User talk:Hillgentleman/20080903

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
from User talk:Hillgentleman
18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


Sorting?[edit]

Hi Hillgentleman - I like the templates you are creating lately. Do you think you can make something that can sort an array of numbers, sort of like what the square root template does? --HappyCamper 22:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


We are experimenting with Threaded discussion here. Please leave your message with the "reply" link above. It is more interesting than to edit this page directly.

Re:[edit]

"One is happier if he can reduce, condense, summarise, catalogue, squeeze, etc, whatever he knows not, into as small and as narrow a piece as possible. He even achieve some understanding in the process"

Where is that from?--Rayc 04:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You've lost me[edit]

Interesting work... and a lot of it... but... You've lost me! ;) -- CQ 03:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Block?[edit]

Hi Hillgentleman, do you really want to be blocked from editing? You can always just leave en:WV alone until you feel like it, or until you have more time. ;-) Thanks for all your work of late... Cormaggio talk 11:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so do I take it from your recent comments that you're happy to remain as you are? (Btw, I can't figure out the commenting system - I tried to reply to one post and ended up replying to another.) Thanks for the explanation on the subst issue - I can get that. :-) Cormaggio talk 15:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so I'm blocking your account now - just give me an email when you want it unblocked... Cormaggio talk 11:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thread Navigation[edit]

It could be done, but, I think it would be noticeably slow. Perhaps a modification of the tabbed navigation used at English Wikibooks would be more suited for this task. --darkYin yang.svglama 22:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry; I cannot see how one can manage discussion threads with these tabs.Hillgentleman|Talk 05:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing of "Wikiversity: Consensus" page to make a "Wikiversity: Consensus" Policy underway[edit]

Thank you for your Comment at the "Wikiversity:Consensus" discussion page. Your servant should let you know that edits to the "Wikiversity: Consensus" page are underway to make a Wikiversity Consensus Policy. -- Dionysios (talk), a Participant in the Wikiversity School of Advanced General Studies, Date: 2007-09-13 (September 13, 2007) Time: 2007 UTC

nsfv?[edit]

not suitable for wikiversity? --Remi 04:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Trees[edit]

Thanks for your comment about the main page. Can you set up an example on a test sub-page? With the schools and portals already in it? ;-) --McCormack 17:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Actually I was hoping more for a volunteer to implement a draft for the main page ;-) Any chance? --McCormack 17:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are saying. If you want to implement a draft, why couldn't you just start a discussion on the colloquium (or if you have already done so) and then change the main page? Hillgentleman|Talk 19:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. In some other contexts you may also be interested in meta:user:pathoschild's Ajax "transclusion" tool([1]). Materials are not exactly transcluded, but only presented as links, which could be expanded into full texts once you click on them. It is very efficient in some cases, and it has been implemented on meta. Hillgentleman|Talk 19:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
At the moment I'm not too keen myself on putting complicated scripts onto the main page. I'm more interested in getting the content sorted out, especially for newcomers. Eye-candy can come later. --McCormack 16:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure.Hillgentleman|Talk 20:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultra-main page on meta at www.wikiversity.org[edit]

Hi again, Hillgentleman. I'm now looking at editing main page for all the WV projects on meta. However to access the page I need the help of a meta-admin (it's protected). JWS said you could help. Perhaps we can work out a time to make changes together? It's very likely my edits will screw up for a while, so I should have a meta-admin nearby to help if I can't undo things. --McCormack 16:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I am not familiar with the html but you can give me the code. (Or perhaps we can briefly unprotect the page. We can even cascade-protect it with a future timestamp; after you have finished, you can turn on the protection yourself by visiting the transcluding page.) Hillgentleman|Talk 20:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Are you active right now? Can we meet on IRC to coordinate things? I'm on IRC right now. Thanks! --McCormack 07:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
(A bit later) - I now have the new code ready. How can I give you the code - it's real HTML, not wiki markup. --McCormack 07:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
OK - I threw the code onto the meta page which you suggested to me. It's a real mess to look at, because the normal wiki parser doesn't cope with it, but the source is there! --McCormack 12:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

another check (in case you have IE)[edit]

While you are doing this, could you also check if you experience this ? ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog) 12:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Erkan. I am using firefox on an Mac OS X 10.3.9 and I don't see the clogged-up menu. Hillgentleman|Talk 21:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I have changed it[2]; please tell me if it is bad. Hillgentleman|Talk 21:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks ok in: Safari: 3.0.4 (523.13), Opera: 9.25 (build 8827), IE 7.0.6001.17119
but in Firefox: 2.0.0.11 (see pic) the description text "destroys" the symmetric form :-(
screen resolution: 1152x864
But when there come more separate language projects I guess this needs a change again :-) The prob with tab-layout still exists ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog) 21:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Firefox - Still the icon on the top-left does counterweigh the Wikiversidad :).Hillgentleman|Talk 00:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Repetitiousness of "Wikiversity"[edit]

