Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Codename Lisa (talk | contribs) at 11:05, 17 May 2017 (Reverted 1 edit by PapiDimmi (talk).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Welcome, Codename Lisa!

Hello, Codename Lisa, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I'm Mr. Stradivarius, one of the thousands of editors here at Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  The five pillars of Misplaced Pages

  How to edit a page

  Help pages

  Tutorial

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

— Mr. Stradivarius 18:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Plesk screenshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Plesk screenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Apache

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox religious text

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox religious text. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please explain your revision

What is the point of this revision of yours?

There is literally no difference between ] and ].
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 13:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@PapiDimmi: You are incorrect. The former has no sortkey, so it sorts as normal in the category page (which is alphabetically). The latter has a sortkey, and the sortkey is the normal space, so it sorts in the space location of the category page. This is (almost?) always at the top of the category. --Izno (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

On line breaks

Either is valid Html5 (as is <br />). That edit is purely unnecessary, anywhere on the wiki. --Izno (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Hi.

Valid HTML is none of my concern.

Misplaced Pages syntax highlighter gadget does not work with <br> properly. It causes poor formatting that gives me a headache. I tend to cautiously fix it in other people's messages and nobody really minds.

But that's not just it. PapiDimmi has previously edit warred over this BR thing with another editor and got blocked. One of our admins clearly told him that WP:TPO does not forbid this slight change to other people's messages. PapiDimmi hasn't gotten the message. He has made life outside my user page slightly difficult for me.

Now, however, things are different. This is my talk page and I have 3RR impunity in it, as long as I stick to WP:TPO. And since an admin has already said that certain fix isn't against TPO, I am literally allowed to revert him until he violates 3RR and gets blocked again. This, however, isn't a combat announcement and I am not trying to bait this person. I really hope that this person see reason and stop this ownership-minded behavior. We are here in the spirit of constantly correcting each other; if this person cannot tolerate a plausible correction that does not really impact him, he clearly does not belong here.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't care about your conflict with him. The statements Valid HTML is none of my concern. and Misplaced Pages syntax highlighter gadget does not work with <br> properly. indicates that, actually, you should probably let the syntax highlighter gadget author know that he needs to provide for a correct HTML element. --Izno (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This issue isn't so big as to require a bug report hoopla. Up until now, it was not an issue at all. You think if I jump through hoops for this non-cooperative person, my life gets any better? Throughout my whole career in Misplaced Pages, I have been making compromises with people. But they were disputes. This is a WP:JERK issue. —Codename Lisa (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If you really care about the “Misplaced Pages syntax highlighter gadget,” then get whoever maintains this gadget to make it work properly with non-closed <br> tags. The thing is, changing <br> to <br/> in my signature violates WP:TPO, regardless if it’s your talk page. Let me quote WP:TPO: Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. <br> is not a format error, nor does it make the page difficult to read. There is no difference between <br> and <br/>, other than the syntax highlighter gadget doesn’t properly highlight <br> (presumably), which I cannot verify. This doesn’t seem like a big enough issue to go out of your way and change my signature for.

If I were to use <br, where it’s missing the > to close the tag, then that’d be a format error, but it’s not, is it? <br> works just fine without having a slash to close it with, and just because some obscure tool doesn’t properly highlight it doesn’t mean that it’s a format error that needs to be fixed. I’ve used this very signature on probably hundreds of talk pages, so what do you really achieve by changing it on one or two pages?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 20:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"<br> is not a format error, nor does it make the page difficult to read." Obviously it does - in the syntax highlighter. *smirk*

Turn it around, please: why does it bother you so much - or at all, really - if anybody adds the "/"? After all, you just said there was no difference between them in the way the page renders. Your complaint, Papi, reeks of someone just looking for something to complain about. Aren't there far more urgent things to do here, things that will actually benefit the reader? I'm pretty sure this won't. Jeh (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It bothers me because she edits my signature, violating WP:TPO. I want my signature to be consistent, so I don’t want anyone to change the line break tags in it.

I’m not “looking for something to complain about.” It seems like quite the opposite is happening, actually; I wouldn’t have anything to argue about if Codename Lisa never edited my signature. Judging from her edit summary, it seems like she enjoys rustling my jimmies.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Your declaration that it's a WP:TPO violation is simply your opinion, not binding. The way I see it this is a change in formatting for compatibility. That the incompatibility is invisible without using WP's HTML highlighting is irrelevant. It's not up to you to dictate formatting, even of your own signature, on someone else's talk page. Besides all that, WP:TPO is just a guideline, not policy.

One can always decide to not have one's jimmies rustled. Jeh (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Note

You may want to check your talk page history and see if you want to respond to anything. --NeilN 20:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The IP was blocked as a LTA. --NeilN 21:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, NeilN

It all came as shock and awe. We were having a compromise, the IP and I. Then suddenly, I come and see a revert in Apache HTTP Server with a WP:OWN accusation slapped on it because I just fixed a line break! Then a lot more changes. And then, a reversion of them all, because this person is a sock. I ran it through a geolocation service. It was him the whole time?

Still, in comparison to this User:PapiDimmi, the sock was an angel.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

C++: malformed wiki code

What does "malformed wiki code" mean as a reason for reverting an edit? Wickorama (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Wickorama. The link that you added to the article was not working. And the reason is obvious: It used bad syntax. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)\

It works for me. What do you see wrong with it? Wickorama (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wickorama: When I click on it, I am taken to a "Bad title" page. If this is not the case with you, please give me a full link to where it takes you. I will fix your wikicode so that it works for everyone. –Codename Lisa (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It takes me to "Category:C++_libraries" : https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:C%2B%2B_libraries Wickorama (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. The correct link is ]. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thank you! Wickorama (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)