User talk:Zondor/Archive 1

first talk

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:15, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Google

Hi Zondor. Noticed your good work of adding images to Google. Can you add these new content to Google Inc. instead? As Google article gets bigger and bigger, we may want to split the content specific to search here and move other stuff to Google Inc.. -- Sundar 08:49, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

For example, Google Inc. does not have a section on Froogle. -- Zondor 09:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if I miss your point, but what I said was, sections on Froogle, News, Labs etc ought to be moved to Google Inc. -- Sundar 09:39, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think the products, services, and tools sections from both Google and Google Inc. should be moved to a new page called Google Products and Services. Google Inc. is also quite populated already with some similar information. -- Zondor 09:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That would be great, really. -- Sundar 09:48, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

---

Something cannot be copyrighted and public domain at the same time. Please explain what you mean by copyrighted public domain images. --Hemanshu 17:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"when the creator is known to have released the work to public domain". "This image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide." I am trying to categorise. otherwise please suggest an alternative name. -- Zondor 17:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't think of anything better than "Images released into the public domain by the copyright owner". I realise it's long but copyrighted public domain images just sounds wrong. --Hemanshu 17:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

how about the current one? "Copyright holder released public domain images" -- Zondor 17:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image copyright tags

Thank you, Zondor, for organizing and formatting this page. I have some questions though. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 05:20, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

The exciting world of image tagging

Greetings! A while age you signed up to help tag images, so I thought I'd let you know what's been going on lately in the image-tagging world.

First off, things are moving slow, but at least they're moving in the right direction. (What I mean is, more images are tagged every month than the number of newly uploaded images without tags, so the net number of untagged images keep decreasing.) But judging from the progress on the lists at User:Yann/Untagged Images, most of the time it's just me tagging images. And it sure gets lonely out on the tagging prairie.

Second, I have basically rewritten the User:Yann/Untagged Images page. Hopefully that will make it easier for people to help, and will attract new recruits. What do you think of the new text and layout?

And third, there have been a bunch of new tags added in the last month. Check out Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the new tags and new organization, mostly done by Zondor.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Happy holidays! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:35, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

References

Howdy! Checking your edits to Sakhalin, according to:

Wikipedia:Guide to layout

Referencs come AFTER External links.

WikiDon 17:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

External links

Need to work on your "External links".

Words like:

Sakhalin and Easter Island, are PROPER NOUNS and NEED to be capitialized!

Also, try formatting them differently. Instead of this:

• Flickr: Photos tagged with sakhalin

Try something like this:

• Photos of Sakhalin @ Flickr

From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Link_titles:

"You should always add a title to an external link by supplying descriptive text after the URL separated by a space and enclosing it all in square brackets. For example, to add a title to a bare URL such as http://en.wikipedia.org/ (this is rendered as "http://en.wikipedia.org/"), use the following syntax: [http://en.wikipedia.org/ an open-content encyclopedia] (this is rendered as "an open-content encyclopedia").

Generally, URLs are ugly and uninformative; it is better for a meaningful title to be displayed rather than the URL itself. For example, "European Space Agency website" is much more reader-friendly than "http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/index.html". There may be exceptions where the url is well known or is the company name. In this case, putting both the url and a valid title will be more informative, for example, "European Space Agency website, www.esa.int".

If the URL is displayed, make it as simple as possible; for example, if the index.html is superfluous, remove it (but be sure to check in preview mode first).

The "printable version" of a page displays all URLs in full, including those given a title, so no information is lost."

WikiDon 17:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

What? You want to try that in English? WikiDon 18:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Flickr

If you are unsure of the website www.flickr.com, maybe you should not use it as a link? If a user can post photos of Sakhalin, then you add a link, then the user comes back and takes that set of photos off and puts up child porn, maybe they should not be here. WikiDon

Do you think we should worry about images being MIS-TAGGED, getting into the wrong folder and offending someone? I am not sure I like linking to a site like this, it is like linking to a blog. What do you think? WikiDon

Well, that is a little better, it can be there, but just "NOT FOR PUBLIC VIEW", so maybe one must sign in to view it. WikiDon

So, an eight-year old child using Wikipedia for a school report can go to Flickr and find the following images and its okay?

