User talk:Psantora

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Psantora.

This is the user talk page for User:Psantora, where you can send messages and comments to Psantora.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Be polite. Assume good faith. No personal attacks. Be welcoming.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Psantora}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives
Archive 1 December 3, 2005 – January 9, 2008

Contents 1 Section Layout and MOS 2 Republican Convention in FL 3 maps on Results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries 4 comment invited 5 Terrible editor 6 Republican Primary County Map 7 Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries 8 Template:Navbox subgroup 9 {{wrap}} in {{nowrap}}? 10 Uncommitted in Washington Primaries 11 Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows 12 Thanks for fixing my curious Babel template problem 13 Template:Apple celeb 14 Template:IT_giants 15 Template:Systems science (and maybe elsewhere) 16 Template:Table Mobile operating systems 17 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Palmsource logo.png) 18 <br> or <br />? 19 Re: Other article moves 20 Divesture vs demerger 21 Orphaned non-free media (Image:AppleInsider.gif) 22 Rollback granted 23 North Dakota 24 Pricing in Infobox Online music service 25 XHTML thingy 26 iPod categories 27 Apple Store 28 Alphabetical order? 29 AfD 30 Bravo on Madoff cleanup 31 Orphaned non-free image (File:Loopt logo.gif) 32 Orphaned non-free image (File:Palmsourcelogo.jpg) 33 No content in Category:IPhone OS-only games 34 Account creation interface 35 Boston College Eagles women's basketball 36 Template:Grammar 37 Hello Psantora. A few discussions you possibly might be interested in are 38 NYC Meetup: You're invited! 39 Talk:Queens Giant 40 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 41 {{Infobox Secondary school}} edit 42 You're invited! 43 Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rosiesplacelogo.gif) 44 You're invited... 45 Category:Images of Barack Obama 46 Orphaned non-free media (File:Google Wave logo.png) 47 iPhone, units sold, SPS 48 AfD

[edit] Section Layout and MOS

Hi. I see that you recently edited the headers in Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_presidential_primaries. Perhaps you'd be interested in adding to the discussion at Talk:Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_presidential_primaries#Section_layout? Thanks. Wdfarmer (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republican Convention in FL

This discussion is regarding Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008#Florida.

The provided reference states wta by district and state-wide. If the situation has changed, the reference is unclear about that resulting in a solely state-wide wta contest. Can you find a different source which states clearly that FL is a wta state-wide contest without it also mentioning that it is a district-wide wta contest? —XSG 18:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Green Papers reference does include WTA district and state-wide language, but it is in two different scenarios. The "Alternative" plan is if FL's delegates aren't sanctioned by the RNC. In this case, the delegates would follow the original and normal plan of WTA by district delegates. The "Soft/Hard" plan is what is currently slated to happen. That is WTA state-wide, according to the source:[1]

Soft/Hard Total Plan. This plan assumes the delegation is sanctioned.

Tuesday 29 January 2008: All 57 of Florida's delegates to the Republican National Convention are allocated to presidential contenders in today's Florida Presidential Primary. All 57 delegates are to be allocated to the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary statewide.

Assuming there are only going to be 57 delegates, the state-wide scenario is the only possibility. If you allow for the possible full 114 delegates then the WTA language should be changed to include districts in addition to the state-wide bonus delegates. Does that make more sense? ~ Paul^C/_T+ 20:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say it makes sense to me, but I've seen enough credible and clear sources discussing it that I can at least accept it. —XSG 22:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] maps on Results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries

FYI, the following image is how the article looks on my screen, and why I am making attempts to reformat the way the maps appear on the article. Kingturtle (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird, you don't have the long table of contents? Thanks for responding to that random IP below. ~ Paul^C/_T+ 16:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] comment invited

