User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

January 2008

Hard spaces again

Resolved

 – Discussion moved to other places.

Your expert input and support would be extremely valuable, Stanton. I understand your reservations about this sort of thing in namespace. But I think we'll be about to move out of there soon. Take a look, anyway?

– Noetica^?? Talk 07:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Surface tension

Stale

 – No response.

Just letting you know that I disagree with your deletion of the sentence in the lead, "Whenever a raindrop falls, a child splashes in a swimming pool, a cleaning agent is mixed with water, or an beverage is stirred in a glass, the effects of surface tension are visible." When this article was being polished to qualify it as "Natural sciences good article," expansion of the lead was one of the one of the issues that took several iterations. In particular, the reviewer wanted a sentence in the lead that provided an overview of the effects of surface tension. That sentence was added to conform with that suggestion. If you don't like the tone of the sentence you deleted, please replace it with one that performs the same function, but with the tone altered to avoid your objections. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 03:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert away. I do get that the intent was well-grounded; the tone is just way off-kilter for Wikipedia, full as the passage is with Spielbergian "wonder". Have other fish to fry, so I'll leave it to the GA/FA processes to fix the tone eventually. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, on the issue of the flower photo, the entire flower is below the level of the water, which is the point. If any part of it were above the water level, there would be nothing remarkable that the surface tension was doing to keep the water from flooding the inside of the flower. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 03:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I need better glasses then. It appears to me that slight parts of it are in fact above the surface. Disagree with your 2nd sentence, too - if 90% of it were below the surface, the s.t. effect would still be remarkable, if in fact it is an important effect in the photo... I raise the question of whether the example is even valid - it seems to me more a matter of displacement and angle/shape than s.t. - the flower floats at least as much if not more so for the same reasons that ships and bowls do while rocks and knives don't. If my eyes are tricking me and literally all of the flower really is below the surface level of the water, then this objection is moot (though the reasoning behind it is also valid - the flower is floating in s.t. "range", as it were, because of its shape in the first place). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Redirect template

Resolved

 – Done.

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a !vote, and some additional comments. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Resolved

 – Just an FYI.

Hello SMcCandlish, I have granted your account rollback rights. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly: I do not believe that you will abuse rollback by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war, and instead, I believe you will use it for its correct use of reverting vandalism. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. If you do not want rollback, let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 00:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I already use "undo" pretty often, and have also used a pseudo-rollback script for some time (it simulates the effect of a rollback without actually doing one at the software level). Also thinking of doing an RfA again, so this will perhaps be good practice. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck with your new tool. Acalamari 17:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

AWB Strangeness

Resolved

 – Just a chat.

Thanks for the message regarding the edits I made. I see what you mean on the *Foo vice * Foo edits. I will fix that. Additionally on the issue of the template code I agree with you, and I will attempt to correct that. With the sheer number of templates and lack of standardization it may take a while. In addition to that problem there are number of other things that I perceive as issues with the templates along the lines of standardized formating. For instance in some it automatically links things like place of birth and some don't. There isn't even consistency on what place of birth is called. I have seen it as placeofbirth, place of birth, place_of_birth, birthplace, etc. Anyway, thanks for the suggestion, I will adjust fire.--Kumioko (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't re-invent the wheel. See Template talk:Infobox person for an underway project to fix all that stuff (with regard to bio infoboxes, I mean). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect fact on AFD

Resolved

 – Just a chat.

SMcCandlish, I'm confused by your description of Delta Kappa Gamma as a "defunct non-notable sorority". It is a currently existing, notable, professional society of educators. Sorority implies a student body, not a professional association, and defunct is just wrong -- non-notable is a matter of opinion, of course, but DKG appears notable per WP:ORG (international, 100,000+ member, professional society). This misstatement of fact, which appears to have been done on the basis of zero investigation, concerns me, and I think you should at least amend your AFD nomination of Ruby Terrill Lomax to state the facts correctly. Unfortunately, a lot of *FD participants only read the arguments, and don't do research themselves, so misstatements of fact can really prejudice the discussion. --Lquilter (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that; sorry. It doesn't have an article here. I will update the AfD discussion of course. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

np, and tx for being prompt. sorry if i seemed snippy. --Lquilter (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. AfDers should get their facts right. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hard space?

Resolved

 – Responded at WT:MOS as requested.

SMcCandlish, the discussion of markup for the hard space has moved out of userspace (I mistakenly wrote namespace in my last post here). May we have your expert opinion at WT:MOS?

– Noetica^?? Talk 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Added some comments, mostly pretty geeky, but I think they are important, as the nature of the template parser is being misunderstood, and some of the example code from which inferences are being drawn is doubly invalid markup which (because different browsers handle broken markup in completely different ways) means that the end results are unpredictable and really of no relevance to the discussion to begin with. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful! Great to have your input. We've had a couple of computer people on the team, but you are especially acute with these things. I know you're busy with another matter. But I do hope you will find some time to stay in the hard-space dialogue.

– Noetica^?? Talk 07:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Leonard Doroftei.jpg

Resolved

 – My misake.

Hi, I'm restoring the copyvio tag on Image:Leonard Doroftei.jpg. Did you bother to visit the link listed on the tag, a Romanian news site? Or the user's Flickr account? The uploader is putting copyrighted images on the Flickr account and passing them off as CC. --Mosmof (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for being snippy. --Mosmof (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries; I didn't interpret it that way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)