User talk:Noisy
|
|
Welcome to WP, hitherto "quiet" one!! My page has a link to the page that tells you how to get your anonymous edits attributed to you.
When you tell us a bit more about yourself, there may be lots of us happy to show you where to exercise your particular interests and skills. But a daily skim through "Recent changes" is likely to show up something of interest. Best wishes! Robin Patterson 00:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Tables
How to use tables
| Mission Insignia | |
|---|---|
|
Missing image Expedition_10_insignia.png Expedition 10 insignia |
Re: your contribution to Wikipedia:How to use tables#Possible problems - I can't quite picture what you're describing. The only time I've seen text go too close to a table border, it was due to the use of pre or some other non-breaking text block. Think you could post a screenshot of what you have in mind?
At any rate, I wouldn't give too much attention to that page anymore, since it's much easier (IMHO) to use the wiki markup for HTML tables. Though, those tips may still apply. -- Wapcaplet 15:02, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- You can use Upload file link to post an image. Usually PNG or Jpeg is the best format for actual use, so convert it if you know how, but for this temporary purpose it's fine to leave it as bitmap. Check out Wikipedia:Uploading images for more details. Or you can just email it to me so I can check it out (see my user page for my address). -- Wapcaplet 19:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Table image centering
Your use of a table within a table does work, but I have also found that using a "center within a center" also works (at least in mozilla-based browsers). Use a "center" tag in the image link and align=center in the cell properties. The code below produces the box shown at upper right.
{| border=1 cellpadding=2 width=350 cellspacing=0 align=right style=margin-left:0.5em;
|+<font size=+1>''' ISS Expedition 10 '''</font>
|-
!colspan=2 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 bgcolor=#FFDEAD|Mission Insignia
|-
|colspan=2 align=center|
[[Image:Expedition_10_insignia.png|thumb|200px|center|Expedition 10 insignia]]
|-
|}
—Mike 04:06, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
That's weird: I see your version as left-justified under Netscape 7.1 (Mozilla 5.0), but it works ok under MIE 6.0 (NCSA Mosaic), which is contrary to what you said. What version of Mozilla do you have? Noisy | Talk 11:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
HoR table
Ya know, you tamper with my baby, you don't expect me to get mad?!@# ... bah, who am I kidding, the change is good. Perhaps a little heavy on the horizontal, but 16 districts seems to be the max that my 1600x1200 setup can handle - let alone most people's smaller resolution. So widening them to make them readable and not scrunch up certain congresses seems to be a Very Good Idea. Just wish I had thought of it myself. :) Thanks! I'll pop that in to the others. PS: I think the reason I didn't do that before was because I never (well, anymore) set specific widths on tables, simply for that reason, because everyone's resolution is different, but in these cases, exceptions could be made. Maybe every table above 10 districts? I'll look with my work computer (1024x768) and see which get bunched up. Thanks for the idea. :) --Golbez 14:22, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Bingo
You, sir, are a legend. Muchos kudos on the table help! I dub thee master of the tables. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:03, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that I actually did something useful with your help on tables. See Strathfield#Religion. Cheers! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:14, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK, try this code for getting rid of those dratted spaces between the lines (see User:Ta bu shi da yu/Sandbox):
| ||||||
|
9 lines
9 lines is really smooth. Thanks -- I really appreciate it. Where would a good place on the tables tutorial to post this? Lots of other articles looking at verbal tenses would benefit from tables like this.Zantastik 04:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tables
Hi, I noticed your note about table syntax on your user page. You mentioned that style coding could not be found in the HTML spec. This is because it is not in the HTML syntax! Not meaning to be facetious, but there it is... In fact, styles are defined under the CSS spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/). CSS works alongside but separately from HTML to create a webpage. Smoddy (t) (e) (c) (http://zwinger.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits.cgi?user=Smoddy&dbname=enwiki) 20:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Templates
Space Navigation Bars
Noisy, the idea behind templates and navigation bars was to standardize articles on manned space missions and try to make them uniform. All of the other missions from Vostok 1 and Mercury 3 through STS-107 and Soyuz TMA-4 are laid out according to the WikiProject_Space_Missions project recommendations. On all of them the Navigation Bar is at the bottom, the Template is on the upper right, and the Crew and Mission Parameters are on the upper left. Rusty 14:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Infobox Biography
What exactly is wrong with it - its style is set by id="toc", i.e. it uses the same skinning as image boxes and table of contents boxes. If you have a problem with the infobox you have have a problem with your monobook.css :). ed g2s • talk 18:10, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Noisy, would you please "vote" on the Charles Darwin talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Darwin#Vote:_Infobox_vs._Plain_image_and_text)? Netoholic is giving me a hard time because I made the mistake of calling it a vote when I was really tracking opinions. (If I misrepresented you as opposed to the infobox, I apologize BTW.) Cheers, Vincent 02:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Biography
What, exactly, do you dislike about the template? It's not perfect, I admit, but then I didn't create it, just had a pain to make it usable. The formatting is Wikipedia house style ("id=toc"), so if that's what you dislike, I'm most certainly the wrong person to talk to: see Mediawiki talk:Monobook.css for that.