As an occasional past editor at Template:United States presidential election, 2008,
your comment is invited at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Revisited: Proposal on minimum standards for listing on template
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, it looks like by accident this edit deleted all the updated delegate totals. I reverted the edit (and foxed the Edwards delegates. Maybe you can go back and try whatever it was you were trying to do again, without deleting the delegate totals this time. Oh, and the SC delegates are listed on the CNN scorecard.--Margareta (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it was intentional. It looks like Bobblehead explained the situation on your talk page. ~ Paul^C/_T+ 16:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrible editor

Why the hell did you add a fact check to film section of the wing commander article? you are a terrible editor, the reason why the wikipedia has a poor reputation for information!! 220.253.39.126 (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Wing Commander (franchise)#Film

WP:RS and WP:V, also WP:NPA. ~ Paul^C/_T+ 15:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

RS and V? haha!! How asinine can you get!! You deserve personal attacks, because your editing is stupid. 220.253.43.62 (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republican Primary County Map

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know how to edit images. The image Image:2008RepublicanPrimaryResultsByCounty.jpg is a better version of the county map in the 2008 Republican Presidential Primary Results article. I found results for individual Washington counties as well as individual Kansas counties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headforthehills7 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the Washington and Kansas county information? I'll do what I can to add it to the png image currently in the article, but there needs to be source information. ~ Paul^T+/_C 05:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries

I was surprised by your recent edits to Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Overview of results changing the 'Estimated superdelegates' and 'Estimated pledged delegates' rows to calculated totals rather than data from the sources specified in those rows. Why are sources listed for those rows if they're simply calculated values? If those rows should in fact be calculated totals, then that must mean that the "Green Papers" web site is the defacto source for delegate data for this article. Who decided on this source and why? I appreciate your helping me sort this out as it affects a related article I've been working on with several other editors Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I can tell, the delegate data for each of the states in that table is pulled from each state's results table later in the article, which have their own sources. The Green Papers source is only to specify the number of delegates at stake in each contest and the date, at least that is all I use it for. I go with whatever numbers are present in the table and calculate up because otherwise it looks sloppy. I agree that the delegate numbers in the table need to be sourced better. Ideally, The Green Papers would be a good source for this data as it calculates based on party rules in each county how each delegate gets allocated, but the information is still in the process of being updated and there is incomplete county-level results information from Super Tuesday states. ~ Paul^T+/_C 17:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I was making the error of assuming the Green Papers citations applied to each row's entire contents, not specifically the number of delegates at stake, but now it makes sense to me that the citation applies only to the information immediately preceding it. I've not heretofore been familiar with the Green Papers site, but now that I've checked it out, it seems like a terrific resource. My only lingering qualm about using it as a source is whether or not the site fits Wikipedia's criteria for reliability. It's hard to tell from the Green Papers site, but it seems like it's the work of just one guy.

As to the question of whether the 'Estimated superdelegates' and 'Estimated pledged delegates' rows should either be calculated values or agree with the cited sources:
I don't see much discussion or consensus on the article's discussion pages. Based on your history of contributions to Wikipedia, particularly Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, I'm placing a higher degree of confidence in your input to that article than my own. I've therefore gone ahead and removed the citations in those rows and replaced them with footnotes explaining how the values are derived.

This, of course, means that the numbers on Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 won't match the numbers on Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, which has been a great source of confusion among editors of these pages. I'm still not sure how to resolve that issue, but I invite you to join in the discussion at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Sources for candidate results to help us figure it out. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Navbox subgroup

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANavbox_subgroup&diff=178430583&oldid=16879261

Perhaps, then, pluralize {{Navbox generic subgroup}}'s name - or even replace it with {{Navbox subgroups}} as {{Navbox generic}} was replaced by {{Navbox}}...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the /doc page, navbox subgroup is still under construction. (Though it doesn't look like it is under active development currently.) I don't see the rationale for the "s". Articles and templates for the most part are singular, while categories are plural. Discuss the change on the template's talk page to see what other people think, but I don't see any reason for it. ~ Paul^T+/_C 16:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it's a minor niggle, yes, but the rationale is this: I'd say most instances of subgroups occur with more than one subgroup beside a single overarching group. It's only a matter of a single "s", though, so I don't reckon there's any great loss if it's not pursued. Meanwhile, however, combining {{Navbox generic subgroup}} and {{Navbox subgroups}} as {{Navbox subgroups}} might be worthwhile for the sake of consistency with {{Navbox generic}}'s replacement with {{Navbox}} (i.e. remove the "generic"). Thanks for your reply and the neat {{talkback}} template, Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{wrap}} in {{nowrap}}?

