User talk:Duae Quartunciae/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Formal Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Duae Quartunciae, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 11:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sure someone will be by to help you soon, WP:PHYS is fairly active. You might find WP:FORMULA,WP:FRINGE, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Reference resources helpful also. I am a maths editor and part of WP:WPM, so if you every need anything math related don't hesitate to drop by. Again, welcome and good luck.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 11:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Cronholm. I've been reading all the wikipedia guidelines to make sure I do it right; and appreciate the extra help as I get used to things in practice. I'm sure the issues I've flagged will get fixed up fairly soon without too much bother. I don't mind letting issues work themselves out on the article talk pages. I'm going to look around to see if there is anywhere else I can do something helpful while learning the ropes. -- Duae Quartunciae 11:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats great! Usually new users just plunge in and expect to be catered to. Your attitude is a breath of fresh air. Two more minor things, remember to add an edit summary when you can, and play with you preferences (watchlist, signature, edit summaries etc...). Your watchlist especially is helpful when reverting vandalism (I watch about 2000 pages) and is one of the most useful tools a wikipedian has for interaction with the 'pedia. As for doing helpful things well there is always Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences andWikipedia:Missing science topics(although the latter is sadly lacking physics you might want to ask around the project for more things to do). Also, catagorisation of articles is always appreciated ({{physics}} for you). I think I have rambled enough though :). Cheers --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 11:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Other WikiProjects

You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects.

Also, let me know if you need more help with Fritz Zwicky. Dr. Submillimeter 11:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Gregbard 08:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will probably do that, but not right away. -- Duae Quartunciae 03:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments in assessment templates

Resolved

 – —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not put actual comments into the assessment templates, nor had I ever seen it until you pointed it out to me. I just recommend leaving comments in the "text" of the discussion pages. The assessment boxes are really just to indicate the WikiProjects that might be interested in the article (in case it needs editing or it is nominated for renaming or deletion). Dr. Submillimeter 20:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the maths wikiproject prefers that there be comments in the templates as those comments transclude to a variety of tables.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 04:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds interesting! I understand having comments relating directly to review or assessment of the article in a comments subpage. Just for clarity, Dr. Submillimeter was responding to a question I left at his talk page, where I asked about a case where two editors at loggerheads put comments in the assessment box of the Fritz Zwicky talk page. User Cosmic relief (contrib) (Lyndon Ashmore) was complaining about edits by Duae Quartunciae (me), and then Duae Quartunciae was responding. These all ended up in a Comments subpage of the article talk page. I am sure learning a lot about how wikipedia is put together! -- Duae Quartunciae 04:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear me! Comments that go that long will break the transclution limit. A couple sentences about the state of the article is typical fare for the /comments subpage. I have inserted a short comment and moved your discussion to the talkpage.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 06:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! This makes good sense and now fits my expectations. It was because I thought that there was a problem of this kind that I asked the question in the first place. One last question... where can I find the tables into which the assessment comments are transcluded? I looked through the Biography project worklist and had no success. Actually, I think maybe I know... the last query seems to have been run a week ago. I am running a new query to see what happens. It seems to be really hard to find an article's place in the table, as it has approaching 400,000 entries. -- Duae Quartunciae 07:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be better to go through the physics project on this one. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Physics articles by quality, notice how they broke it into chunks to avoid breaking transclution. I don't know how the WP:biography transcludes to create those tables but at 400,000 entries it would have to be something drastic, probably multiple arbitrary breaks.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 08:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Template verify problem

Resolved

 – Duae Quartunciae (talk · contribs) 23:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

In the Immanuel Velikovsky page, some time ago I tagged two references by Leroy Ellenberger with {{verify credibility|article}}. Just recently the page has appeared with an improperly formatted new category. Here is a snapshot by cut and paste. One of the lines, as edited.

How it appears at present:

I guess I should have put a date parameter with the template, but I can't find this described in documentation. What is the way this should have been done? -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · contribs) 20:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You did not make a mistake. The text [[Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification since {{{date}}}]] is part of the template. This line makes the article appear in a list of articles needing verification. There is a list for the month of appearance of the template on your article. This should not appear in the text. I wanted to change this, but the template is protected. There is an alternative instead of {{verify credibility|article}} you may use {{RS}}. --Thw1309 22:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Is there are way to report a problem with the template? Is it fixable if a date parameter is added? The tag {{RS}} does not seem to do the same thing. It seems to be a table for a show called "Real Reasons, Real Seasons". It works like this [...]. Figured it out... should be {{Rs}} with lower case s. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · contribs) 22:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What might be better would be to use the {{verify credibility}} tag without the piped article parameter. {{verify credibility}} in stead of {{verify credibility|article}} yields which I assume is what you wanted. If you feel there is still a problem try discussing it at Template talk:Verify credibility. Stardust8212 22:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've used {{Rs}}. The removal of the article parameter made no difference; there is an attempt to flag with a new category after a certain time, and that is what fails. The verify template appears to be broken. I'll bring it up as you mention. Thanks everyone; my immediate problem is fixed. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · contribs) 22:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your WQA report

Hello... I've noticed your conversation today with Icebear1946, as well as your previous efforts to reason with him.

