Misplaced Pages

User talk:Edokter: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:42, 16 December 2014 editEdokter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users55,830 editsm Read← Previous edit Revision as of 12:30, 16 December 2014 edit undoSardanaphalus (talk | contribs)119,752 edits →Template:Tag and /doc: rNext edit →
Line 123: Line 123:
:: ] (]) 09:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC) :: ] (]) 09:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Deal with it... It may sou harsch, but we are all volunteers, and you cannot demand from someone to fix your mistakes. I give pointers where I can, but if you are reverted, the first place to post comments is the template talk page, not here. You seem to take this too personally; it isn't. However, your editing style resembles a "do first, ask questions later" attitude, and that does not go well with other editors, including me. I watch a lot of templates, and I find edits that adds overcomplicated code/CSS while not providing any net gain, I will revert. So stop coming here, and discuss the issues on the apropriate talk page in the future. Again, this is nothing personal; your code just sucks. <code style="white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]&#125;}</code> 11:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC) :::Deal with it... It may sou harsch, but we are all volunteers, and you cannot demand from someone to fix your mistakes. I give pointers where I can, but if you are reverted, the first place to post comments is the template talk page, not here. You seem to take this too personally; it isn't. However, your editing style resembles a "do first, ask questions later" attitude, and that does not go well with other editors, including me. I watch a lot of templates, and I find edits that adds overcomplicated code/CSS while not providing any net gain, I will revert. So stop coming here, and discuss the issues on the apropriate talk page in the future. Again, this is nothing personal; your code just sucks. <code style="white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]&#125;}</code> 11:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

:::# "...you cannot demand from someone to fix your mistakes." (Note authoritarian tone; not volunteer-like).<br/>Where is this demand?
:::# "...the first place to post comments is the template talk page, not here."<br/>Have you considered{{aside|with good faith in mind}} why I choose to make posts such as the above here rather than elsewhere?
:::# "...You seem to take this too personally"<br/>Given the manner of your interaction, you don't think that might apply to you?
:::# "a "do first, ask questions later" attitude"<br/>More accurately, a "do something, see what happens" approach, otherwise too much time disappears. It's preferable to a "revert, reprimand and dismiss under the guise of discussion" approach.
:::# "...while not providing any net gain"<br/>A net gain – according to whom?
:::# Someone's code might suck, but, sadly, rigidity and the need to be right suck far more fundamentally. It's not a black-or-white world.
:::: ] (]) 12:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


== CSS image crop == == CSS image crop ==

Revision as of 12:30, 16 December 2014

This is Edokter's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

If you leave me a message, I will respond here.

Question at Village Pump

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#AfC_Invite_Template_Questions

Module editing

Hi Edokter, Can you please update Module:Navbox on hiwiki? I am trying to edit it from many days but because of little understanding I couldn't do this. For this I think we need some other modules also! But I don't know how can I manage all these. In present case Navebox template don't work with Moudle. I have tried it at hi:template:Navbox/sandbox but it is giving only borders.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I myself am not very good with modules yet (as opposed to templates). So I'm afraid I can't help you. -- ] {{talk}} 08:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
It's ok.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Large

(Undid revision 634081632 by Sardanaphalus (talk) Incorrect use: don't transclude throught the content= parameter.)

Why not..?

Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Because it does not show the links in the top right corner. |content= is for direct text only. -- ] {{talk}} 20:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Resize shortcuts documentation

Please supply a copy of this template as it was when deleted.

I believe normal practice is to advise people who've made significant edits to a template of its impending deletion. Is this incorrect?

Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved to User:Sardanaphalus/Resize shortcuts documentation. I should have done that instead. However, note that this mechanism you use completely breaks {{documentation}}. -- ] {{talk}} 12:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I'm puzzled, though, by your last sentence. Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • When you add a layer of transclusion to display the documentation using an in between template (or any other means), all functionality of the documentaion template is lost. If I click on some template documentation, I end up on your template instead of /doc. This is the same mistake you made when you used the |content= to transclude the documentation. -- ] {{talk}} 09:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall the detail as regards Template:Tnf and Template:Tnf, but, if Template:Tnf was (part of) the documentation for a template and I clicked on to edit that (part of the) documentation, then editing Template:Tnf seems exactly as desired..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't test the section link, but the top link went to Template:Tnf instead of the actual template documentation being displayed. -- ] {{talk}} 22:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Dating Timeline Correction of Benedict Cumberbatch and Sophie Hunter

Just want to relay that Cumberbatch and Hunter have been seeing each other since late 2013 contrary to "early 2014" which the Daily Mail and other rags are reporting and is currently indicated in his personal life section.