I left a response for you at Template talk:Nowrap begin. --David Göthberg (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uncommitted in Washington Primaries

Hi Paul. It's been nice working with you on Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. I am puzzled by a row you added to the Washington primaries table. There was no uncommitted option on the Washington primary ballot (though there was a blank for "write-in"), but the source for the table's results doesn't show uncommitted numbers anywhere that I can see. Where did you get those numbers from? Thanks. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How odd, I thought I added this source to the table... curious that the numbers don't match up to the official source. Let's go with the wa.gov numbers... ~ Paul^T+/_C 06:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Thanks for the info and thanks for already updating the article. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows

Thanks for your past comments and contributions at Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Right now there is a significant vote taking place at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows about whether or not to overturn a previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should represent individual nominating events. The vote ends at the close of March 19, 2008 (UTC). The vote contains the negative-option that if there is a tie or fewer than 4 total signatures the previous consensus will prevail. I invite you to visit the talk page and submit your vote on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The vote has completed. The result was to uphold the previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should summarize nomination events, not aggregate state results. Thanks for your participation in the vote! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for fixing my curious Babel template problem

Thanks for helping out! I don't think I would have figured that out by myself. ;-) — Northgrove 02:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Apple celeb

This discussion was moved to the talk page of the template in question ~ Paul^T+/_C 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:IT_giants

Salsesforce.com is not a company on the level of Amazon, AOL, eBay, Google, Microsoft, or Yahoo!, despite you adding it 3-4 times to the list since december.

SSDDR (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Systems science (and maybe elsewhere)

Hi again.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASystems_science&diff=204548836&oldid=202417334
  (remove superfluous {{nowrap begin/end/w}} templates...

Are these now superfluous, i.e. the occasional rightside collision problem with {{·}} has been solved? Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am not aware of any rightside collision problem with {{·}}. Can you please point me to the discussion? ~ Paul^T+/_C 04:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's in various places, e.g. Wikipedia:Line break handling (and/or talk), Template:· (and/or talk), Template:Navbox (and/or talk) and/or similar places related to navbox template formatting. However, it should be much easier to view a template using {{·}}s in a browser window whose width you then reduce gradually. Sooner or later one or more of the {{·}}s should approach a little too close to the template's righthand border and sometimes even touch it.

It's not a devastating problem, but, if the rest of a template's formatting has been sorted out, it becomes noticeable. At least, that's my experience. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before... again, I've read those talk pages and I haven't seen any discussion that points out problems with {{·}} not wrapping correctly or not as intended. There are many instances where {{nowrap begin}}/w/end templates are very helpful and should absolutely be used--I helped with the testing of these templates--, but they are not needed with {{systems science}} and {{Apple celeb}}. Can you please point to a specific discussion that outlines the problem you think can happen when using {{·}}? ~ Paul^T+/_C 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's one now. Have you tried the experiment I outlined above? (In any case, as you've been working with templates and {{·}}, I'm sure you must've seen what I've described -- unless, perhaps, it's something confined to Firefox on a Windows XP PC (my usual work computer)...?) Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

PS Please use the talkback template again as I may be offline soon. Thanks.

