Jump to content

User talk:Jerzy/Phase 07

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501 - - (Generated (using "subst:") from 06:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC) revision of user-Jerzy-talk generating template User:Jerzy/Fresh Talk Page, based on 3 January 2009 revision of User talk:Jerzy plus dynamic transclusion of User:Jerzy/Past Archive Phases, minor typo fixes, and a new link.)

Rough Overview of this Page

  1. Welcome to the Page for "Talking" to Jerzy (Talk-Page Front-Matter)
    1. About Communicating Here
    2. Note to Non-Native Speakers of English
    3. Links to my Discussion (User-talk page) Archives
    4. Detailed Table of Contents of whole page
  2. Messages to Jerzy and Dialogues with Him

Welcome to the Page for "Talking" to Jerzy (Talk-Page Front-Matter)

[edit]

Communicating here

[edit]

Leaving me a message

[edit]

The end of this page is always a good place to leave messages to me, and for most users, by far the easiest ways of doing that is:

  1. You probably have simulated file-folder tabs (not "browser tabs") at the top of the box enclosing the text that you are reading from: rectangles a little taller than one line of text, with the fourth tab from the left reading something like "+" or "+comment". Click on that tab -- or here.
  2. Fill in both the single-line edit pane with the title or subject of your message.
  3. Type your message for me into the larger edit pane below it.
  4. As the last line, type
    --~~~~
  5. Click on the "Show preview" button, and proofread what is displayed.
  6. If changes are needed, make them and repeat the the previous step (and then this one).
  7. Click on the "Save page" button, making your message a new "section" on this page.

Leaving followup messages

[edit]

If you previously left me a message on this page, and now you have more to say on the same subject, follow this link to this page's Table of Contents. If it hasn't been too long, you should find the section with the previous message from you, and to its right a link reading

[edit]
  1. Click on that "[edit]" link.
  2. Confirm (perhaps by previewing) that it's the same section as before.
  3. Type type more below the old message in the larger edit pane (below the preview, if any).
  4. As the new last line, type
    --~~~~
  5. Click on the "Show preview" button, and proofread what is displayed.
  6. If changes are needed, make them and repeat the previous step (and then this one).
  7. In the small edit pane below the larger edit pane, type a few words summarizing what you're adding (and preview and revise if appropriate).
  8. Click on the "Save page" button, replacing your previous message a new longer one including it.

Guide to the Rest of This Page

[edit]

The remaining material consists of

  • A warning about a highly idiosyncratic aspect of my grammar
  • Help finding things that were previously on this talk page, but have been moved
    (These are some people's top priority, but most will prefer to jump to the Table of Contents, or add a message at the end.)
  • A Table of Contents listing every section currently on the page
  • A number of sections each containing either messages from on editor, hopefully each on a single topic, or a two-way discussion

Note to Non-Native Speakers of English

[edit]

Years ago, i got stuck in my brain the idea that there's something wrong about modern English singling out the first-person singular pronoun to be spelled with a capital letter. So i spell it without the capital -- except at the beginning of a sentence, or when i'm not the sole author. If you follow my example, native speakers will just figure you're ignorant of the basics.

(I also say the above, and a bit more, on my User page.)

[edit]

"Phases" of my Talk Page

[edit]
The remainder of this section is dynamically transcluded from my "Past Archive Phases" page.

These phases can be used not only for their text, but also for verifying the date & time when specific edits occurred and what registered or "IP" user at Wikipedia made the edits, via each phase's edit history.