• [1]
• [2]

Just double checking...

Offensive

Why exactly should we tag all images with nudity as offensive? While we're tagging Michelangelo's David as offensive, shouldn't we make sure to tag all pictures of women without burqas as offensive?--Prosfilaes 05:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Offensive

Template:Offensive has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Offensive. Thank you. Superm401 | Talk 06:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Afd

While your includeonly/noinclude changes to {{afd}} were doubtless well-intentioned, they broke the template. Unlike {{ifd}}, {{rfd}}, {{cfd}}, and so on, {{afd}} is always used with subst, mainly because the pages tagged with it are more likely to be moved. —Cryptic (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

your edit to category:images with unknown copyright status

I just reverted your edit to this category. It doesn't, as far as I can see, self-reference. Self references in the category namespace are tolerated. And as you probably know, the category is being depopulated as we speak. Were you trying to make a WP:POINT? Zeimusu | Talk page 14:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

i disagree, it is a self-reference. the fact it has some sort of status such as a copyright status refers to something, that is wikipedia. its just a mark. it does not mean the category must be deleted. -- Zondor 14:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You mean "unknown" means "Unknown to wikipedia" which is a self reference? Well that kind of makes sense. Fair enough, but you should discuss the category on the category talk page, not in the category. Happy edits Zeimusu | Talk page 14:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Afd nominations

Thank you for your efforts to keep nonsense, self promotion, and the like off of Wikipedia. However, I must ask you to please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion before making any more afd nominations. Since you've been missing steps II and III, nobody will see your nominations except by chance, perhaps for days or weeks, so someone has to find them on Category:Pages for deletion and list them for you (which is a very time-consuming process). This also causes the articles you're trying to get deleted to stay in Wikipedia for a much longer time than they otherwise would. —Cryptic (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Offensive/StealthVersion

Your template is on Templates for Deletion. You are invited to come and comment there.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Article status templates

Hello! I noticed that you've been adding a great deal of information to the various article status templates, and I'm writing to inquire about a portion of the text.

I recognize the benefits of the stating the associated category and listing the related templates in a "see also" section, and I agree that these templates should not be inserted via subst.

I don't, however, understand why you're including the sentence "This template is a self-reference." with a link to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. The rule in question does not apply to article status notices within the template namespace, but this statement/link combination seems to imply that such templates are in violation and should not be used.

Could you please explain your reasoning behind the inclusion of this statement? Thank you! —Lifeisunfair 17:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The common use for it would not be Wikipedia:Subst but it would be great if it does work with it.

They are self-references are they not? From how i see it, there are some templates that do not self-reference because they refer to other article in content, but there are some templates such as status templates which refer to Wikipedia maintenance.

This is the same with articles and categories.

They are not in violation; I am just marking them to let people be aware of it.

Plus, I would like to put all those See Also references to other related templates into one template itself to be used in each of those templates.

Would that be a good idea?

-- Zondor 17:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

"The common use for it would not be Wikipedia:Subst but it would be great if it does work with it."

Why would that be useful? These messages are intended to be temporary and easily removed, and should be readily identifiable via automated means by those who wish to mirror the actual article content elsewhere.

"They are are self-references are they not?"

Yes, but they're the type that is explicitly permitted.

"They are not in violation; I am just marking them to let people be aware of it."

1. How is it beneficial for "people be [made] aware of it"? Why should this particular ordinary element of Wikipedia be singled out for notation (as opposed to noting that "this template is rectangular" or "this template is blue"?

2. Don't you realize that referring to such a template as a "self-reference" while simultaneously including a link to a page entitled "Avoid self-references" strongly implies that the template should be avoided?

"Plus, I would like to put all those See Also references to other related templates into one template itself to be used in each of those templates. Would that be a good idea?"