I stumbled over your discussion here. As perhaps both of you know this "expanding out of the box" bug is a Firefox bug. So first of all you need to use Firefox to see it. Since we talked before I have learnt more about it and written down parts of it here: Wikipedia talk:Line break handling#Firefox bug. And yes, {{·}} actually does provoke the bug. However, the width of the text you add after each nowrapped string matters. And since {{·}} is fairly narrow (only one non-breaking space and a dot) it only shows the bug a little. That is, the dots usually do not flow outside the box, they just touch the box border. So if that should be considered a problem or not is a matter of taste. Personally I usually don't convert lists to use {{nowrap begin}}+{{·w}}+{{nowrap end}} that only has that minor problem, but I also do not convert lists back to {{·}} just to get the simpler {{·}} code, since {{nowrap begin}} etc renders better.

The bug only becomes a serious problem when one has nowrap protected strings followed or surrounded by several other characters. Like for instance nowraplinks protected links with text around it, like this: [[Some link]] (2008){{·}} or "[[Some link]]"{{·}}. Those two texts have 9 and 4 characters respectively outside the link before the real space. That's enough many characters to expand outside the box and become a real problem.

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as ever for your input, David. I hadn't clocked that ultimately the problem is a bug in Firefox. I don't know whether or not the Firefox developers are aware of it and planning to address it, but if so, that'd be good news as I agree {{·}} would be preferable. I hardly know anything about the world of software development, so I'd be grateful if either of you could point me toward what looks the most appropriate place to make enquiries; there seem to be various possibilities (forums, webpages, perhaps even irc?). Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean you want to report the bug to the Firefox developers? I have thinking of doing that for some time too. So I took a quick look over at bugzilla.mozilla.org and searched for "nowrap", it turned up at least two bug reports that clearly is the exact same bug:

• Bug report 225946
• Bug report 278891

And there are several other "nowrap" bug reports that seem related. I am going to get myself an account over there so I can write comments at those bug reports telling them they are both the same bug. And also link back here to Wikipedia:Line break handling and it's talk page.

But even if the next version of Firefox is fixed we still have to handle the bug for the next two years or so. And we have the problems with wrapping in several Internet Explorer versions which means we need to use {{nowrap begin}} etc in many places anyway.

By the way, I will copy parts of this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Line break handling#Firefox bug.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Here's to two or so years from now. In the meantime, I think {{nowrap begin}}--{{·w}}--{{nowrap end}} should continue to be used, as a bot or bots could be tasked to replace it once this bug is sorted out and most users have upgraded. What do you think, Psantora? Thanks, David, for the bugzilla research. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so now I see the bug with {{·}} on Firefox, but in order to work around this bug, would there ever be an appropriate use for {{·}} (whether inside or outside navboxes)? I'm not sure that there is anymore and, if that is the case, should we temporarily redirect {{·}} to {{·w}} and include the {{nowrap begin}} and {{nowrap end}} templates (or redirected templates so it will be easier to locate and remove once this bug gets fixed two years from now) as default for the {{navbox}} group code? This would preclude the need to replace existing {{·}} code in navboxes and the need to move them back once the bug is fixed. We would also need to come up with an alternate solution for uses of {{·}} outside of navboxes. ~ Paul^T+/_C 17:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, people tend to come to the same conclusions and ask the same questions. Sardanaphalus asked the same thing some weeks ago. See my response to that at: Template talk:Navbox#Incorporating improved linewrap handling code

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup. {{·}} is still very useful outside templates, and, if/when the Firefox bug is history, can be preferred within them again. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Table Mobile operating systems

Hey, I moved my message here to the discussion page InternetMeme (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Palmsource logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Palmsource logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] <br> or <br />?

I just saw that you did this edit. I hope that was just a prank to mess with me, right? If not, here goes:

Which should we use? <br> or <br />?

Let's examine this step by step:

1: Writing the XHTML code <br/> without a blank is even against the recommendations of the World Wide Web Consortium, instead it should be written as <br /> since then HTML parsers can understand it too. HTML parsers will simply regard <br /> as a "br" with an unknown parameter "/", while they will regard "br/" as an unknown tag name. So we should definitely not teach people to write <br/>, but possibly <br />.