I don't want to interfere; just thought I'd mention it seems from his responses he's still showing zero interest in learning how Wikipedia works and zero respect for you or any other editors. I've tried helping people who act that way many times, but I don't do it any more unless the person shows at least some sign of receptivity. When someone is angry, closed-minded, and invested in an agenda, there's no way to get past the armor.

You've already shown him the policies in text links. I bet he hasn't even clicked on them. My recent method is to list the most important policies and tell the person I can only continue the discussion if he/she is willing to read those links so we have common ground to communicate. The ones I find most important in this kind of situation are these: WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable Sources.

I know you've already shown him most of those and that you included the welcome message; so this may be too little too late.

It's likely that his disruptive editing will resume as soon as the block expires, since his comments to you on his talk page today have continued to be angry and include phrases such as "ignorant rants". At least now he knows he can be blocked for disruptive behavior, that could temper his actions for a while, we'll find out soon enough.

In any case, your patience and good will is inspiring. Best Wishes. --Parzival418 _Hello 23:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw his latest response, and am just going to leave it. I used to debate with Icebear1946 (under different names) many years ago in talk.origins, and tried back then a couple of times to get him to settle a bit. I'm not surprised at the way things are going, but I'd like to give him every change to work within the system. He's an interesting guy. Loopy, but sometimes eloquent. He's going to find it really hard to fit in here, I think. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I see... since you already know him then some of my comment might not apply - my notes were based on encountering a new person behaving like that. From what I've seen so far, I think you're right, this will be hard for him. His essay seemed interesting, but his way of approaching the article editing was not exactly sociable. Good luck with the article. --Parzival418 _Hello 01:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Help on templates

{{helpme}}

Questions:

1. What is the best template to use for getting an internal link to a particular revision for a page?
2. Can I write templates in my own user space, and get some handy way to refer to them?
3. How to I handle problems when a template is used to give an arguement for a template, but it breaks the parameter conventions?

In more detail...

(1) I know how to use Template:wp-diff to get a link to a difference between revisions, but how can I get an easy internal link to, for example, this version of my talk page? At the moment, I have to do it like this:

• internal link (with {{wp-diff|page=User_talk:Duae_Quartunciae|diff=prev|oldid=146427162|title=internal link}})
• external link (with [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duae_Quartunciae&oldid=146427162 external link])

(2) I am practicing with my own templates, and my first attempt is a solution to this problem. I can do it, sort of, but the template name is unwieldy. Is there a better way to refer to my own, possibly temporary templates? I don't want to put stuff in the shared Template namespace, as I am just fooling around for now. Here's my template for an internal link.

• revision (with {{User:Duae Quartunciae/T/rev|User_talk:Duae_Quartunciae|146427162|revision}})

I would like to refer to my template at User:Duae Quartunciae/T/rev with something a bit shorter; I would also have to use subst: in most cases, because the template itself is not likely to hang around for long.

(3) What if there is a template in my parameters to another template... and there are equals signs or other stuff being produced by the inner template. For example, I like to use Template:Messagebox sometimes. Here's one.

But if I put an equals sign in there, it goes ugly. When I replace "surf" with "=" this is the result.

Basically the parameters get broken. I could escape an equals sign in plain text; but what if I want to use a template within the message box, and that generates an equals sign? For example this was placed with Template:Messagebox and nowiki tags around the argument.

Now I do it again, but without the nowiki, so that the template inside gets transcluded into the message box template. There are equals signs in the url. Here it is.

Added —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC) But if I use the solution given by eDenE, perfection results as follows:

Thanks for any clues! -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If you need help with a problem about templates, please ask on Wikipedia:Requested templates. There you can also see a link to the list of Wikipedians, creating templates . They can help you. --Thw1309 12:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding (3): Instead of using {{Messagebox|your text}}, use {{Messagebox|text=your text}}. From your second example, where you replaced 'surf' with '=', the template considers 'Slow wiki gull with five legs seen over' as a parameter name. The last one has the same problem; {{User:Duae Quartunciae/T/rev|User_talk:Duae_Quartunciae|146427162|revision}} contains '='. I hope this helps! eDenE 03:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! You've resolved (3) for me. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Exceptional Newcomer Award

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		Awarded for an astonishing quantity of high-quality work in a number of science and pseudoscience articles. From extensive work on Fritz Zwicky and Morphogenetic field, to working on complex merge proposals and calmly dealing with tenacious editorial conflicts, Duae Quartunciae has made a big impact in a few short few weeks. Kudos. MarcoTolo 01:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! A well deserved award indeed! --Parzival418 _Hello 07:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed! By the way... the morphic field merge is just now complete. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)