My understanding is that it's best to avoid embedding one template within another (because of server strain issues). —Lifeisunfair 17:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It can be very useful. For example, the AFD templates are often used for Subst to put less strain on the servers or whatever. So adding noinclude tags will muck it up because Subst will include everything. Why is it that way I wonder because it would be appropriate otherwise. People may think its spamming, but I am just giving it extra attention it should deserves. Perhaps Avoid self-references should be renamed to Manage self-references to avoid any connotations. -- Zondor 18:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

1. I understand why the use of the subst method sometimes is desirable. As I mentioned above, however, these particular templates should not be inserted in this manner; it's better for them to appear in the article bodies in shorthand form (surrounded by double curly brackets). This makes them easier to identify and remove (particularly by outside publishers of the articles).

2. You haven't explained (and I don't understand) why "extra attention" should be paid to the fact that these templates contain self-references. How is this information supposed to affect the manner in which the templates are utilized? In other words, in what way should a person put this knowledge to use, acting differently because he/she read your notation? —Lifeisunfair 18:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Clueless occasional user queries

Thanks for your helpful info to clueless occasional user. This section can be deleted and I will go look at system development process soon. cheers 11:19, 24 April 2024 Wednesday

Hi I got here since you did quite a bit of work analyzing Software_development_process. I will discuss with you on that later, but I got distracted by two interesting things I see in your user page:

• you have a "purge user" link. What does it do and why would you want it? I want to have a means to purge "only lesser contributions" I made, maybe what you have can achieve what I want

• you have participated in reviewing the "template offensive". I have taken a quick look and maybe the name of the template can be changed to "template sensitive", if not already existed.

BTW I am trialling an interesting signature I've found but it still require me to insert manual datetime :(. —Dlwl→龜 22:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Internet Server Directory on Wikibooks

I see that you have started a Wikibook that is a server directory. The problem with this Wikibook is that you are forcing me to eat my words that I wrote on b:Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks#Wikibooks is not a repository of links. While there is no formal policy against collections of links, it isn't really a textbook or something that you would use directly as an education resource for teaching a subject. That is the primary focus of Wikibooks. I may end up turning this into a VfD discussion, but I want to get more general community input on this topic first. Two points of What Wikibooks is Not that I want to emphasize is that Wikibooks is not a free web hosting service for anything anybody wants to throw in and call "a book". It is also not an incubator for new Wikimedia project ideas. Those should go onto the Meta server, or onto a future incubator project that the Wikimedia Foundation board has been discussing. While lists of references are acceptable for the development of a Wikibook, making that the sole point of the book goes against at least the basic premise to even having Wikibooks.

For now, instead of a full VfD discussion, I have put a discussion on the Wikibooks Staff Lounge for general community input on the idea. A competitor to the Open Directory Project would be a good thing in a number of ways, but I'm not sure that Wikibooks is the best way to do something like that. I am asking that you defend you decision to start this Wikibook, and what the goals of this book are. I also want to thank you for contributing to Wikibooks, and I hope that you continue to do so in the future. As a matter of personal opinion, I don't think this Wikibook belongs on the Wikibooks site, but I'm willing to hear alternative points of view on the subject as well. You may have forced the issue to see if things like this will go onto Wikibooks or not.--Robert Horning 22:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

noinclude breaking subst:

Are you aware you broke {{clearright}} for anyone using subst:? (SEWilco 05:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

Wikijunior?

Where was the discussion about Alaska for the Biology/Geography part of Wikijunior? I saw you added it, and was wondering if discussion had taken place. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Just a word of thanks to you for adding the "maintenance-use only" section to several of the deletion templates -- before, it was a hassle to nominate for deletion -- now it's quite a bit easier! --Wcquidditch | Talk 13:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Template maintenance

Hi there! I noticed you adding maintenance labels to a lot of templates... I think it's kind of confusing. Wouldn't it just be easier to let the bot proposed at Wikipedia:Subst take care of it automatically? Radiant_>|< 16:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Stubmakers