  • Phase 10's future content is currently being accumulated at User talk:Jerzy, from discussions starting on or after 2009 August 1 (or expected to continue from before that date), and will be copied to the subpage Phase 10 at a later date.
  • The Phase 09 page covers discussions active during 2009 July.
  • The Phase 08 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 21 (at noon) -30.[1]
  • The Phase 07 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 16- 21 (at noon).[1]
  • The Phase 06 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 1-15.[1]
    • Progress report: (I got lazy; i should have cut Phase 6 off in mid-June due to high volume, but here it is mid-July.)
      I think i won't have "to break the pattern" after all, instead splitting the history (and content), with hindsight, at the points where i would have if i had had foresight abt the volume of upcoming discussions! Phase 06 (temporary) is not a phase, but a work space: i moved the talk page there to start accumulating new discussion on the newest User talk:Jerzy page, and now am in the process of undeleting portions of the temp to provide both the edit history and the content (after removing excess) of several new phases. I'll continue to update this template to provide current guidance, mostly a little ahead of actual implementation. Some archived content will temporarily be available only to admins, at times when i'm fairly actively working on this process.
  • The Phase 05 page covers discussions active during 2009 May.
  • The Phase 04 page covers discussions active during 2009 April.
  • The Phase 03 page covers 2009 February 1 through March 31 discussion-starts; although the voluminous discussion concerning a dispute resolution process is mentioned and linked (and "included by reference") from the point at which it originated (on the talk page that has been renamed to Phase 03), its content is at my Proofreader77 subpage.
  • The Phase 02 page covers 2009 January 1 through 31 discussion-starts.
  • The Phase 01 page covers 2008 September 1 through 2008 December 31 discussion-starts.
  • As to Phase 00 (in the sense of the remaining period talk page's existence):
    • Discussions started from 2006 February 20 to 2008 August 31 are covered, as to both editing history and content, by the Phase 00 page.
    • Discussions started from 2003 Sept. 3 through 2006 February 19 have their discussion content in the "Topical" and "Mixed-topic" archives linked below (directly and via a date-range-organized index pg, respectively); their editing history is presently part of that of the Phase 00 page.
      If the material were more recent (or if interest is shown) that page history could be subdivided using administrator permissions, producing at least a corresponding separate history for each of the two phase 00 periods just described. The process could certainly be extended to reunite the presumably non-overlapping "Mixed-topic" archives with their respective edit histories. Doing the same for the "Topical" archives would surely be more onerous, and if there are duplications of these discussions in the "Mixed-topic" archives, one copy of the history would have to be manually assembled by copying from the DBMS-generated history pages, and pasting to an ordinary content page.

Notes re history irregularities.

  1. ^ a b c Phases 6-8 accumulated to excessive length as an oversize page, and were separated into these phases using edit-history splits.

Mixed-topic Archives

[edit]

These are more chronological than my Topical Archives listed in the immediately previous section, exhaustive (outside the "Topical Archives" topics) for the periods they cover but (presently and probably permanently) cover only through 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC).

Note that the Mixed-topic Archives are content-only archives, and the page history entries of the corresponding individual contributions will be found as part of the page history of User talk:Jerzy/Phase 00.

Topical Archives

[edit]

These include nothing newer than 2004, and each concerns one area of interest, sometimes oriented toward an article or articles with the same subject matter, sometimes otherwise connected.

Note that the Topical Archives are content-only archives, and the page history entries of the corresponding individual contributions will be found as part of the page history of User talk:Jerzy/Phase 00.

TABLE of CONTENTS

[edit]

Access to Most Recent Entries of ToC

[edit]

(If the page gets large, it's easier to scroll back up into the ToC from here than to scroll down thru it from its top.)

Messages to Jerzy and Dialogues with Him

[edit]

Archiving Work in Progress

[edit]

"Dig we must."

The presence of this section indicates that any discussions that i consider still active have been temporarily exiled to an archive page. Please be patient; they will reappear here.
--Jerzy•t 17:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiply-named section American warning"> American"> American warning">

[edit]

Former Titles of the Section that This Section Concerns:

Talk page work
Talk page work > American warning

This section still awaits testing as the target for the following lks to titles that were formerly on this talk page:

User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work > American warning and
User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work .3E American warning.
[[User talk:Jerzy#American warning]]
[[User talk:Jerzy#> American warning]]
[[User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work > American warning]]
[[User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work > American warning]]
User talk:Jerzy#> American warning
Details, and the removed material from that section and its successor, are now at User talk:Jerzy/Proofreader77 DR.

Notices:
I hereby give due notice that i place the following reasonable constructions on the apparently widely accepted statement that i have seen on at least one project-space page, to the effect that msgs removed by a user from their own talk page may be presumed to have been read by them:

  1. Archiving a talk page, with a link to the archive, does not constitute "removal" in the sense intended in such statements.
  2. Removing the text of a discussion on a talk page for stated good cause, stating that cause, stating that it is to be considered as "included, by reference, as part of" the page, and providing a lk to it on another WP page, does not constitute "removal" in the sense intended in such statements (nor for that matter is it equivalent to "archiving", FWIW).