Hi, Hillgentleman. You said: The word "wikiversity" appears thrice on the portal. Whilst simplicity is good, I suggest (just suggest, it is not a preference) that the title can be "Wikiversity projects" or "The Wikiversity project" (meaning that wikiversity is one project in many languages), which describes the stuff under itself. I agree entirely that it is repetitious. My changes were minimal - just to get rid of that confusing beta thing and clarify the purpose of the multilingual hub. However a greater redesign would involve:

  • Get rid of the icon and search box on the left
  • Move the search facility below the circle of links
  • Remove "Wikiversity" from the portico icon
  • Put a large title above the circle of links
  • Remove the wiki tabs altogether
  • Generally make the design like www.wikibooks.org or www.wikipedia.org, which is what people expect when they first find a wikimedia project.

I think this is where we should go. What do others think? Be different? Be consistent?

--McCormack 05:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The current wikiversity portal looks like another wikipage and I actually like that. On the other hand, the Wikibooks portal looks like a portal and is perhaps more welcoming, but one needs to scroll to find the search bar. It would be great if we can fit the whole thing in one page like google. Hillgentleman|Talk 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox Server[edit]

Hello,

I apologise for all the delays with the Sandbox Server project. I've now had a few updates made to the file manager, so you can finally delete files once uploaded (and cleanly overwrite existing ones during upload)!

Anyway, we actually have a Jabber server running which we use for quite decent discussions, chat rooms etc. Drop me a line at draicone at gmail dot com and I'll hook you up with an account. It's much more powerful than IRC and far more convenient too. We've also got a Quicktime (/Darwin) Streaming Media Server setup, although we don't have much to put on there at present.

There is the wiki, but it's a bit of a lost project at the moment, due in part to my slackness and some security restrictions that seem to prevent us from doing anything whatsoever (plus the fact that we already have a fully-functioning wiki).

Also, I'm working on a change-password facility at present. There should be a link up on the main page soon enough. In the meantime, email me your current password and your new password at draicone at gmail dot com and I'll make the change manually.

Draicone (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks.Hillgentleman|Talk 05:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Random mascot welcome[edit]

Crystal Clear app gnome.png
Mascot welcome
Love Pumpkin.png

Hi! My name is WikiversityJack. I am a pumpkin and a Wikiversity mascot. My aunt told me that fun + learning = Wikiversity. Let me know if I can help you out.

Help needed with substitutions and parser functions[edit]

Hi, Hillgentleman. If you have some time, can you take a look at Template:multibox (use described at Help:project boxes? I'm having some difficulty ensuring that the optional bits don't appear in the final page when subst is used. --McCormack 08:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should put subst: (or SUBST: - it is case insensitive) in front of every parser, function and template. They all work in the same way.Hillgentleman|Talk 10:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks! Yes - I checked the code and tested it as well. Works like a dream now. --McCormack 10:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Math[edit]

and

Question: Can you even up the etas in the line above? I've asked about this here: Sizing symbols with subscripts, but thought maybe you'd know. -- Jtneill - Talk 05:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know; I can only suggest trial and error. For Mediawiki, TeX texts are (usually?) simply images, and (at the moment?) it seems to handle "big" and "small" TeX texts differently. Hillgentleman|Talk 14:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
One solution, per above, is to add an empty subscript:

and Hillgentleman|Talk 14:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question -- Date vs. Current date[edit]

I am still not very familiar with templates. I tried some features but when I created a template with a date, the final result always showed the current date, not the date that the OGG file was uploaded. How do I use a DATE in a template to get the date when the template was used, not the current date? Robert Elliott 09:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to substitute it: e.g. {{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} gives 20080606164131; whereas {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} gives 20190418063136. Hillgentleman|Talk 16:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
In a template?
But in a template, if I use {{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}, it does the substitution when I save the template -- before I can use the template. How do I get {{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} inside the template? I have tried:
  • {{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
  • {{subst:subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
  • {{subst:{{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}}
  • <nowiki>{{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}</nowiki>
but none of them seem to work when I use a template with these inside.
Any suggestions? Robert Elliott 12:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I found the answer!

