with your proposed text (English is not my first language) but what I'm trying to tell you is that I don' think it fits well with the style commonly used on Wikipedia. Feel free to edit the article as you see fit; as I said, I trust your judgment to at least not violate the projects' guidelines. Other editors will probably fix any issues they find on the article. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 00:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying all your "comment" has been meaningless? Eddaido (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. Why would you even consider that? I only said you should try to interpret the spirit, rather than the letter of what I said, and use your own common sense to make editing decisions. I can't tell you step by step what you ought to do. --Waldir ^talk 11:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would I even consider that? Well, all I knew of you as an individual was your attitude to me so then I scanned what you tell us about yourself. I reconsidered all you have written to me and then I asked you the question. Eddaido (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello, Waldir. I am sorry to disturb you, but I would have your aid and advice in this. The article One-Above-All has now been deleted. While I do agree that there have been strong arguments made for its deletion, nevertheless, the administrator who chose to delete it very suddenly did so, with the discussion itself not even finished and consensus not yet reached. Surely the decision of a single sysop cannot in itself decide the fate of an entire article, especially one that has existed for five years? He did not even participate in the discussion at all until choosing to delete it without consulting with anyone else, even though you and another administrator, Nightscream, on the discussion did not support its deletion.

I think the discussion should be allowed to continue, with the article restored until the final consensus. There are countless administrators on Wikipedia, and, yet, despite their tools, they should not deem themselves "superior" to normal users, at least not on controversial issues such as these. In fact, this was the last comment made on the discussion, in response to my own argument: "Many people feel that "we could probably justify deleting most of the comic articles" on Wikipedia. The only reason they are not deleted is a vocal fan base that votes heavily in AfDs." Thus, I truly think that it was not reasonable to have thus deleted the article. Please, is it possible for you to restore it, at least for now? Aidoflight (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't overrule another administrator's actions without a strong motive. There is a undeletion process, it's best if you use it. Personally, I don't like to be engaged in deletion-related discussions (it often undermines my faith in this project), so I won't participate further on this issue (I might give my vote if you create an undeletion request though). Cheers, and good luck. --Waldir ^talk 09:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Daimler

Hi Waldir, Would you be able to use your skill with images to line up those on the right of this article (Daimler)? Thanks Eddaido (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. See what I did in the first set of images in the article and let me know if that's what you mean. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 13:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, you did perfect. Eddaido (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! I completed the job by adjusting the second set of right-aligned images in the article. It was a bit trial and error, so make sure to experiment it yourself in the future using the preview function, so you can learn these tricks too :) Cheers, Waldir ^talk 23:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories

There seems to be some confusion here.

• Category:Templates for speedy deletion is for templates which are going to be deleted whereas
• Category:Speedy deletion templates is for templates used to mark pates for speedy deletion.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 12:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

You're right, and it was written there! for some reason I overlooked it :/ Thanks for clarifying this. I've now reverted the related edits I performed on that sequence. --Waldir ^talk 15:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Protégé.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Protégé.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Protege Tribunal.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Protege Tribunal.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

LastLeapYear

Suppose it is 2100, and {{LastLeapYear}} is not broken. Then what is the output of {{LastLeapYear|2100}}, {{LastLeapYear|2096}}, and {{LastLeapYear|2092}}? The output will be 2096, 2096, 2092. Hence, it will list 2096 twice. So, your update has not improved the template. I don't see what is wrong with just checking the last 11 years. It works, and the checks are just a small amount of math. Also, your update has introduced a redlink, which is not helpful for navigation. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That's weird, yesterday I didn't notice the red link! Anyway, I reverted for now, since the problems with the template are more than I initially thought. It would still work for almost a century, and as I said in the edit summary, we'd probably have it fixed by then, but I'm a bit uneasy with this only working for the [2000,2100[ range. I will try to figure out what's wrong with it. Any help is appreciated :) --Waldir ^talk 16:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice about {{ThisDateInRecentYears}}. I've been contemplating a solution to the problems mentioned on the talk page. I've put together what seems to me to be a half decent solution. If you've got time, have a look at the talk page & see what you think. JIMp _talk·cont 04:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Invite

Since you participated in this talkpage discussion, please also express your opinion on the Templates for discussion page, where this merge will be decided upon. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