In light of each of those constructions, and the statement that follows this paragraph, i note that (altho i at least skimmed large sections of the former text before my statement to the effect that i did not intend to give attention to further additions to it), i do not warrant myself as having detailed knowledge of what i read, nor sufficient knowledge to place what later portions i have since noticed into any meaningful context. I thus declare any inference that i am informed about the material in question to be abusive and unfounded.
I have removed from this talk page the text of the section most recently titled "Talk page work >American warning", because its length approximated 26.5 Kb, rendering impractical normal use of the talk page without neglecting the long-standing request to avoid letting pages approach or exceed 32Kb in length. It is, however to be considered as included, by reference, as part of this talk page. For perhaps a few days, it can be accessed on my archive at User talk:Jerzy/Phase 03#Talk page work .3E American warning, and i will alter this section accordingly, when that material moves from that archive page to its own page.
--Jerzy•t 08:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig page edit

[edit]

Hi. I'm having trouble understanding this edit. Before you touched the page, it seemed to be MoSDAB compliant. It is not clear to me:

1. why you felt it necessary to change it (at all)
2. why you changed the sort order from alphabetic to chronological
3. why you removed indicative information (e.g. Peter Antony Goodwin Fisher is notable because he is physician to the Queen, not because he is a "British physician".)
4. why you felt it useful to turn Peter Fisher (author) into a disambig page - a redirect to Peter Fisher would supply the same information and would reduce the overhead from two-pages-to-be-maintained to one-page-to-be-maintained, and the information on the "(author)" page is an identical copy of what's on the main disambig page. In short, "What's the point?"
5. (P.S. What does "conv bad Rdr to Dab" mean? "Convert bad redirect to disambiguation"? If so, what was "bad" about the redirect?)
6. why is "Peter Fisher (Gay Mystique)" a better page name than "Peter Fisher (author)"
7. It is not obvious what "Peter Fisher (Gay Mystique)" means. (i.e. You need to go looking / searching. I have edited it to clarify that, I hope.

Not withstanding all that, thanks for resolving the "Peter Fisher (translator)" entry.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (I've taken the liberty of a constructive reformatting of your question.)
    (You're talking about Peter Fisher.)
    Re 5, your "bad Rdr" question has to refer to this edit. At the least, i'd have called it bad bcz it had already been used to lk, IIRC, the Danorum translator (and IMO translators and editors are not just listed in lieu of authors, but have a good claim on the status).
    Re 4 & 6, i know there are many who disagree with such "meta-Dabs" or "sub-Dabs", but WP only works bcz editing effort is cheap. On the other side of the scale, every effort by one editor that saves reader time is multiplied many times by the number of readers. If a reader follows an old lk (or less likely, types a new one) to the {author) Dab, better they be offered the chance to choose between 3 writers than have us discard their knowledge that non-writers need not apply, by dumping them onto a larger Dab page. If you disagree, be my guest, and i'll just chalk it up as further evidence that editor effort is cheap!
    Re at least 3 & 7, & perhaps more, i may be answering several questions with the watchword "The purpose of Dab'n is to Dab'ate." (I believe you'll find this implicit in a sentence or two on MoSDab.) a user who comes to a Dab looking for info on the topics it lks to is fooling around, and should not be indulged at the expense of those trying to identify the title of the topic they want. Every word on a Dab page that doesn't contribute to Dab'n is clutter (such you as added in the edit you refer to in 7) that slows down the users who belong there. (Vital stats, nationality, and occupation of notability, by being highly structured and thus easy to ignore, are probably the only exceptions: by being there on every entry, they become less obtrusive to those who don't make an effort to read them.)
    Re 6 & 7, there are surely lks off WP to Peter Fisher (author) that are intended for the translator. The Gay Mystique Fisher is known for nothing else and no one will look for him w/o being able to discern (even if they've never heard the title) that the entry that uses the word "gay" and implies association with a long work (the italics are enormously valuable) is almost certainly the one they seek; they may not even know if it's the name of a book or a film or a stage work, but they'll be on track. (Look at Gay Mystique's the author's what-lks-here; the ref to it in the bio on the guy with the big dick is a perfect illustration of the relevant audience's awareness of the work.)
    Re 2, perhaps you'll participate in what i think is still the last secn of WP:MoSDab's tk page, and let me know which of your many questions remain inadequately answered.
    --Jerzy•t 19:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before I start, I'm impressed by your use of <!-- -->! I didn't realise that such use would lead to that result. Useful to know! Thank you.
"(I've taken the liberty of a constructive reformatting of your question.)" - No problem! In fact, I think it's a good idea. So much so that I have tried to take "the liberty of a constructive reformatting of your answer."
1. Can't spot any response. Did I miss something?
2. "perhaps you'll participate in what i think is still the last secn of WP:MoSDab's tk page". Sorry, but you are being far too subtle for me. Which is the last section?
Oh dear. This is too hard. You are assuming a level of knowledge of areas that I don't have. Also, I'm a linear thinker. I am having difficulty following your responses which, to a linear thinker like me, jump all over the place.
You arranged my posting into seven points. Would it be an unacceptable burden to ask you to address them one by one? "Yes" is an acceptable answer, but in that case it may take me some time to decypher your response.
3. Sorry, you've lost me.
4. Ummmm. I followed you up to before the last sentence. That's an interesting pov (I'm thinking about it. I may even agree with it.) But it doesn't answer the question I asked ...
5. (This is embarassing! I thought I was reasonably intelligent and able. Apparently not!) Sorry, you've lost me.
6. I think I followed that one! I think I agree. I think.
7. See 6.
Thanks for your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry this seems so slow in getting under way. I started a long reply, and was well along with it when i lost the new markup completely. It will be much less interesting to reconstruct it, so i will be replying in smaller segments, at a slower pace, starting with the day or two that i've let it ride since the loss. First real installment should come in the next hour.
    --Jerzy•t 05:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear! Sorry to hear that. "Been there, done that, didn't enjoy the experience". Pdfpdf (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding un-numbered points