I was told that the correct way is <includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTH}} Robert Elliott 14:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For further detail, see meta:help:Substitution#Includeonly and meta:help:templates.Hillgentleman|Talk 03:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Red links on main page?[edit]

Hi, Hillgentleman. I'm glad you're watching the Picture of the Day! You've taken to adding red-links to the POTD recently. I understand you hope that people will start resources associated with each POTD, but are you sure it really makes a good impression on people if the main page has red links on it? What do you think? --McCormack 07:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... It depends on what we want to achieve with the box... Of course, my hope is to stimulate content creation. Old wikipmedians who know what red links are are not worried about them. New wikiversitians may think that a red link means what she usually thinks it is... However, as the main page is basically a portal, it seems to make sense if we wikified it by creating links into wikiversity contents - even if the contemts are still to be started; From this point of view it would be more productive, and also less confusing than having a box that links mostly to Commons :). Hillgentleman|Talk 08:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

{{huh}}[edit]

Sort of a silly name, but I though it might be useful for the "case studies"[say what?] and such. --SB_Johnny talk 11:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

style[edit]

In my opinion, asking for a reference at the end of a paragraph is asking for a reference to all the claims in that paragraph. Doing it as you did, if done at Wikipedia, would be to me, clearly an attempt to make a point rather than to be simply constructive. Perhaps things are different at WikiVersity. WAS 4.250 03:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, I have not participated in the English wikipedia for a long time. Secondly, you are entitled to your own opinion, and I have explained what I want in the edit summary. If you know me, you would know that I say exactly what I mean, no more and no less. When I ask for citation at a point, I mean citation at that point. In the end, I do not think stylistic issues should trump utility on wikiversity; I prefer my way (which is how people provide citations on scientific papers) but your way is ok. I usually don't like people changing "my" questions, but feel free to change it if the consensus amongst the participants is to use your way. Hillgentleman|Talk 03:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked for some background for all this and found http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=217491584#Astrotheology WAS 4.250 13:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. But there is much material there and I have failed to locate the specific material to support these assertions[3] we are concerned with. Hillgentleman|Talk 09:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(<---)Wikipedia admins have been known to put comments, in the flavors derogatory to libel, on a user's page. [Examples of derogatory would include every comment warning a user; examples of libel might include mistaken such warnings to people using their real name - telling people they are non-notable or that they are lying or inappropriately promoting themselves are often done with emotionally abusive phrases such as "vanity" and officious stern templates that suggest to hapless newbies that some 13 year old is a paid official making an official judgement.] Such admins seem well aware of BLP issues, but they violate the principles. [The same ones that mistakenly place warning templates on user talk pages of users using their real names also sometimes place warnings about violating the BLP policy.] Even when asked several times to remove such comments -- they sometimes refuse or ignore the requests. [Such cases have been argued about at WP:AN/I.] There is a suggestion to make such non-article space not indexable by Google.[NewYorkBrad is argueing that right now on the Foundation or Wikipedia public mail list.] WAS 4.250 13:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am unclear as to the usefulness of discussing this on this project, but the above has been discussed enough at Wikipedia Review that I believe the above is what he is talking about. Increasing ethical awareness among admins might help with all this. WAS 4.250 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification[edit]

I have respond to your message on the talk page. I have also added details in a background section to further clarify. If you require further explanations please don't hesitate to contact me and I will try to elaborate further. I hope to see you participate in what is, IMHO, an important learning project for the community.

One question for yourself, do you think it would be inappropriate to include a minimum number of participants in the project before we begin? Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 16:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war solution[edit]

See for context:

I fully support anyone on the Ethics project being able to create and own a learning resource page or section of a page if that is what it takes to end an edit war. WAS 4.250 16:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

See my reply here. I recommend the {{disclosure}} template:
Emblem-scales.svg Perspective: your view point.
Its authors are committed to maintaining a high level of scholarly ethics.

Hillgentleman|Talk 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hillgentleman asks: "What can be done to turn the perceived disruptive behaviour to something more creative? How can it be done without wasting the time of good editors?"
Salmon of Doubt asks: "What can be done to get rid of disruptive trolls without wasting the time of good editors?"
I would like to propose a tentative ethical best practice that simultaneously responds to both questions, from either perspective or point of view.
Moulton 16:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Taboo Or Not Taboo? That Is the Question.[edit]

Hillgentleman, please weigh in on a perplexing and confusing policy issue that SBJ has buck-passed to you...

Johnny, I have a question about an enforcement practice that has me confused. It has to do with IP editors.

A few weeks ago, when I was noticing some IP edits, I did reverse DNS lookups on them and posted the reverse lookups (which revealed that the IPs belonged to well-known Wikipedians whose IP addresses are well-known via their symbolic domain names). My recollection is that you reverted those disclosures linking IP numbers to avatar names. This was consistent with other wrist-slapping by Lar and others regarding reprehensible and unforgivable departures from WP:Privacy.

Now today, I discover that it's not only legal to post avatar names associated with IP edits, it's evidently mandatory to do so.

