User talk:Cpiral/Archive 4

Anchor/doc[edit]

I haven't been active here much lately, but noticed near the top of my watchlist that you edited Template:Anchor/doc to say that an anchor should go above the section header. Has there been some discussion on that somewhere recently? There is nothing at Template talk:Anchor where discussion has concluded that there is no good place to put an anchor, and certainly putting it above its header will cause problems. You might like to mention at the template talk if there is a specific reason for that change. Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted that for now, thank you. The problems with it going above might become debatable for me. We'll see. — Cpiral Cpiral 17:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of recent edits on WSD page[edit]

Thanks for noting the watchers and my lack of explanation =), see here. Alvations (talk)

Template talk:Val/unitswithlink/test[edit]

Hi! Am I assuming correctly that you're trying to add documentation for other wikipedians to use when editing this template? In that case, it would be better to add a separate "doc" template, rather than put this information on the talk page. The later is used mainly for discussion, so I don't expect many people to go looking for documentation there, while the former would show up when people open the template page.

What would be even better is if you could consider adding information about editing units to the {{val/doc}} page. That page is authored by the same people that created and edited the template, such as myself, so it probably assumes too much knowledge of the internal workings and probably doesn't help a novice user figure out how to add to it. I understand that you are new to this template, which would put you in an ideal position to tell us where the documentation is lacking and/or add more information to it. Cheers! 83.86.171.158 (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I'm going to need the documentation I wrote on Template talk:Val/unitswithlink/test reviewed. As it stands, I don't like publishing operations documents until I understand them, or if necessary, until my educated guesses are approved.

But I think that such documentation is critically needing some approval because it works to help implement WP:MoS judgements I'm helping to write concerning units. That mouse-hover trick is great because it shows the page name for the unit, sufficing somewhat where the judgment for "glossing" the unit (with a parenthetical phrase) is not met. If anyone can add a unit, we've just provided a simple and easy mechanism for consistency (in both rendered text and wikitext) for the articles that use units. — Cpiral Cpiral 09:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity, let it be known that on this val template project I got involved with, no one helped me with documentation, or Skyline with the coding question he proposed. Eventually, I wrote the documentation alone (learning by working the actual data in "units" and "units with link") and I entirely transformed "test" with a heretofore unseen self-documenting user-presentation style.

Similarly I implemented in my own template code a method hinted at by Skyline, with no help at all from Skyline or any other. Finally today, after waiting weeks for yet another review--this time of my template code, it's testing and implementation--yet again, receiving no hand-holding, I just swapped the code in from the sandbox to production, having had to make my own decision concerning some unexpected test-case results. — Cpiral Cpiral 00:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing existing values from {{val}}[edit]

I see you removed quite a few units:

[1]
[2]

Did you check that these were no longer in use? — SkyLined (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you. I removed the ten from test, documented on the talk page. The rest? I'm certain they were just sorted. I should have a look at those ten, maybe add them. I think it's not a problem to have ten or even a hundred unused units on val subpages. About removing: I'm certain they're there because I used comm and sort (Unix) (a twenty-year comm and sort and uniq veteran, whoo-whoo!) — Cpiral Cpiral 23:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I made myself clear because I can't make sense of your reply. I am worried that some of the units you removed from {{val}} where actively being used on Wikipedia pages. When you remove units that are in use, the pages using them will likely no longer get the results the authors were expecting. What I would like to know is what you did to make sure that the units that you removed where not in use on any Wikipedia pages, if anything. If you did not check this, I will revert the changes until we can be sure they do not cause any issues. — SkyLined (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to clarify by repeating and expanding-around a version of what I said above. I did not remove units from Val/units or Val/unitswithlink. The diffs you point to for those pages are not helpful to me for the case you bring here, because those diffs show a sorting difference, not deletion. I have checked for differences in the appropriate versions by using sort and comm, and I am confident and secure with the overall results, which I am reporting to you. Now taking a look at the older versions, Val/units edit history and Val/unitswithlink edit history I see no specific cause for concern based on byte count. Do you? There is nothing deleted that I did not add myself.