Thanks! You just made my day... Zotel - the Stub Maker 06:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rùm

Just now on WP:RM, you suggested a change to Rùm, Scotland instead of Rùm, referring to a standard convention (of which I am unaware). I'm puzzled, however; Rùm is entirely unambiguous, so why would the description ", Scotland" necessary. Eigg is simply Eigg. --Stemonitis 09:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Subst template metadata

Hi there. Thanks for your work with adding noinclude information into templates, but please remember to identify which of them are subst'd - noinclude doesn't work with those templates. violet/riga (t) 11:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a good idea to be basically disabling the ability for a user to subst in a template. violet/riga (t) 12:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects

The collapsing table gizmo you've introduced is broken in MonoBook on Firefox on WindowsXP ... any chance you can fix or remove the collapsing? When expended, the first couple of lines of text overwrite the top option: very messy. Thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

User:Zondor/Naming conventions

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Zondor's template.

Could you let me know where I could find any prior discussion before introducing that user:-namespace-page-used-as-template in several naming conventions guidelines? --Francis Schonken 08:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to remove the {{proposed}} template you added to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages). As it stands, these conventions are agreed upon and are part of the naming conventions. See its talk page for discussion. — mark ✎ 09:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed tags

Any reason why you added proposed tags to almost all naming conventions that had already been agreed? Could you point me to where any discussion lies. I'm going to remove them, the best place to discuss such tagging is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Steve block talk 10:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't add a guideline or policy tag as yet, as I'm unsure which we use and wish to query that fact. Steve block talk 10:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Categorization on Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down

Hey there, I'm just curious why you decided to categorize this page as so -- I don't intend for this page to be an essay more than it is a place for kudos. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

See, the page is divided into two parts: the how-to for the page and the compliments. The second section doesn't exist yet (because nobody has any compliments yet), so I can see how one would interpret it as an essay. Mind if I remove the essay cat? —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

SimulEdit

On top of each other, thankfully without issue. Feel free to IM. ∴ here…♠ 08:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Instant Message (herebox), I'm undoing a number of your category updates (subpages to tools don't need to be in tools category); also working on same pages (on top of each other). So far without issue. I'm on IRC or IM, confer if issue. ∴ here…♠ 08:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia tools

see talk page Category talk:Wikipedia tools. In my opinion, you are destroying any utility to the category by adding too many individual pages. ∴ here…♠ 09:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Welcome3

Could you explain why you felt compelled to make this edit? Pakaran 06:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually it was a misunderstanding on my part. After you added that image, another user uploaded a shock site image in place of it. Pakaran 06:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup Politics by country

You placed a cleanup tag at List of politics by country articles (now renamed in Politics by country). I made some adjustments. What is the cleanup you want to see more, since you didn't make any remarks on the talk page. Electionworld 13:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

So we can remove the cleanup tag now? Electionworld 13:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Tl

Hello, Zondor. I just noticed while I was running recent changes that you're using {{tl}} without substing it in. Tl is one of the templates that should always be substed (see Wikipedia:Template substitution). Just thought you might want to know. Cheers, Blackcap | talk 23:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, replied here. Sorry for wasting your time, there's more of an explanation there. Yes, you're right, my mistake. --Blackcap | talk 23:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:AFD changes

Please note that your recent changes to {{AFD}} broke it, causing the template to expand to include all of the article (the end div wasn't working). violet/riga (t) 22:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but it was this change that introduced the error with the missing closing tag (<small> instead of </small>). 07:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for userpage help