NOTE: I know the Daily Mail is not reliable source that's the very reason why the info should be amended because that "until early 2014" was actually information from them. The scans are from People magazine where it says they got together late last year and have been together for a year now before getting engaged. He was even featured on the cover in this week's issue: http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2014/news/141208/cosby-cover-768.jpg. One can always reference a print article here and in this case scans of the interview are available to prove it. That's already two non-tabloid publications referencing the "late 2013" timeline.

Thank you for improving both Hunter's and Cumberbatch's profiles! 109.175.76.84 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Irrational number

(Revert per BRD; this is an accessability nightmare.)

And you don't regard small symbols clustered together among potentially confusing dots/interpuncts as an accessibility nightmare..?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Dispersing the links over two table rows however, is. -- ] {{talk}} 08:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not at all..? That's... interesting. (Do you have any vision impairment?)
    As regards the "dispersing" of links, the intention was to maintain a distinction between these numbers' particular names and symbols whose reference can change. Perhaps, though, you'd accept links that included the symbols..?
Would you object to the use of e.g. Template:Tnf to give this template's contents some room to be seen more readily?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It is a list of links, so it should be formatted as such. Any other structure for the sake of presentation is hurting accessability. I see no benefit in using columns either. -- ] {{talk}} 20:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
When you refer to accessibility, do you have something like screen-readers in mind..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Perhaps WP:ACCESS is a good read. -- ] {{talk}} 23:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It's something to read if you haven't done so. I also wonder if you have accessibility as regards editing in mind. Perhaps, from time to time, too much is relinquished for the sake of making something "accessible" to screen-readers and/or editors over non-editors and/or those without (visual) impairments. (The subtext, in other words: screen-readers etc also need to develop; and isn't, ultimately, the point of an encyclopedia to be presented and consulted more than edited..?) Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Accessability is not an aption. It is not something to let go in favor of prettyness. Rest asured that screen readers are constantly being upgraded, just ask User:Graham87, who is using one. (One copy of JAWS cost over $1000!) -- ] {{talk}} 09:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Prettiness..? Please don't confuse prettiness with presentation (more precisely, its Prägnanz). Accessibility of both output and code may be the ideal, but surely not the accessibility of editing code at the expense of the accessibility of its output..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC close

A half-close on just part 2 was previously reverted as improper. Please either do a full close or withdraw your partial close. (Or better yet withdraw the partial close and list yourself as a first name for a panel of 3 to do a full close, as multiple people have said this warrants.)

Note that Part 1 issues an immediate call to implement. A "No consensus" result on part two eliminates the 7 day bar against immediate implementation. As noted in the discussion section, consensus can be reached on part 2 by dropping the final bullet point of part 2. Alsee (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I attempted to discuss this with you in good faith, you have demonstrated bad faith by going actively non-responsive both here and on Administrator's Noticeboard. (I find it painfully notable you are exactly repeating MDann52 actively non-responsive behavior, and that it was a contributing factor in the case against him.) You leave me no choice but to file a formal action on Administrator's Noticeboard. ******** In the middle of writing this I see someone has preformed a close on the RfC just moments ago. Consider this a notice that I have a standing objection to your part2 close and I may still file a close review, but I am am going to examine this new development before filing formal action. Alsee (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

How long are you going to badger me over this? I have closed the RfC (or part thereof) and you don't agree with the outcome. What "formal action" would you seek? That someone else reclose it until it agrees with your desired outcome? I don't think that os going to happen. If it was a bad close, another administrator would have taken some action already, but none have. -- ] {{talk}} 18:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar

The da Vinci Barnstar
Great detective work. I didn't even realize the WW2 navbox even had those icons. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tag and /doc

(Not an accident; these are superfluous and redundant.)

Like the state= in Navboxes etc..?

Also, why did you remove the correction to the code heading?