You are correct that I removed units from Val/unitswithlink/test. (See them at the talk page for test.) The documentation Template:Val/doc#How_to_add_units and MOS:DATE say that test does not influence other pages. Do you think it does? Now, I have looked at the removed units and wondered, did the lack of documentation or incorrect documentation cause them to be added to test only, when they meant to be added to unitswithlink or units as well? Possibly. And as I said, it probably would not hurt units or unitswithlink to have them. The reason I removed them was because they did not have them. And so I am in no hurry to add them. — Cpiral Cpiral 15:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I understand. I didn't look carefully enough at the change. I am sorry for the confusion and thank you for clarifying! — SkyLined (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism[edit]

Hi, Cpiral. Just a quick note to let you know I've removed the nonstandard vandalism notice you placed at User_talk:76.15.208.233 and restored that IP's single edit, which was to remove the blue-linked name from the list of speaker's at Andy Warhol's funeral. Since the name in question belonged to someone who had been dead for around 300 years when Warhol died, it's a little hard to blame the IP for removing it. In any event, it wasn't vandalism. Not a big deal—just fyi. Rivertorch (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found the standard, {{Uw-vandalism}} notices, Rivertorch. Now as for your other point: that information was deleted from a community article by an editor who did not provide an edit summary for the watching community, and my sympathy easily went to the article, not the editor. It was an easy "mechanistic" routine maintenance to roll back two edits at once and post two vandal messages, all of which contained one small mistake. Thanks for the corrections, Rivertorch. — Cpiral Cpiral 22:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I share your frustration with missing edit summaries. It's sooo easy to type in a few words to explain what one is doing, and I've never understood why many contributors don't take a few extra seconds to do it. Rivertorch (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Preferences->Editing->"Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" defaults to "No"? — Cpiral Cpiral 21:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LENGTH[edit]

A few months ago, you made significant changes to the intro of this guideline. I don't see any discussion on the guideline talk page in advance of those changes. Can you explain what was your rationale for the changes? In particular, I find the new last paragraph almost impossible to read/understand (sorry).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You echo a common sentiment about my readability, but you show an uncommon respect by not reverting hastily or denouncing disparagingly. Thank you for taking the time to inquire here. I will start a new WT:Article size.

If my writing were lucid, "anyone" could understand it and "everyone" would say I was a good writer; in this case only the few familiar with the article would understand what I wrote. Perhaps it is in the last stages of becoming a good WP:LEAD. — Cpiral Cpiral 01:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted you to know that I did read your response but haven't been able to discuss the issue further with you. I will do that as soon as I am less busy and less tired. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss on the talk page now that I have explained the changes there — Cpiral Cpiral 07:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result of your compaint at WP:AN3 about editing of Neil Postman[edit]

Please see WP:AN3#User:ERIDU-DREAMING reported by User:Cpiral (Result: 48h, warning) which contains a warning for you. I take note that you continued to revert the article while your 3RR complaint was open, which is a no-no. Although the other party was a bigger warrior than you, I have to observe that your content arguments about the article are very hard to follow. "Altering the propositional logic as it was originally formulated" makes little sense. If you need to appeal the content dispute somewhere else, I hope you will find a way to explain yourself more clearly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have written "from my POV of Propositional_logic#Basic_concepts, the nature of the original article was unacceptably altered in the edited statements". Thank you for all of your opinions, Mr. Johnston.

If I want to say in some future, despite my receiving a warning penalty now, thanks "on our behalf" ERIDU-DREAMING, as yet I dare not. But I can say "May overtones of scholarship and eloquence ring on, forever with undertones, proven and forged in the halls of arbitration, that collaboration is humbling." — Cpiral Cpiral 00:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of your thanking me so much, I have to remind you about WP:COMPETENCE#Language difficulty. It's hard to know if you are trying to be poetic. I'm afraid that poetry doesn't communicate well on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is true. I thanked you three times. But please, the second thank occurs from me in some future where Eridu must have stayed being an editor—My God, he threatened ("If I am banned...the loss is to Wikipedia") to leave Wikipedia!— and where he learned to humble himself enough to use an edit summary box, and to create himself a sustainable civil discourse by judicious use of Save page. And the third thank was honoring your criticism of my English, a separate issue, a separate thank.