[edit]

Magic markup
You said

Before I start, I'm impressed by your use of <!-- -->! I didn't realise that such use would lead to that result. Useful to know! Thank you.

I think you probably realize (but maybe gave up trying to clarify) that

<!-- -->

conceals the point of what presumably pleased you. In fact, in trying modify that into what i assume you wanted to say, by putting in the BR tag and the newline char, i had to remind myself that the first approach i tried was no good either. (Both nowiki and wiki-cmts are kind of meta-wiki-markup, and you've got to stay on your toes when you mix them.) Here's how i would have made it look:

<br><!--
-->
Sorry. Isn't that how you did make it look? What do you mean when saying: "would have made it look"? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and you can click the right-side section-edit lk to see the magic markup needed to display the original magic markup -- are you following me?

Errrrr. Maybe. What do you mean "magic" markup. Clicking on "the right-side section-edit lk" shows me the the raw text, which is what I assume (perhaps wrongly) you mean by "markup". Is that the same as "magic markup", or is "magic markup" something else again which I have not noticed? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use a (possibly WinVista-only) sidebar gadget called Clipboard Manager; my mnemonic name for the markup you mention is "t nGr", bcz it makes a new [para-]graph on a talk page. You grasp how i use it, and twd anyone looking over our shoulders, i feel no obligation to do more than displaying i think what you meant to, so that they have a hint twd being able to follow that sub-discussion.
BTW, good for you in seeing even that nowiki was part of the solution to saying what you wanted to!
--Jerzy•t 05:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. And thanks for the detailed explanation. Very interesting, and most appreciated. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of discussion
You said

You arranged my posting into seven points. Would it be an unacceptable burden to ask you to address them one by one? "Yes" is an acceptable answer, but in that case it may take me some time to decypher your response.

and being a quibbler, i'll quibble with you that you arranged points, or 'graphs, and i just numbered them.

Lol! You are quite correct! ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, used the numbers to quibble about the natural boundaries of the topics we're discussing, as i must to some extent if i'm to address your points w/o repeating myself.

I guess so. (However, I don't mind if you repeat yourself ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But i'll try address together matters that you raised together. And i'm sorry i didn't hurry more to address this one point, rather than leave you to perhaps assume i was waiting for you to do your deciphering. (I'm difficult, but i try not to be brutal.) But more after a sizable fraction of a day.)
--Jerzy•t 06:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't think the future of the planet is dependent upon you responding immediately. (If it is, I don't think that has anything to do with my desires and/or requirements!) "Patience" may not be my forté, but I'm in no particular hurry. Never-the-less, I'm sure I'll be both entertained and informed when you do reply, so I am experiencing a certain amount of anticipation. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion & coincidence

[edit]

Actually the following is a test for purposes of soliciting your feedback, not about a new msg from me. You put the notion into my head. (I'm aware that my text half breaks the collapsation template, which i something i may just put up with.)

Interesting.
1) What feedback are you soliciting? / Soliciting feedback about what?
2) (New topic) This, to me, seems an interesting coincidence: Once-upon-a-time I wanted to put a wikitable inside a collapsable box, but the two templates didn't play together nicely. A knight in shining armour came to my rescue. You may find my experiences and his advice useful for your problem. Failing that, you could ask him directly - he was VERY helpful.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerzy/Phase_07&oldid=302523407"