2: The "HTML" codes we use here at Wikipedia are not XHTML markup nor are they HTML markup, instead they are "HTML wikimarkup", since MediaWiki processes them just like wikimarkup.

3: Wikipedia mainly uses wikimarkup. The reasons for that is simple: Most people that edit Wikipedia are people who never have made a web page, so they know nothing about HTML, XHTML or CSS. So for them (and even for us old webmaster geeks) it is easier to use wikimarkup.

4: So far I have seen the documentation for MediaWiki talks about "HTML in wikitext" and never mentions "XHTML in wikitext". Also up until recently all documentation listed <br> as the code for forced line breaks. But some months ago some XHTML enthusiasts went around and edited a lot of the help pages to show the <br /> or even the <br/>.

So which should we use? <br> or <br />?

Well, let's first ask another question: Which markup should we use for bold text?

• '''Bold'''
• <b>Bold</b>
• <span style="font-weight:bold;">Bold</span>

I think we all know that the wikimarkup '''Bold''' is the recommended one. Mainly because it is simpler to use, especially for the majority of editors that don't know HTML and CSS.

The same goes for <br> vs <br />. The HTML wikimarkup <br> is easier for the majority of editors to use, and it is shorter.

Sure, we have a "teaching opportunity" to teach people to use the <br />, but there is a very high risk that they instead will use the <br/> and that would be a bad thing. And believe it or not, many beginners have problems telling "/" and "\" apart. So they might even try to use the <br\>...

So again, the <br> is easier for the majority of editors to use, and it is shorter.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that lengthy explanation of <br> vs. <br />! I didn't expect to see that on my talk page! Regarding my edit, I originally just wanted to strike out the three templates I took a look at and updated earlier today, but when I saw all the <br>s, it was just as easy to do a "replace all" to convert them to <br />s. To be perfectly honest, I didn't know the history behind the extra space is used, I just assumed it was (more) correct markup. I didn't realize it was due to XHTML "enthusiasts" as you say. I'll assume that it doesn't really matter from here on out (unless you would like to enlighten me further) and I won't make those changes. ~ Paul^T+/_C 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Aside: Is there a significant difference between <br /> and <br/>? Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. HTML and XHTML are two different kinds of markup. Older web browsers only understood HTML, while some modern special applications (XML parsers) only understand XHTML. The old HTML browsers think that a <br/> is a tag named "br/", which is something they don't understand since they only know about <br>. But they do understand <br /> since then they see the tag name "br" and a strange parameter "/" that they usually simply disregard. While the special applications that only understand XHTML understand both <br/> and <br /> but not <br>. So that is why W3C nowadays recommend <br /> when making web pages since then all kinds of browsing/parsing software can understand it.

But here on Wikipedia the only two things that are going to read the tag are humans (most of which are editors without HTML and XHTML knowledge) and the MediaWiki software. And MediaWiki nowadays understands all three forms of the BR tag, and converts it to whatever format it wants to output the wiki web pages. Currently MediaWiki outputs XHTML web pages so it outputs <br />. From what I read older versions of MediaWiki only understood <br>, but support for some XHTML tags was added so it would be simpler to cut and paste text from other free web sites.

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Other article moves

“DVD Player (software)” might refer to other software DVD players.

But that’s far from how wrong “Software Update”, or even “Calculator (software)” and “Address Book” were.

And the only other article that I think needs renaming is Dictionary (software), to avoid confusion with other software dictionaries (on which there is no article, but, as long as there are articles on application software at all, there should be one). What should it be then — Dictionary (Mac OS X) or Dictionary (Apple software)?

