RexxS

No-break spaces in Diving cylinder

I was following the advice of Peer Reviewer - "Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 12 litre, use 12 litre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 12 litre." - bad advice it would seem. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

On the side, how do I format a no-break space code so it displays the code and not the space? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries, as you can see, I found out. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter, yes it's a common misconception that we need a   between numerals and units. The reason for keeping two words together has always been to prevent a new line beginning with the second word, and that has been the case since the days of manual type-setting. To work out where a non-breaking space is needed, we only have to consider what the new line would look like if it started with the second word. A line starting with "litres" is no different from a line starting with any other word, but a reader will find a line beginning with a solitary "l" jarring - hence the MOS guidance to include a   only before abbreviations of units. In the grand scheme of things, it's not a big deal, but sometimes I've seen it taken to extremes: "4 batsmen made over 50 runs in the innings". Eventually, you can't read the wikitext for the "spaces". Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Help, help, melting!

Help, all the pretty white stuff is melting! I need a melting version of the snowman on my page, else I'll have to remove him and come up with something new! Bishonen | talk 19:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC).

I'll see if I can find one similar, but melting. If not I guess I'll have to draw one. In the meantime, Commons has File:Melting snowman - geograph.org.uk - 1658502.jpg or File:A snowman's demise - geograph.org.uk - 1658497.jpg - here's a crop one of them. --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... I've seen the ugly one, thanks. Do you think that would look good on my page? Will people even see what it represents, without a header? <subliminally> Draw! Draw! <subliminally> Bishonen | talk 20:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC).

A Melting Snowman

Is that any better? --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I only just saw the melting snowman on this page! It was so far down, not visible on my screen. Finally the season on my page is just right! Thank you! Bishonen | talk 00:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC).

30 degrees C in my corner of this strange world; that snowman wouldn't know what hit him (her? snowperson?) Antandrus (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Project AWARE COI edits

Hi RexxS, I am undecided whether to revert User:Lauren.wiskerson's recent edits summarized as "Project AWARE staff edits" as you have made more recent edits to the article. The edits have removed sourced information and may or may not be improvements (I have not checked), but the language is somewhat promotional. Are you satisfied that the edits are an improvement or are worth fixing? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter, It's mainly this edit as I reverted most of the previous stuff. When I looked at that a couple of days ago, I thought it was probably OK, because organisations change their focus and staff, etc. - even though it was somewhat promotional. Looking at it again, I can see that some criticism (the BBB section) was removed. I really don't like that sort of underhand whitewashing, so I'll go through and clean it up as much as I can. Have a look later and see if you can improve it more. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Towards a New Wikimania results

Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ubi sunt

Agree with you here. I'd put him in the top two or three finest writers we've ever had in the whole history of the project. I was very sad when he left, although I could see it coming a couple of years off. Even now I still use a few of the phrases he coined, and not just on Wikipedia. As an aside, I'm utterly baffled by this Kafkaesque, bureaucratic exercise of deleting obviously public domain images; are these people daft? The whole thing seems generically related to the spiteful splatter of "citation needed" tags all over his work. Anyway I'll shut up. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Antandrus: You'll be pleased to know that he is still well and keeping busy - he even takes the time to visit Wikipedia every once in a while and makes a few quiet edits using another name. It helps keep me sane knowing that the toxic atmosphere around here didn't completely drive him away. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Curious. What happened? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a long story, and I only know part of it -- the bit I would divulge publicly includes that he was sick of his work being degraded by various semi-automated bureaucratic processes, and having to spend more of his time defending rather than building. Imagine a career working in marble in an environment of ceaseless acid rain. Oh wait, we all do that. Antandrus (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, for the last line especially with which I agreed before I read it ;) - see my talk. Should he be on our sad list then? (linked under "despised and rejected", which I created in 1911) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's how I remember it: Geogre was an admin and an early creator of many fine literary Featured Articles. He was a regular collaborator with Bishonen and Giano and had a fine sense of humour. He used a non-admin account Utgard Loki to edit from work - he was a university lecturer at the time, if I recall correctly. Although virtually everybody knew who Utgard Loki was - his style is unmistakeable - he was eventually dragged to ArbCom in 2009 for operating an undisclosed alternate account. Take a look at Geogre's dignified defence in the "Statement by Geogre" section. There wasn't the bureaucracy in the early days and it would never have occurred to Geogre that there was any need to link accounts, probably because most folks operated on the basis of good faith in other editors. In my humble opinion, Geogre would never have used his alternate account to give the appearance of extra support for his position, but ArbCom found differently and desysopped him. Geogre took umbrage at being treated like a child or a criminal and stopped editing. Since then, the petty self-appointed guardians of the Rules of Wikipedia™ have torn down or eradicated his work because it doesn't comply exactly with the new standards that simply didn't exist when he was working. I've done what I could to stem the rot - User talk:Geogre #Two years is a long time in 2011, for example (where I first ran into Nikkimaria), but it's a losing battle as there are far more people tearing down the best work than trying to preserve it. Sic transit gloria mundi. --RexxS (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitely for our sad list then. I rescued an article the other day which was stubbed for similar reasons, and am quite proud that it has been suggested to appear on DYK on International Women's Day (not even by me). I have seen a GA deleted because the author was not trusted. It's back but not without effort. - Just today I was told that the game here is that anybody can add and revert, while I believe that adding is building the encyclopedia and reverting isn't (unless reverting vandalism, of course). Flores para los muertos. - On a different note (and death's bonds aren't even so different): could you take a look at the image review of BWV 4 and translate to me what is needed and how it can be fixed. - Did you know that Nikkimaria used {{hlist}} today? (see Sylvia Hallett) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Ohh yes, I remember that -- it's even the time of year to recall Rimbaud's lines about the warm south wind of February stirring up the foul smells of yesteryear's dirt. Yes, one for the sad list. And damnatio memoriae for a couple of the names on that wretched ArbCom motion page.