James F. (talk) 18:10, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You keep removing the infobox from Winston Chruchill, last time with the comment (removed infobox until it has been fixed). What exactly is broken with the infobox? The current version works fine - is stable, and has even been protected. ed g2s • talk 00:06, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear this situation has caused you much stress, but you have still failed to explain what exactly is broken in the infobox, despite numerous queries. If you can't explain what isn't working - I can't see the point of you reverts. ed g2s • talk 00:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
templates standartization
Hello Noisy. I am very proud that you and some other wikipedians liked my featured article star. Of course I may provide you with support for that image. What do you mean by re-uploading a smaller version. You may, or may not (i bet you are) be aware that all images are fully scalable by wiki code.
Missing image
Featured_article_candidate_.png
Featured article candidate star
Missing image
Featured_article_candidate_.png
Featured article candidate star
Missing image
Featured_article_candidate_.png
Featured article candidate star
Missing image
Featured_article_candidate_.png
Featured article candidate star
Missing image
Featured_article_candidate_.png
Featured article candidate star
So what exactly do you ask of me? Thanks. --Alexandre Van de Sande 15:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dealing with vandalism
Revert
Not a problem :) Do you know how to report those bastards to RC Patrol or similar? It's the first time I see someone THAT pointlessly aggressive.--Ëzhiki 19:03, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks
For reverting the vandalism. What a weird thing. So someone vandalized my page (not in sonnet form) as user:G14. Now, the only contributions from that user were the vandalisms. The vandalism was all about Wikipedia policy. I.e. this is a regular user who logged out, created a new account (!) and then did the vandalism. Well, so much for the quality of our colleagues. Thanks for the reversion. Geogre 01:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Admins
My nomination for adminship
Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 00:07, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
Admin nomination
G'day mate, thanks for supporting my nomination for admin! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thank you!
Just a quick "thank you" for voting me for admin. Now all I've got to do is find out how to use these worrying new powers... Grutness|hello? Missing image
Grutness.jpg
05:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My adminship: thanks!
Hi Noisy. Thanks very much for your vote for my RfA. I promise to be prudent, wise, sagacious and totally unilateral in all my admin affairs. I should say that I am very pleased at the number of people who supported me – it's very nice to know I'm making a positive impact. Cheers again, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Industrial Revolution
Faulty sources
Thanks for your comment. I think you are referring to my remark on the Samuel Smiles page about not accepting his work as the final word. Too many writers on the history of technology have uncritically adopted his line. Its much worse now several of his writings are on the Web and can be cut and pasted into documents.
The problem with Smiles is that he left out a number of worthy engineers, and in consequence later writers have not bothered to investigate them. We have got to the stage where Isambard Kingdom Brunel's laundry lists are thought worthy of investigation but Sir Samuel Bentham, arguably the father of mass production still awaits a proper biography. There is a mass of material on his brother Jeremy, and an extraordiary amount on the Panopticon, which seems to interest social and penal historians.
Have a look at the website of Making of the Modern World at the National Musuem of Science and Industry, London (Science Musuem) which has quite a lot of useful stuff, including animations [1] (http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/stories/enlightenment_and_measurement/05.ST.02/?scene=3&tv=true)
I don't know where you are based, but in the UK the history of technology is not an academic subject, its the domain of independent workers. Apwoolrich 18:06, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
British Industrial Revolution Template
Sorry, I just don't buy it. There was far more going on; far more people, places, things ... one box will never cover it. Categorisation works much better for me. I cannot support you one this one - the box is too big asn has too much missing. (btw, there is now a structure on talk:public limited company --Tagishsimon
- Hi, you might care to add Portsmouth Block Mills to your table Apwoolrich 07:05, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Done - thanks for the pointer. Cheers, Noisy | Talk 09:01, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Mumbles and Swansea Railway
Thanks Noisy. Nice edit and good luck with your project.
--Emdec 20:14, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Puddling / pudding
The Google poll says:
- "puddling furnace" 2080
- "pudding furnace" 462, the first few of which are Wiki clones
The OED says, under puddling, vbl. n.