(Rv; tables are too wide, even at 1280px wide!)

What are you trying to view this on? No problems here, at whatever (reasonable) resolution tried. (Usual is 1680 by 1050.)

But if there is a problem, why didn't you try to fix it?

Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Where to begin...? I'm viewing this on my 1280x960 screen. 1280 is still the most common screenwidth used. If you think everyone sees the internet as you do on your screen, then you have a problem; Let's forget mobile and tablets! If your layout is breaking outside screens of 1024 wide, it is considered badly broken design.
I also do not have the time to go through all the changes and weed out the mistakes. That usually means a revert of most recent edits. You cannot expect other to clean up the mess. (Though I try to weed them out.)
The parameters again... In templates, there is no need to complement unnamed parameters with named one, and vice versa. If you pay a little attention to where each is used, you will find unnamed parameters are ususally ulilized for required and subsequent optional parameters where no ambiguity can exist. Any more complex parameter structure uses named parameters, or they are added as additional parameters where unnamed parameter already exist. But never should named and unnamed parameter names be combined to accept both. Your approach to provide maximum flexibility (at least, that is what I asume), only runs the risk of creating ambiguity, and locking up the code, blocking any future development (especially in core- and meta template). So I am keeping an eye out on your edits, and will revert (or fix when possible) if they cause any potential problems. -- ] {{talk}} 22:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Where to begin...? Indeed. Before posting the above, did you read through it imagining it was directed at you?
"I also do not have the time to go through all the changes and weed out the mistakes. That usually means a revert of most recent edits ... (Though I try to weed them out.)"
You "choose not to spend time going through all the changes to weed out what you've decided are mistakes"; that is what "usually means a revert of most recent edits". Mistakes or not, if you did try to "weed them out", reversion wouldn't be your default response; nor would it be your default response<aside>accompanied by a dismissive and/or patronizing and/or authoritarian comment or commentary (as, for instance, above)</aside> if you did try to work things out with good faith and in collaboration.
You report that tables are "oversized"<aside>as a result, I imagine, of how the page appeared on your screen/screens?</aside> but give no indication or suggestion as to what may be amiss, even after a report that they seem fine at various resolutions (including, incidentally, 1280 by 960). As regards parameters, your attention may've been drawn away from situations that are already potentially ambiguous: Template:Tnf, for example. You are mistaken if you believe I'm aiming to provide maximum flexibility – which, even if that were the case, does not necessarily nor "only" run the risk of creating ambiguity and "locking up the code".
Reversion and keeping an eye on someone's edits... Sounds miserable.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Deal with it... It may sou harsch, but we are all volunteers, and you cannot demand from someone to fix your mistakes. I give pointers where I can, but if you are reverted, the first place to post comments is the template talk page, not here. You seem to take this too personally; it isn't. However, your editing style resembles a "do first, ask questions later" attitude, and that does not go well with other editors, including me. I watch a lot of templates, and I find edits that adds overcomplicated code/CSS while not providing any net gain, I will revert. So stop coming here, and discuss the issues on the apropriate talk page in the future. Again, this is nothing personal; your code just sucks. -- ] {{talk}} 11:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. "...you cannot demand from someone to fix your mistakes." (Note authoritarian tone; not volunteer-like).
    Where is this demand?
  2. "...the first place to post comments is the template talk page, not here."
    Have you considered<aside>with good faith in mind</aside> why I choose to make posts such as the above here rather than elsewhere?
  3. "...You seem to take this too personally"
    Given the manner of your interaction, you don't think that might apply to you?
  4. "a "do first, ask questions later" attitude"
    More accurately, a "do something, see what happens" approach, otherwise too much time disappears. It's preferable to a "revert, reprimand and dismiss under the guise of discussion" approach.
  5. "...while not providing any net gain"
    A net gain – according to whom?
  6. Someone's code might suck, but, sadly, rigidity and the need to be right suck far more fundamentally. It's not a black-or-white world.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

CSS image crop

Edok, you mentioned an editor introduced a bug into Template:CSS image crop. It's probably a good idea to summarize the bug on the talk page to hopefully prevent others from making the same mistake. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That won't help. A comment in the template itself may work though. -- ] {{talk}} 20:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)