Hi,Zondor,thanks for your help on my userpage,love it now!--Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 02:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Sorry not to get back to you. I now suspect my reversion may have been too rash. Susvolans ⇔ 10:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

col tags

I just found your col-tags ({{col-begin}} et al.) on Object-oriented programming and just went to use them on my bookkeeping stuff at User:Adrian Buehlmann/my index. Nice idea. We'll see how it does over time. Greetings. – Adrian | Talk 19:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I am not quite sure that the tags organising See also and External links are an enhancement. However, their use in European exploration of Australia for organising the list of other explorers is great. Regards--A Y Arktos 20:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zondor. With regards to the format you rolling out for "external links" and "see also", have you actually raised this anywhere? I'm ambivalent on the idea, but I hope you've actually sought some sort of consensus for the changes. Such a fundamental formating change should really be raised at the Manual of Style, or Guide to layout. Thanks, --cj | talk 04:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Zondor. I have started a thread at the Manual of Style to generate discussion on this format. I think guidelines - whether encouraging or discouraging - are necessary. I hope you will partake. Thanks, --cj | talk 14:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

{{cl}}

Hi Zondor - I've just reverted your changes to {{cl}}. I'm not sure what you were trying to do to it, but it was no longer performing its required task (turning {{cl|Foo}} into "Cat:Foo"), and was causing a huge mess on several Wikispace and WikiProject pages and templates. Grutness...wha? 04:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

column tags (specifically in Iraq War)

The formatting changes you made are very nice... I looked at the page and if flows much better now, the lists of operations specifically look awesome. JG of Borg 04:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Noahide Laws in Category: Jewish Christian topics

There is a dispute over whether Noahide Laws should be included in this category, anyone with an opinion is asked to express it here: Talk:Noahide_Laws#Jewish_Christian_topics

Great idea!

I support the idea... we were only mentioning to Angela the other day that we need a stable revision to refer researchers to. I never thought about putting them in their own namespace! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding requests for publication, this is certainly an interesting idea, one which I think will be necessary at some point for the WP1.0 project. However a similar idea was proposed a month or two back on the WP1.0 Project talk page, you should review the comments there. Cheers, Walkerma 03:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Spamming

Zondor, I'm not sure that spamming dozens of pages with "would you like to publish this article?" is a good thing to be doing at this point. Such mailshots are rarely the best way to advertise a project. — Matt Crypto 23:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to echo Matt's comments. Raul654 08:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Tom Brinkman

Greetings, Zondor!
As the author of this article, I'm grateful to your praise on its talk page. User:PedanticallySpeaking.

Category:Wikipedia is not self-reference

I removed the Template:Selfref Template from Category:Wikipedia, as noted on the talk page. Please note that self-references are not "any mention of Wikipedia"; they are "any mention that these articles are being hosted on Wikipedia". So, if you say "for more information see the Wikipedia article on cheese", that's self-reference, but having an encyclopedic article about Wikipedia is just another article. The Category:Wikipedia category is now entirely for articles, just like Category:Cheeses or Category:Trains. The self-referential material has all been moved to Category:Wikipedia administrative categories. Thanks! -- Creidieki 18:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• You're absolutely correct; I misunderstood the template. I thought that it was meant to mark an *article* as self-reference, rather than the individual text. I've replaced the template on Category:Wikipedia. I've also edited the instructions for use on Template talk:Selfref to make things a little clearer. Thanks. -- Creidieki 18:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, have kicked off the first published version candidacy

Zondor, I've kicked off the first published version candidacy (trust me, we need to just do this and then work out policy: if we don't then nothing will happen!) See Wikipedia:Requests for publication/Common Unix Printing System. I have listed a bunch of quality criteria taken from this paper on Wikipedia. My suggestion is to start the ball rolling by commenting. We'll give it a week and then shift the page to Published:Common Unix Printing System, in which case I will protect it. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Questionable links

I have removed some links you recently included on the featured articles page and the featured article tools pages. First, you should not be linking to proposals from there; second, and more important, their value is (at best) questionable and we shouldn't be linking to them. Raul654 03:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

screwing up image locations

Why the heck did you move a host of images on royal biographical pages from the standard form used in biographical articles (image on right, template below) to an extremely ugly version in which the picture was shunted into the text on the left on the template? It was hideous and completely goes against every conceivable concept of page design and the form everyone uses on all royal biography pages. I've reverted the mess you left. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Five pillars

Many of us don't buy into the five pillars. I have removed them from the policies and guidelines page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)