- 3. a. The process of decarbonizing cast iron by stirring and turning it over continuously in a furnace, so as to render it malleable.
and does not have anything related to ferrous metallurgy under pudding. Though I can easily see how puddling could be corrupted to pudding, since puddled iron has about the consistency of pudding. Shimmin 23:09, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's puddling
Although there seem to be many valid uses of Pudding as well. User:Maury Markowitz
Charles Darwin
I have just asked for arbitration. From you I have asked the committee to request you stop removing the fact from the article. Vincent 04:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vfp15 and Charles Darwin/Evidence gK ¿? 03:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Rejection by the arbitration committee means they won't hear the case, not that they found against me. I limited myself to naming the still active worst offenders. I pursue this as matter of principle. I only need two claims to back me up: 1) it's factual and 2) it passes the Wikipedia:Google test. That's enough to justify inclusion somewhere in the article. Vincent 03:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration
I'm requesting for an arbitration against you (see WP:RfAr) for the Dawrin/Lincoln problem as Vincent's advocate. Actually, I don't know why I must send this message (ArbCom's requirements) --Neigel von Teighen 22:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee case opening
You have been named as a disputant in the recently opened Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute case brought before the Arbitration Committee. You may wish to add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute/Evidence to support your case. -- Grunt [[European Union|]] 03:32, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
WP:RfD
Ah, in deleting those entries from WP:RfD, did you happen to see the note at the top of the page asking:
- When you delete an entry from this page, please make sure to put in the edit summary for that deletion a message indicating i) the name of the removed entry, and ii) the date it was placed here ... This makes it easy for people looking through the page history to find
I've added a entry to the history giving the data for the ones that were removed.
BTW, two of those three entries were still there because they didn't quality for a speedy deletion, but some admin deleted them anyway prior to the one-week delay specified by policy; in such cases I leave them for the whole week anyway in case someone wants to comment (and argue for keeping them), not because I was just feeling lazy about deleting their entries. Noel (talk) 23:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Great Game
May I ask you to answer one question on the Great Game talk page which I posed specifically toward your response? —Lowellian (talk) 05:15, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiUser
I hope very much you will go back to this page, read what I have posted (along with checking the links I provide), and consider altering your position. I believe (though I may be wrong) that you were not aware of the facts of the case when you made the statements you did. Thanks very much for at least giving my position some consideration. Jwrosenzweig 00:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Reverting Jimbo Wales on Autofellatio
Do you know who Jimbo Wales is??? Do NOT revert him. —Cantus…☎ 11:00, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
- For once, I agree with Cantus. It's generally a Bad Thing to revert Jimbo. →Raul654 11:33, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
- PS - Check your email :) →Raul654 12:19, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Redirecting
I was about to thank you for saving me - then saw your "doh" - keep trying! Brookie 20:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Reverts
In answer to your question, all you do is go to the page history, click on the unvandalised edition, then save page. Administrators have a super-fast version though.... wish I was an admin. Matthew Platts 18:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- With interwiki redirects it can be hard to get into the page history though. Add ?action=history at the end of the page's URL to get around that. Goplat 18:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please Respond
I'm sorry that you think you are being picked on:
- I did not say I felt I was being "picked on". I asked you, after a third time, to answer why you think my link is inappropriate.
Wikipedia is a mass of rules, policies, guidance and whatnot (see Wikipedia:Utilities for just a partial list). I suppose that we should have asked you to revert the additions yourself, after offering our arguments, but when the first contributions by a new editor look like link spamming then the old vandal patrol mentality kicks in.
- Wikipedia is a mass of guidelines, not rules.
In the harshest terms, it appears that all you are trying to do is drum up traffic for your own site by leeching off Wikipedia.
- I do not understand why you are afraid of promoting communication from Wikipedia? Why not reject all forum links? Most are simply communities intereted in "self-promotion". I see no difference if you are not willing to list links on-topic. If anything, Wiki should be about facilitating communication, espcecially when it is non-commercial.
- EDIT: I am not interested in "drumming up traffic" for my google ranking. I am not even listed on Google for crying out loud. What I am interested in doing is promoting discourse.
If you had added a single link to the philosophy article, then that may have been (and may still be) considered acceptable.
- The philosophy article does not facilitate communication. People are usually looking for a specific author, as they are studying that author. In my opinion, adding links to forums which discuss Marx is on topic and conducive to the expansion of knowledge.
I'm pleased that you think that I am clever enough to use sophistry, but sad that you entirely missed the invitation to step right into the fray and start looking out for vandalism yourself.
- Logically speaking, my missing a bit of vandalism has nothing to do with our disagreement.
Please have a look around: do some experimentation in the Wikipedia:Sandbox; work through the Wikipedia:Tutorial and the Wikipedia:Annotated article. And finally – though perhaps a bit late
- No thank you. I am quite comfortable editing.
Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged.
- A. My site is not advertising anything.
- B. My site seeks to engage people in debate.
- C. It is simply not a link to "a personal page".
- "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:
1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."
- My site covers issues from all perspectives, so it is objective and the only thing it can be said to advocate is philosophy itself.
- Unanswered points from last post:
- "How can my debates be considered spam if they are high-quality, non-commercial, and clicked by CHOICE? Only those not interested in debate would consider my links useless."