I trust you are sincerely hopeful, but that my writing has been an unnecessary language-difficulty issue you; I trust that you kindly go beyond the call of duty and endevour to hopefully (and multiply-)engage yourself in, by the side-effectual categorization of me as an un-useful commentator, per the WP:competence link. Proof I'm not incorrigible might be had at User:Cpiral/R3R#Simplified scenario:one bold edit. I have faith in 3RR as a positive tool, as that R3R rhetoric demonstrates. Furthermore, I intend to use the arbitration process to help me to avoid edit wars. — Cpiral Cpiral 05:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia searching, help searching[edit]

I saw your comments on Alan Liefting's talk page. As I mentioned there, I have done quite a bit of work on WP:SET, but only a little on Help:Searching. (Like you, I'm enthusiastic about search-related topics: I believe that a knowledge of research skills is not just useful for Wikipedia editing, but it's also an important job skill in today's world). A quick comparison of the version of 12 Nov. (when I edited it last) and the current version suggests that your edits have in general improved the clarity of the writing. However, I did notice the following: <snip: moved to the article talk page.>

WP Computing in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Computing for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hiya, I just asked a question over on WP:RED about personal names. As an editor of this guideline if you could help me find an answer I would much appreciate it. Thanks. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vanadium[edit]

Hi, you added some lines about high vanadium steel for knife making to the vanadium article without giving any source. Is there a credible source you can add to the article? Thanks! --Stone (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure yet about the method I used there, but it was to add the link to the article List of blade materials and to have the sources there. Probably should be completed by putting the same source in both articles. I also think the existence of vanadium alloy in knives is common knowledge and doesn't need a source. — Cpiral Cpiral 23:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that knives is not a major use of vanadium and the List of blade materials might not be necessary in the vanadium article at all. I will change the section into a better form getting a few refs like [3] and [4]. The powder metallurgy alloys with high vanadium content are worth mentioning with the addition that they are also used in knives. --Stone (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but let's use the talk page there. Yeah, it shouldn't be in the Other uses section, but I think "knives" could be put in the Vanadium#Alloys section, near bicycles, axles, gears, tools..., or even in the intro, so that the common "kitchener" can learn to appreciate vanadium's valuable properties. — Cpiral Cpiral 05:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphysics follow up[edit]

Cpiral, just letting you know I just posted this re: the "metaphysical (CS-NT) family" terminology you were concerned about here and here.

Not to say you need to comment or be involved if not interested, but just pinging you as your comments initiated these developments; and my post gets at some of the higher-level taxonomic/terminology issues you raised.

(Also as a very minor side note, it looks like you accidentally deleted a set of comments I made on in late April/early May (I think 5 May?) on that thread. Since it's archived I can't restore them (that I know of), and they weren't earthshatteringly important - I just want a record that I did respond to a few of your points in the thread.)Ath271 (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out. I am still interested. Yes, Ath271, let's regroup on those discussions. (Life's gotten very busy for me lately.) (Sure, you should restore your comments.) — Cpiral Cpiral 05:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Interested to hear your thoughts. (And thanks, I'll look into whether any of the comments are worth restoring.)Ath271 (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asperger's Syndrome[edit]

[5]

Do you really think that Asperger's is in some way a reason that someone shouldn't be editing? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that sentence as a personal attack, you're not a newbie so I'm not going to template you. Having said that, you should know better. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this taunt is heading the right way for a block. Cut it out, be civil, don't attack or taunt other editors. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please know.

I advocated with Andy, that he should be editing, and not be blocked. I'm tolerant.
@Andy, I think Aspergers is a fine condition to have if you like nothing more but master your work. People whose opinion I respect have suggested that I have a shadow of that syndrome.
I don't attack or taunt, even when I feel it is warranted. I would make a good admin.

@Callanecc, the WikiLove beer could have been interpreted as love, companionship, encouragement and solice as it was meant there, and similar WikiLove message was taken dearly by him in his recent talk page archives.

I am the one who got Alan to come back to Wikipedia out of retirement.

I am sorry that I have caused confusion. I meant to say that Alan should not have had HotCat because it tempts him to edit categories. If I am an admin on Alan's being blocked or not, or if I am an admin on his appeal, I would urge that he simply uninstall Hotcat, and leave it at that. WikiMedia does not have a feature to block a tool from a users. — Cpiral Cpiral 03:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thanks for the explanation. Regarding HotCat, not using it would only have prevented one of those three edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, but as was suggested, that was the most problematic edit. The other two edits were not harmful to categorization (the problem to be solved) but only harmful to the morale of the authorities like yourself. Thanks for all your efforts, and please keep up the good work. — Cpiral Cpiral 19:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'#Consensus check[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'#Consensus check. Thanks. - Mr X 22:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Science[edit]

{{Ivm|2=This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. }} Sarah ^(talk) 18:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]