File:ALTISSIA Logo.jpg

Hello, Waldir. I believe the previous versions of this file need to be deleted for WP:NFCC compliance. Fleet Command (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done :) --Waldir ^talk 13:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

pentagram map woes

Hi Waldir, Thanks for the pep talk. My experience hasn't been entirely bad . 7&6=thirteen has been quite helpful, and one of the editors who "bit" me has apologized. In the end, I think I brought the pentagram map wiki to a very satisfactory state, and now students and other mathematicians working on this topic can find a handy reference to the material and easily add to it. Now that I know how to edit better, I probably won't raise so many red flags. RichardEvanSchwartz (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm so glad you managed to go through this ordeal without getting irreparably burned as so many do. I'm sure you'll be a fine editor! In general, if you act in good faith, your mistakes shouldn't raise red flags, but prompt assistance and guidance instead. (By the way, allow me to suggest taking care to add comments always in the bottom of talk pages, as it's customary in Wikipedia, rather than the top, as most people seem to find intuitive.)

I also saw you've been suggested to make a did you know snippet for the article, to be placed on the main page. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the process, but the hardest part (the expansion) is done, so you just need to select an interesting snippet of information from it that will serve as a hook to make people click on it on the main page, to read the whole article. Many editors take pride in their DYKs, and I think it would be a very positive experience for you. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 11:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Waldir, Thanks for the tip about the comments. I don't think it is necessary to make a (did you know) snipped for this article. It concerns a small and specialized subtopic of mathematics, and necessarily has a narrow appeal. My main purpose was to post accurate and up-to-date information that would be nicely packaged for students and researchers interested in this area. Maybe there would be 20 such people in a decade. Anyway, thanks much for the encouragement. In spite of my frustrations with some editors, I did have a positive experience overall. I really think wikipedia is a great thing, and use it all the time as a learning tool. It's nice to contribute to it. RichardEvanSchwartz (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm happy to hear you'll stick around. Have fun editing, and again, let me know if you need anything. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 13:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(ps - for threading comments, use increasing amounts of colons. View the source code of this section to see what I mean.)

Proposed deletion of NewSQL

The article NewSQL has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NEOLOGISM that appears to have just been coined and is being used for marketing by a small group of companies. As yet no significant coverage in google although this may change in the future - The article should be recreated when and if the coverage emerges rather than just list the companies using it in marketing and an academic that is involved in one of the companies.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Waldyrious. You have new messages at Jsfouche's talk page.
Message added 19:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

jsfouche ☽☾Talk 19:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Escudo sign

I responded on my page because it's a follow-up to jsfouche --Tanketz (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of NewSQL for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NewSQL is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewSQL until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. noq (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Red Link Recovery

Hello. As a Portugese-speaking WikiGnome, I'd like to solicit your help in testing a new tool. For a few years now, the Red Link Recovery Project has been using the Red Link Recovery Live tool to track down and fix unnecessarily red links in articles. Recently, the tool has been expanded to work on non-English Wikipedias. A small set of suggested fixes for red-links on the Portugese-language Wikipedia have been prepared and I'm hoping to interest some Portugese-language speakers (such as yourself) to work through them.

If you are interested, please visit http://toolserver.org/~tb/RLRL/quick.php?lang=pt. Each time you refresh the page you'll be presented with three new suggested fixes. I'll be happy to answer any questions on the tools talk page. - TB (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Topbanana! That's a very interesting tool. I think it's not intuitive enough though, and maybe I can offer some suggestions / ask some questions that would lead to a clearer interface for its users:

• The "Instructions here" link shouldn't point to the index page, where we have to search for the location of the info. It'd be best to have a section dedicated to the autofix feature, with a title indicating that, and have the instructions link point to it
• It was a nice touch to add tooltips to the AUTOFIX links; I think you should do the same to the CHECKPAGE ones
• I got a strange suggestion in the "Suggested alternate target" column: pt:Lista_de_conferências_da_Segunda_Guerra_Mundial → pt:Arglebargle:Lista_de_conferências_da_Segunda_Guerra_Mundial. The latter doesn't exist, but since it is a custom namespace in pt.wikipedia, it's understandable that the tool didn't recognize it (I don't know where the "Arglebargle" came from though...). Maybe a good way to deal with these links (since other wikipedias may have their own custom namespaces) could be using the ns: Mediawiki construct, as in {{subst:ns:5}} → Wikipedia talk (in this case, the namespace number is 101, I believe; I think from the toolserver you'll have access to that data)
• Since the AUTOFIX links in different columns act in distinct ways, maybe you should use a more descriptive link. For example, "create redirect" for the second column.
• The column title "Link(s) to" doesn't need the "s" in parenthesis, since it is a verb ("it links"), not a noun. Also, since each row of the table only contains one page, perhaps you could drop the "(s)" from "Page(s)".
• There's something confusing regarding the behavior of the 1st and 3rd columns ("Page(s)" and "Suggested alternate target", respectively): When the suggested fix is a redirect, the first column's AUTOFIX suggests to change the links to the redirect, and the third column's AUTOFIX suggests changing the links to the final target. I don't think there's a need to the first option, redirects should be automatically bypassed. That would reduce the number of "autofix" links on each row and reduce (imo) confusion.
• There are quite a few scripts that perform the edits in a more automated way. Omegatron's regex scripts apply the changes and go straight to the diff view, and many scripts (especially in Commons) perform even more automated edits, such as HotCat and Cat-a-lot. You should take a look to these. The less clicks the tool requires per fix, the more people will adhere to it :)
• Perhaps you could include a link for the script installation, using the preload parameter and the importScriptURI function that I believe is enabled in every Wikimedia wiki (see pt:User:Waldir/vector.js).

All in all, this seems to be a great tool, congrats! I'll add it to my maintenance tool belt :P Cheers, Waldir ^talk 11:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Lots of feedback there - much appreciated. Answers for the quick ones immediately:

* The "Instructions here" link, edits in a more automated way and importScriptURI function: The current autofix JavaScript is very clunky, agreed. It'll be the focus of future work as my limited browser-scripting skills permit. importScriptURI looks like an immediate winner though, once I've got around to localization.

* add tooltips: Of course, can never have enough pedagogy. Again, further work in this area's on hold until I've got a grasp on the extent of necessary localization required.

* arglebargle was a testing string that somehow sneaked into the live code - all fixed now. Link(s) to fixed also - English is an odd language.

* AUTOFIX ... more descriptive link: I'm awaiting a see of cutesey icons for the various autofix operations that will hopefully be better still.

* behavior of the 1st and 3rd columns: Whats extant is the result of a compromise; in essence the semantics of changing a red link to a textually similar blue link are simple, whereas a more complex relationship can be expressed by a redirect. While changing the redlink to a redirect's target is often the 'best' fix, it's often not the 'easiest'.

I'll be copying all of your above post to my todo list. - TB (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Great. I'll keep providing feedback as I use it. Here's another one btw: make the links open in a new tab (target="_blank", I think), so the list will still be available for fixing other pages after we fix one of them. In this line, the css could be adjusted to make visited links change colors. This way we'd see clearly which ones we've clicked already.

By the way, I just noticed that after all it is possible for more than one page to appear in the first column; in that case, "Page(s)" would be appropriate indeed. I'm sorry to have induced you in error. As for the "Links to" column, to make it work for both one and multiple pages in the left, maybe you could rename it to "Red link found" or something like that. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 16:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your kind words and encouragement. It is appreciated. - KitchM (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

CNGS

Hi Waldir, Just for info I've over written your re-direct to OPERA for the CNGS article, I was creating a stub at the time and am now writing the base text for the article. Will hopefully have a more complete version out in the next hour or so. Regards ^Khukri 10:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I did look for potential other meanings of the acronym in order to create a disambiguation page, but didn't find any prominent uses, so I made the redirect. I'm glad you're taking the time to write the article :) Btw, I'd suggest you to move the article to the spelled-out title, keeping the acronym page as a redirect. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 11:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

OK good call, I'll do the move re-direct once I'm finished. Cheers ^Khukri 11:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

All done, and tidied up all redirects. Cheers ^Khukri 12:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, good work :) --Waldir ^talk 16:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, rarely, once in a blue moon I'll stick my head above the parapet and write an article, this was too good an opportunity to miss, even if it is pretty short. Cheers ^Khukri 20:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A {{Histmerge}} request

Spotted on the talk page for this template that you've addressed some issues, and I was wondering if you could help me out? The current user notification instructions in the template aren't quite accurate, and, naturally, accuracy is key for guiding new users. Currently, the instructions suggest you use the new title as {{{1}}} in {{Uw-c&pmove}}. As such, it then substs as saying (using one I just tagged as an example):

"It appears that you recently tried to give Catholic points-based admission school a different title"

When in fact they tried to give the OTHER article (in this case Catholic points-based admission schools, the plural) a different title. Instead, {{{1}}} for {{Uw-c&pmove}} should cover the old title (specified as {{{1}}} in {{Histmerge}}) and the "to" parameter should cover the new one ({{FULLPAGENAME}} I think?). I have no idea if this also applies for {{sd-copypaste}}'s instructions, as I can't quite work out how to use that one at the moment...