(Interleaved comments from User:Blueskyboris.)
Beer
I noticed you made a little change to one of the "brewbox" templates, and that you had done some previous work on Wolverhampton & Dudley Breweries. Would you be interested in lending a hand with a very new WikiProject Beer? – ClockworkSoul 00:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Autofellatio vote
Greetings. I'm contacting you because you voted to keep Image:Autofellatio.jpg, but you indicated that part of your reasoning was because the image was not demonstrated to be a copyright violation. Someone recently found the image on http://www.wowboy.com/welcome.htm, a porn pay site, with the notice "© WowBoy 2001-2004, All rights reserved". I don't know if this changes your vote or not, but I thought you might want to know. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:27, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Re: Spam
Thanks — I'm normally more tactful with my choice of words, but the belligerence of some people gets to me. He hasn't responded to my last email, though, so I don't expect he'll try putting the links back up. — Asbestos | Talk 09:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re: Joan Of Arc
Please use the article's talk page instead of an edit war to revert the exact same text over and over. You didn't make any point to why you wanted a change or what you didn't think conforms. I am happy to discuss such matters with you. We have already debated over details in the first paragraph, and your changes destroys them. Simply, your changes moves the article back to POV. You say you make the change for wikipedia standards, but POV is not a standard as NPOV. Mr. Ballard 00:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify an issue: "we" did not agree to the version Jhballard is still insisting on - rather, he kept reverting all attempts to clean up his edits (which, as another person pointed out, are often incomprehensible), and I finally just let his version remain rather than fight endlessly over every preposition and verb phrase. Noisy's recent corrections were extremely welcome, and do not need to be tediously discussed - since Jhballard has repeatedly altered material without any prior discussion whatsoever, he cannot now demand that any changes to his own edits need to be subjected to a thorough discussion first. (AWilliamson 02:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Issues about school articles
In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).
I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Old sigs
Be prepared for some flak that may be heading your way. The old sig format that was rendered redundant by the latest release of MediaWiki is now screwing up the edit function. Some of your old sigs weren't corrected when the change happened (I've just cleaned some up on the English/American language differences talk page). I'm just going through my edit list to track down my old mistakes, but I expect I'll get spoken to. Cheers. Noisy | Talk 12:07, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't think it would be possible for me to fix all those sigs manually--there must be hundreds of them scattered around here and there. Maybe someone will send in a bot or something. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wiki syntax, template standardisation
Please see the edit I made at 2:08, Apr 25, 2005 UTC to Wikipedia:Template standardisation (diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Template_standardisation&diff=12810511&oldid=12808537)). My correction of your indenting makes it look better, plus the numbering is maintained throughout the list. r3m0t talk 21:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template standardisation
Well done with your Wikipedia:Template standardisation submission, coming second to the excellent Coffee Roll. I see you voted for it yourself so I hope you are happy with the winning choice. Thanks for your submission, and it was great to see you responding to, and working on, comments and suggestions about your design. violet/riga (t) 22:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Vote on WP:TS
Seeing as there seems to be some contention about it, I've gone through and tallied all the votes properly (using the correct method of calculating approval voting). It's at Wikipedia talk:Template_standardisation#Results. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
RE:Requested moves
Indeed, a lot was removed. But, no, I did not delete it, so perhaps it is, as you say, a bug. All I did was excise my addition, which was as follows:
- This article requires a qualifier to avoid confusion with the more widely known international relations theory of the balance of power. Ergo, it should be moved to Balance of Power (computer game), which is consistent with other articles of this nature.
How I did so, I cannot be certain, but I believe I edited via the 2 May 2005 edit tag (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&action=edit§ion=5). Thank you for fixing that error, and for not being accusatorial. Many would have shot first and questioned later.--Cyberjunkie 14:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring decency to my talk page
I think newbie Nev must have forgotten what was on his clipboard. He admits to some residual WP-procedure imperfections, as do most of us. All seems fine now. Robin Patterson 22:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Bow Fiddle Rock
Wow. How did I leave that out? Anyway, its been corrected, thanks for pointing out my glaring omission. I have a photo I should add, as soon as I get internet access at home. -R. fiend 20:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Count Edit
How did you know on what date your 500th, 1000th, etc edit occur?
Is there a help page or is it to do with the user contributions page, or something else? – AxSkov (T) 15:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your reply, I hope you can sort out your family crisis. If that method puts a heavy toll on the servers, then I probably won't do the milestone count. But its still good to know how its done. – AxSkov (T) 14:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Industrial Revolution
Hi, Thanks for the advice. I had not realised I had not watchlisted it it, hence by lack of input. Quite a lot to think about. The first one being to try and chnge the image of the porttable engine, which in fact dates from the later C19. My first reaction is the whole piece is too full of unsubatantiated generalisations. Lots to do! Apwoolrich 21:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)