--AVRS (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Divesture vs demerger

Hi there Psantora,

Apologies for reverting some of your corrections to the "Telefónica O2" article. Specifically on "divesture" vs "demerger". Wikipedia itself has an definition article for "demerger" but not for "divesture". I think that "divesture" is probably used in North America more so than in Europe (which is the region which the subject of the article is affiliated with). Also, given that the company "mmO2" was formed on the London Stock Exchange from BT Group, which was also listed on the London Stock Exchange (which I also believe is the most popular stock market in the world in terms of the number of companies traded), I think it makes sense for the article to use the financial language of the stock market that the subject of the article is most closely affiliated to. Do you agree? Best regards - Jminhas

Jminhas (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to echo Jminhas' comments, "divesture" is not a term used in the UK (and probably not in Europe), whereas demerger is probably more widely known. That, and you probably meant "divestiture" (again, not a term used in the UK as far as I'm aware). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 12:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:AppleInsider.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:AppleInsider.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback granted

Your account now has rollback privileges. Please only use the tool to revert simple vandalism or test edits, or the right will be removed accordingly. Happy editing to you. Keegan^talk 06:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North Dakota

I noticed that you updated the Wikipedia Commons version of the Republican Primaries County Map some time ago, adding North Dakota's results. Would you happen to still have a source for the by county information for North Dakota? I have had the hardest time trying to find it. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pricing in Infobox Online music service

I agree with your assessment that a description of the pricing model in the infobox is useful. But that was not the category was being used for previously. It was usually used for the actual pricing which not only clearly ran afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG, but in the case of iTunes Store was WAY out of hand as it was listing the price in every country where there is an iTunes Store. Accordingly, I have changed the header for the infobox to be "pricing model" and put in variable/fixed/subscripion/whatever in all the pages that used the infobox. Feel free to tweak this as you wish as I didn't have much free time to spend on it. -- KelleyCook (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] XHTML thingy

Just a little nuance: [2]

<br/> and <br /> are both correct, although <br /> looks tidier. <br></br> is also correct. <br> alone is the wrong one. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the above, <br/> is incorrect HTML syntax. Here is a summary: <br> alone is correct HTML but it is not correct XHTML. Given that, the best code to use is <br /> but this can be confusing and is often written (though correct for XHTML, incorrect for HTML) without the space (<br/>). Since MediaWiki converts all this code automatically anyway, why not use the simplest, least error-prone code: <br>? At least, that is according to User:Davidgothberg. As a bonus the code can be easily copy/pasted to older versions of the MediaWiki software if that is ever needed. Regardless, the only variation of code from the above that can actually break when being rendered is <br/>, so I would think it is best to avoid it. Anyway, that is my understanding of it.  ~ Paul^T+/_C 00:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

More discussion here. ~ Paul^T+/_C 04:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] iPod categories

Hey, I noticed you've gone back and forth a couple of times on whether the iPhone category should be a descendant of iPod. I don't think it should be there -- philosophically, categories should only contain items in them that are logically part of the category itself, regardless of how many levels deep you go. For example, any monument in a city should have a parent category that you can eventually work upwards to "monuments" and to the city's parent category. Category:Windows software wouldn't belong in Category:Microsoft Windows, however, because while they're certainly related topics, neither is actually a part of the other.

Put a bit more succinctly: category B goes inside category A if B is logically a part of A.

Put a bit more savory: A pie category would contain crust, filling, and toppings, but would not include a plate, fork, or hungry Wikipedian.

I think I get what you're trying to do though, which is to group together all of the i... umm... "iEcosystem" articles (iPod, iPhone, iTunes, accessories, third-party tools, etc.), but the name you've chosen for the category, iTunes, is misleading. Hymn (software) is software that works in conjunction with iTunes, but is not part of iTunes itself. AirPort has a feature which lets it control iTunes, but AirPort in and of itself is not a part of iTunes. Separate categories would work well here. Hope this is of some use... happy categorizing! Warren -talk- 11:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apple Store