The longer you are a Wikipedian, the more important it is to stay as far as possible from wikipolitics, if you want to remain a content creator. I may need to add an item about this. It's possible to continue, of course, just harder. Well I'm happy to know he is well, and busy, and even occasionally contributing: where have they gone? some have not even left. That's another curious thing about this place I rather like. So be it. Antandrus (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Gerda: I'm really sorry I haven't got any further with resolving down Nikki's concerns at the BWV 4 FAC. It's quite hard to play detective with other people's uploads when they haven't given enough information at the time. [Update:] I think I may have sorted the first one. I'll look at the others again now, but it may take some time to track down sources. --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! - Back to the other: a genius! "Similarly, anyone who thinks that they can win a struggle against the voices of oppression on Wikipedia is misdirecting his or her energies grossly, if not criminally." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

My favourite of Geogre's observations is User:Geogre/Comic. It's as true now as it was in 2006 when the "neapolitan mastiff" was being regularly baited. Any of the pages in Special:PrefixIndex/User:Geogre/ is worth reading. Some of them ought to be compulsory reading for anyone who wants to call themselves a Wikipedia editor. --RexxS (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. And it surprises me that there aren't more incoming links to advice as incisive as this. But he didn't self-promote. Required reading indeed! Or at least needs to be on an easy-to-find list somewhere. Antandrus (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Gave him Precious and added him to the sad list, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI

From the Wikipedia article "English-speaking world":

"Approximately 360 to 400 million people speak English as their first language. More than half of these (231 million) live in the United States, followed by some 60 million in the United Kingdom, the first place where English was spoken."

"There are six countries with a majority of native English speakers. They are, in descending order of English speakers, the United States (at least 231 million), the United Kingdom (60 million), Canada (19 million), Australia (at least 17 million), Ireland (4.2 million), and New Zealand (3.7 million)."

Moreover, the most wildly estimated statistic I could find for Americans who speak English as their second or third language is roughly one fifth or 20% of the current estimated U.S. population of 320 million. That one fifth translates to 64 million Americans who are bilingual or speak English as a second language; conversely, the estimated 231 million Americans who speak English as their first language, as given in the Wikipedia article, probably understates American native-English-speakers by at least 25 million people, so that the total is probably closer to 256 million Americans, or substantially more than half of the roughly 450 million people worldwide who speak English as their native or first language.

It is rather odd that some folks try to count the 400 million to a billion people who speak English as a second or third language as an equally weighted segment of all English speakers. Clearly the balance of cultural weight and influence over the language is carried by native speakers and writers who generate the overwhelming majority of English language mass media, literature, and scientific and technical writing. While it is interesting to note that 125 million Indians speak English, only about a quarter million speak English as their primary language, and by the same token we could also draw attention to the 57 million Filipinos who speak an American-derivative variety of English.