I'm not entirely sure as to how to tidy it up, and would appreciate your help if at all possible. I also hope my explanation's clear enough -- getting a bit(!) confusing with two {{{1}}}s in discussion... I'll try and clarify if you need. Thanks! Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 13:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That was a good catch. The whole setup was a bit convoluted indeed, but you were spot on in how the fix had to be made. It's hopefully all fixed now. Next time, though, I'd suggest you to add the request to the template's talk page, as it will centralize discussion about it, for future reference. You could drop a note to an editor's talk page pointing to the discussion thread if you'd like to request their specific attention.

Let me know if you happen to need anything else in the future regarding templates (or general editing for that matter). Cheers, Waldir ^talk 13:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Good to know, and thanks very much with dealing with it. And that's a good point re: posting on its talk page; that probably would've been better... I'll keep it in mind. I saw how inactive the talk page was (and know how inactive the Template talk namespace as a whole can often be), and thought I'd approach whomever had most recently fixed some issues... hadn't thought of approaching it like that instead, but shall from now on. :) Again, thanks for your help, much appreciated. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 15:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

EtherPad CamelCase

Hi,

How's life?

Are you sure that EtherPad is supposed to be in CamelCase? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey there :) All is fine around here. Congrats btw on becoming part of the localization team! I loved your latest post about the language selection dialogs in various word processors.

As for the subject in question: It seems most current uses don't capitalize the term, but that's what the way the creators styled it (example 1, example 2). I'm not sure how we should deal with the issue if it is found that most uses today lack the CamelCase styling. What do you think? --Waldir ^talk 21:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It can just say that it was CamelCase in the past, but not any more. For the title i'd go for "Etherpad". --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, feel free to DIY :) --Waldir ^talk 15:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Parabéns!

And good luck on your future endeavors. --Tanketz (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Was it you who commented on A Semana online saying you knew me from Wikipedia? :) --Waldir ^talk 15:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, wonder who that was. Sounds like you're working on some interesting things. --Tanketz (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Waldir, please look at the Discussion page for Tau_(2π) when you have time

I just posted an idea there for something you had talked about. Thanks, Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

About floating your left side navigation panel

It is extremely important that you do not use any of my css or javascripts without knowing which goes with which others. Some of the changes made by some of the scripting can cripple your use of the site if not used with another script or css file. Hopefully you haven't already discovered this for yourself or you may be able to read this but not react to it. If you are still able to navigate etc., go to Mediawiki_talk:Common.css and see the simple solution to fix the position of your left navigation panel when scrolling. fredgandt 01:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about not replying earlier. I didn't notice the part you removed, I apologise for that. As for the skin issue, I actually didn't see any effect whatsoever. When I have some free time I'll take a look at this and attempt to create a standalone, css-only solution that allows to keep the tools fixed, and that can be easily tried by others by importing a single css page. I'll make sure to let you know :)

Cheers, Waldir ^talk 12:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is all you need in Vector to fix the position of the left side tools.

#mw-panel
{
	position:fixed !important;
	max-height:500px;
	overflow:auto;
}

Just add those lines to your common.css fredgandt 12:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I want to keep the top tools (tabs, user links) also fixed. The current implementation I'm using in the modern skin does the job, but section links don't work well, because the relevant section jumps to the top of the page and gets obscured by the fixed tools. I haven't thought of a solution to that yet... --Waldir ^talk 21:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well my full changes inclusive js and css fix all tools and navigation and add some extras. The only thing being that they are all still in development and have quirks that some might find intolerable. Personally I wouldn't go back if I was paid to. Navigation is dreamy for me. Also I have a lot more article space since the top and side bars are expanding/collapsing. I'll get back to you with a simple plug and play package. fredgandt 21:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That'd be awesome, thanks! --Waldir ^talk 18:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Openness

Template:Openness has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)