User talk:Quondum/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

your edit on Binary Prefix

While preferring to keep the mention of TU at Binary Prefix, I understand and respect your reasoning. If no one else challenges your edit, neither will I. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I was tempted to open a discussion on the talk page first, but then thought that you might see it from my perspective, and that discussing it only if you objected would likely be the more efficient process. We probably differ on how "extraneous" material is to an article (me towards the side of "keep it directly relevant to the topic" and you towards "include related interesting information"). I lean towards the latter perspective if there is no better place to put some useful information. In this instance, TU (time unit) and Unit of time are sufficiently obvious and give the necessary information (admittedly, I only found these when expressing my thoughts here). However, here I respect the feelings of others such as yourself, and if you have any strong feelings on the matter, they are likely stronger than mine :) —Quondum 18:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you made the right choice (Trust me. My feelings are no stronger than yours). Happy to let the consensus be determined by what others think. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Template editor

Regarding our discussion at Template talk:Val#A teragram is not a tonne (permalink), I would be happy to assign you the right if wanted. First, please examine WP:TPE and my comment in this ANI report. Template editing means bold does not apply. Even if no one ever responds, a template editor should announce what they plan to do, allow a day or two, then do it, then check for problems. Module:Val/units is unlikely to give errors but it is useful to check the current script errors before making a change live, and after, and a couple of days after that (it takes time for changes to have an effect in articles). That link currently shows a stuff-up which can be found by picking a representative article, then looking at its "related changes" in the left sidebar. Then select Namespace (Article) and check (tick) "invert selection" and click Show. It's likely that some of the recent infobox edits broke some articles. That might be a bug in the new code, or it might be broken wikitext in the articles. Either way, someone should look for it and fix it. Module:Val is not used on very many articles but it is nevertheless a good idea to first copy the current module to Module:Val/units/sandbox, then make changes, then test them. Think about it, then update the main module in one edit. If the right is wanted, reply here and say you have absorbed all that. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I am really in two minds about this, so let's hold off. Though I have reviewed and understood all that you have said and linked above (especially the measured systematic approach), there are too many personally specific factors to list here. I cleaned up all but one of the script errors at the script errors link above for familiarization; they were predominantly malformatted geographic coordinates in the wikitext. I'll think about it a while, and ping you if I would like to proceed with something. —Quondum 17:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Whenever you like. Don't sweat about it. There is just a need to understand that template editing is different. For example, a revert should only happen if there is a fairly urgent problem. A full discussion should occur before reverting or making significant changes. Thanks for cleaning up the problems. Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Double-slit experiment".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

TheWikiToby (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I apologize. I did not mean to bug you. I was just asking on the noticeboard for suggestions. Johnjbarton (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration. I have been watching Double-slit experiment so am aware of this anyway, and have not been encouraged by the continued obstinacy. Maybe there is a lesson for me in this: that grumpiness can make one blind to social cues that would lead to better outcomes. —Quondum 13:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)