Please do not assume that I am some sort of jingoistic American who believes in my variety of English uber alles, because I am not and I do not. I attended a rather well-known English/British university for a year of my graduate education, and I can write quite competently in British English when the need arises. I enjoy reading and writing in British English, and I am fascinated by how the language has evolved on both sides of the Atlantic (and elsewhere) over the past 200 years. I respect British English as the present evolution of the Mother Tongue, but I also believe that the variety of English which has evolved independently in the present United States since the 1700s is deserving of equal dignity and respect. And, yes, it does irritate the bejeebers out of me when a Wikipedia soap-boxer dismisses standard American English as some sort of parochial artifact of the British Empire, when, in fact, it is the most prevalent variety of the modern English language. Just as the use of modern British English vocabulary, spelling, punctuation and style should be respected, encouraged and supported in Wikipedia articles written in British English, so too should the use of modern American English vocabulary, spelling, punctuation and style be respected, encouraged and supported in articles written in American English. That's my bottom line, and that's why the WMF response to the force-fed use of ISO and DMY dates via auto-fill rankles so damn much. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find my record in supporting the varieties of English used by our diverse readership speaks for itself. I regularly find myself fixing problems caused by editors unaware of ENGVAR in both directions; I always produce code that caters for both dmy and mdy formats; I spend time when writing scuba articles to ensure that values are always given in both metric and Imperial forms; and so on. I have never suggested that any of the varieties of English are any less worthy than the others, and I resent the implication that I assume anything other than that.

Nevertheless, we are writing this encyclopedia for the readers, not the editors, and it rankles with me when I hear claims that exaggerate the importance of American English over all others. The fact is that the majority of page hits on the en-wp do not geolocate to the USA. No matter how you look at the statistics, American-English speakers are not the majority of the 1.2 billion English speakers who make up our potential audience. It doesn't matter that a reader in Aberystwyth speaks Welsh as her first language and English second, the English Wikipedia is far more likely to have a developed article than the Wicipedia Cymraeg on a topic she searches Google for, and she will doubtless wish to read the English one. We're in the business of giving free access to the sum of human knowledge to every person on the planet, and it doesn't help that if we push the view that one language version has a primacy over the others. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Rexx, three quick responses --

"I resent the implication that I assume anything other than that" -- No need to resent the implication; it wasn't directed at you. I was venting.

"I think you'll find my record in supporting the varieties of English used by our diverse readership speaks for itself. . . ." -- Yes, it does, and I thank you for that. I would hope my record of editing articles on Australian, British and Canadian topics likewise shows my appreciation for those varieties of English.

"claims that exaggerate the importance of American English over all others" -- There is no need to exaggerate the worldwide impact of American English in the 21st Century. It is what is, and the attempts to minimize that importance by some Wikipedians (not including you, Rexx) in style and formatting discussions is obnoxious. I'm not arguing for the primacy of American English; quite the contrary, in fact. As I said above, I'm arguing that American English deserves "equal dignity and respect," and I believe that's more than defensible. And that's why, once again, our WMF friends are missing the point when they force-feed ISO gobbledygook and non-American style choices into our articles written in American English.

I think we're in essential agreement on all of the core points here, and I do appreciate your chiming in on BG's talk page. As predicted, WAID's party-line response was entirely unsatisfactory, and he and the WMF software people need to listen more and engage in techno-babble rationalization far less. Wikipedia is written in English prose, and not computer-driven numerology; on this point, I know I am preaching to the choir. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, DL, but don't be too hard on WAID (who is a 'she', btw). She ends up sitting in the middle between the developers and the community, and has shown great patience in taking the flak from both sides when they don't see eye-to-eye. She's more often one of our allies in dealing with developers. I've been writing computer programs since the 1960s, so I can claim some understanding of the developers' mindset. Within a program, it's probably much easier to think in terms of the the "techno-babble", and the biggest failing I find of developers is their weakness in thinking in terms of the eventual user. It's really up to us to help them by explaining what we (and the general readership) need as clearly as we can, but we have to be realistic. Even with Micro$oft's vast resources, it took them years to produce a decent wysiwyg text editor, so we shouldn't expect miracles from our Visual Editor, which is a real budget production in comparison. --RexxS (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)