Hello! Do you intend to update the numerous mainspace links that now lead to a disambiguation page? It would have been helpful if you'd done that before performing the move (assuming that the move was a good idea). —David Levy 01:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that many of those articles merely transclude the template (which you've already updated), so they simply seed to have their caches purged. —David Levy 01:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Apple Store (chain) is a better link than Apple Store (retail). The stores are known as "Apple Retail Stores" on Apple's website so the "retail" term was deliberate. The online store is called the "Apple Online Store". The term "chain" can be confusing and also implies that they might be franchised, which is incorrect. ~ Paul^T+/_C 04:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Have you read the Retailing article (to which you linked above)? "Online retailing" is explicitly referenced. Apple can use (or not use) the term "retail" however it pleases, and it doesn't change the fact that both the online and brick and mortar Apple Stores are retail operations.

2. In no way does the term "chain" imply that franchising occurs. The operation in question factually is a chain, as stated in the article's hatnote and lead.

3. As there obviously is disagreement regarding the best course of action, I've reverted to the stable setup (which I'm not even convinced needed to be changed). Feel free to initiate a move request or participate in discussion on the article's talk page.

4. Please don't abuse the rollback function. —David Levy 04:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion at Talk:Apple Store#Title. —David Levy 05:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetical order?

I'm sorry, doesn't "App Store" come before "Apple"? I'm pretty sure spaces come before characters in alphabetic lists. Let me test this out with Category:Test. This page should show up before, not after, User:Daniel48 when using "User:D z" as the sorting sequence. According to WP:ALPH spaces come before all other characters as well. Of course, this assumes we are using "App" as its own word and not as an abbreviation for "Application". Am I missing something? ~ Paul^T+/_C 06:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you appear to be missing that the documentation refers to MediaWiki's technical configuration, not to a linguistic convention. The fact that "usually the spaces or hyphens between words are ignored" is noted in the article to which you linked in this section's header.

Incidentally, you also appear to have misread the explanation, which indicates that "a 'blank space' after the name comes before any character" (emphasis mine). Not that this has any relevance to the matter at hand, of course. —David Levy 06:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

An article you have edited List of iPhone applications has been proposed by another editor for deletion; you may want to comment at the discussionDGG (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bravo on Madoff cleanup

Bravo on the Madoff cleanup. I think I'll remove the Cornfeld link - he and 50 other fraudsters could be linked, but I don't think it adds much. Thanks again. Smallbones (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there really 50 other people who have done similar schemes? I'd be interested to see that list. I thought it was of some interest since they have the same first name and the scope, while much larger with Madoff, is similar in the types of people that were targeted. ~ Paul^T+/_C 22:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (File:Loopt logo.gif)

You've uploaded File:Loopt logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (File:Palmsourcelogo.jpg)

You've uploaded File:Palmsourcelogo.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] No content in Category:IPhone OS-only games

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:IPhone OS-only games, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:IPhone OS-only games has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:IPhone OS-only games, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Account creation interface

I've approved your account on the account creation interface, as you requested. Please review WP:ACC/G prior to fulfilling any requests. If you have any questions feel free to ask me or ask in #wikipedia-en-accounts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ Paul^T+/_C 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Boston College Eagles women's basketball

The two deleted edits for Boston College Eagles women's basketball were restored per your request. The page was deleted for lack of content, in fact the entire content was included in the deletion summary (an infobox and stub note). Let me know if you have any other concerns or questions. Thanks and best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Grammar