So I'm confused, Johnny. Is it an egregious wrist-slapping violation of policy to post an avatar name after an IP edit, or is it mandatory to do so?

I personally don't care which way the policy is written (if there even is one at all), but I find it disturbing that different cops are enforcing it different ways on different days depending on who the vile miscreant is.

Please enlighten me.

Moulton 05:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Moulton, stop being a trouble-maker. You know perfectly well that rule-based systems do not work. So do we. Therefore WikiMedia projects such as WikiVersity are not rule based; but instead are based on an overall consensus regarding purpose and values - you might even want to call it a social contract - which as you know, does work. So stop acting as if we were a rule based system. Also, there is a known conflict between our values of privacy and neutral point of view and consensus which requires preventing socks and dealing with conflict of interest. All value systems have internal conflicts. Consider yourself enlightened. WAS 4.250 08:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
One of the delightful features of a Social Contract is that, like a handsome framed Ketubah, it disclose the promises we've all honorably agreed to keep with respect to each other. I am still confused over the contents of the list of promises that we have not yet uttered aloud (in TeamSpeak) or visibly posted on the Ketubah Wall.
While I have you on the line, WAS, can you explain to me the rule (or taboo) here (in these hallowed halls of scholarly research) against wading through a sea of troubles and, one by one, discovering the best ethical practices for navigating them (with or without memorable Shakespearean rhetoric)?
Moulton 11:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Taboo as far as I'm concerned. I think Hillgentleman's the guy to ask though... I'm going to be mostly AFK today. --SB_Johnny talk 11:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Moulton 13:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Moulton, Thank you for your question. On the diff that you provided: Information is information. I think it is useful for the learners and editors to know that the comments are posted by (the alter-egos) of the better known author. If a well-known user has posted with an IP-address or an alternative account, and if knowledge of such action is public on-wiki, and if there is no privacy concern, I would support adding such commentary.
  • I understand that sometimes we may have different shades of personalities; sometimes we may want to use different "pseudo-names" or "positions" to write different perspectives; Yet in a learning project, it is important to keep the perspective clear, it is also important to have maintain contact so that questions will be answered;
  • I think a good solution for you would be to use different signatures (or even register different account names and redirect them to your principal account) and still maintaining a link to your principal account. Hillgentleman|Talk 02:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Note that when I signed on as a participant in the Ethics Project, I disclosed my intention to employ some dramaturgical characters who represent different "voices" in didactic sketches, in the spirit of traditional educational storycraft. In a Muppet sketch, you would not expect Jim Henson to pause after voicing Kermit, pop up on camera, and say, "That was actually me enacting the voice of Kermit." Everyone who is paying attention to the didactic structure is aware of the credits, which need not be tediously repeated after every line of dialogue. Have you ever gone to the theater, and some kid in the audience calls out the name of the actor who has just entered in some dramatic role? It was abundantly clear to me that Salmon of Doubt was a "character" being portrayed by some otherwise unidentified editor associated the WikiClique on ID on en:WP. It was thus appropriate to engage him with suitably crafted dramaturgical characters of my own. That's precisely what I (and other didactic educators) devise such characters for. —Moulton 04:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As I said, a solution is to sign your signature like this: "mickey mouse", or register alternative accounts for your alteregos, like some wikiversitians have done. I don't mind either, but you need to keep a link so that people who come later know where to go if they want to ask questions. And if user:salmon of doubt is an alternative account of a well-known wikipedia user, it would be great if we know whom she is. But we don't know. Hillgentleman|Talk 04:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Those alter ego signatures all had links taking you to pages that unmistakeably identified and defined them. Did you follow any of the links and read them to familiarize yourself with the characters and their distinctive voices and perspectives? —Moulton 14:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I did, and I have just tried again. That is very interesting, and I confess I haven't got round to read it through; but how can I (or someone who comes here later) contact Montana Mouse if I want to ask her questions? Hillgentleman|Talk 14:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Montana Mouse has an e-mail address: montana <at> musenet <dot> org
Barsoom Tork has an e-mail address: barsoom <at> musenet <dot> org
You can also visit them at Moulton's Playspace at WorldCrossing. —Moulton 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
My concern with using those sigs is that Moulton has a history of collecting IP addresses from people who visit his site and using that information to identify who a non-self-identified user really is. --SB_Johnny talk 16:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You can leave messages for any of the Muppets on Moulton's talk page, too. —Moulton 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
That's fine if you're leaving a link, but you're not. And your also not disclosing that you track IPs viewing your blog... sorry Barry, but it really is shady to do it that way. --SB_Johnny talk 18:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I've created User sub-pages and User_talk sub-pages for the Muppet characters. I'll go back and update the signatures to link to the new on-wiki User sub-pages and User_talk subpages. —Moulton 19:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)