I'm a bit surprised to see the template un-redirected, because although I too queried whether parameters could be passed, I actually did something about it and updated all article transclusions to point to the correct copyedit with for parameter. Surely now, after consensus, there is no need for {{Grammar}}? If you want I can have the same bot go through all the transclusions again... non-article space as well perhaps. Of course, there's going to be a transition period, when people are going to use the template, but that's what the redirect's for, if not ideal. Just to warn you, other people may be more concerned than me about someone reverted an action mandated by a TfD. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a minute; I thought you were for "if not, redirect anyway". There's something I'm missing here, evidently. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you aren't missing anything. I thought the template was just redirected, but you changed all the transclusions to include the correct template with the "For" parameter. Given that I think my change can be safely reverted. It doesn't really make a difference either way. Thanks for letting me know. ~ Paul^T+/_C 20:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I think I marginally prefer having the redirect though, as it has more of a deterent feel about it. It's a toss-up, I know, but this should discourage the template's use (I've changed it back to a redirect). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, plus it wasn't correctly passing the date parameter. Would it be possible to have the bot go through the transclusions on a regular basis? An additional 5 or so articles added the template during the few days the redirect was changed. ~ Paul^T+/_C 21:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If you ping me, I can do it on a whim - whenever really. I'll try to keep it up to date, but I haven't really got permission to have it run automatically every x days. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Psantora. A few discussions you possibly might be interested in are

Here: Template talk:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template#Merger proposal -- here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Obama cabinet infobox -- here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template -- and, um, here: Template talk:Current U.S. Cabinet. ↜Just me, here, now … 02:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NYC Meetup: You're invited!

New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum Last: 01//2008 This box: view • talk • edit

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Queens Giant

Hi. I can't make sense of your coordinates on the talk page for Queens Giant. It seems as if you posted the same incorrect coordinates as the previous person.

Nevertheless, I was wondering if you could help me with the correct location. I basically know where the tree is and how to enter the area; I was just looking for the exact location to save time. I plan on stopping by one day and getting some good pictures of it, hopefully good enough to upload on the page. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. -- EnjoysButter (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Malaspina University-College Gil Santos List of banks in Hong Kong Walter Brown Arena Boston College (MBTA station) Oneida Football Club Geoffrey Rees Triumph of the Nerds Arthur Treacher Marty Reasoner Construct validity Sham Chun River Gary Gulman 28 State Street Hinds Community College Jack Bicknell PBS Kids Carnegie Corporation of New York Aaron Jay Kernis

Cleanup Parakeet Pocomoke City, Maryland Dave Silk Merge East Boston Expressway Port of Hong Kong Harvard National Model United Nations Add Sources John Hume Comparison of office suites William Weld Wikify Gonzaga University Digicel Fraternal Order of Police Expand Xsan Hyde Park, Massachusetts Boston Market

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{Infobox Secondary school}} edit

Hi,

Looks like this edit broke the use of attributes on a few articles, as brought up on the talk page. Unlike page links, an attribute with an underscore is actually a different entity to one with a space. I've reverted your change. Any thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] You're invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 29th, Columbia University area Last: 01/18/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rosiesplacelogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rosiesplacelogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] You're invited...

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday May 17th, Columbia University area Last: 03/29/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Images of Barack Obama

Hi Psantora, you created a lot of imagepages without media and just this category on it. Why? This images are from Commons, this is why we have a whole universe of Obama images on commons:Category:Barack Obama, you dont need to duplicate this to Wikipedia ;) Your new created image pages should be deleted, please done create any more of them. --Martin H. (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (File:Google Wave logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Google Wave logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] iPhone, units sold, SPS

Hello Psantora. I admire your contributions to Apple articles, and I just wanted to clear up a few snags. I understand WP:SPS, but I disagree that linking to the image description page is self-citing. Rather, it collects all data from numerous press releases, all cited, in a way that would be inconvenient to do on the image talk page. (Space is particularly tight in the infobox; I'm trying to have minimal line breaks in logical places.) In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I have added a link to the table to the citation you propose, which I have retained in the infobox. Is this an acceptable compromise?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we could work that out; I really like your most recent edit. My only question is concerns the difference between geocoding and geotagging. As I understand it, the former involves latitude and longitude and meaningful locations (street addresses); the latter is the camera embedding the location in the metadata. So all three models geotag, right?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. I wasn't sure if there was a difference between the two (and if so, whether the three versions of the phone supported one or the other or both) so I kept it the way I originally found it. ~ Paul^T+/_C 03:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Your opinion would be appreciated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Rock (event). Fences&Windows 01:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)