User talk:Jiy

/Archive 1 June 2004 – November 2005

Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:UnripeLemon4.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations, and thank you for nominating it. Raven4x4x 06:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gmail screenshot

Ah, mea culpa. I don't know what I was thinking; I've uploaded other screenshots before. Thanks for pointing it out and for uploading another screenshot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subsections

Hi! Using a single subsection under a section is considered bad style. I say this through experience, as I can't find any transcribed material on WP. A minimum of two subheadings are need to justify its use. If the single subsection topic deviates too far from the parent section, promote the subsection to a section. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Céline Dion —again

Hi. Ive been trying to improve on the Céline Dion article, incorporating many of your suggestions. Could you take a look (please) and maybe offer advice and comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Céline Dion? Thanks in advance. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 04:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your disambiguation link removal

Please do not remove the disambiguation link from the top of the Ecstasy (drug) article. This should remain for a number of reasons 1) the article tends to get moved from Ecstasy to MDMA to all sorts of places quite frequently (keeping that there helps us figure out wtf happened) 2) policy is to keep disambiguation notice at top of page if there is more than one page with a similar title. Thanks! ALKIVAR™ 08:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of religious topics

I've restored your removal of the Ecstasy dab page on List of religious topics. Users watch this list to monitor related changes, especially for vandalism. --Viriditas 09:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a religious topic, and it is related to the list, even though it's a dab page. I know, it sounds strange. For a good example of what I'm talking about, check out the watchlists linked on my user page and follow them back to the list pages linked at the top of the watchlist. --Viriditas 11:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greek letters

Thank you for your note. Frankly, I'm quite stupefied by it. I found the various Greek articles (for which I added the images and modified the template, for instance) lacking in content and links. So I proceeded to edit them consistently. I do not recall there being some sort of consensus or guideline about how these should be styled; if so, please cite and mea culpa.

Moreover, I think the inclusion of such notes upfront in the letter articles is important so that users (who may not know alpha from alpha (letter)) know of the other. They are not disambig notes per se, particularly if someone is a novice or is unfamiliar with Greek, or Cyrillic for that matter. You will note that I did not add these notes to the disambig pages for those letters, but only to the various Greek letters that did not link back to the general articles terms. That lack of reciprocal/parent-child linking is ambiguous to users and is bad style.

Lastly, I am not required to provide edit summaries where minor edits such as these are concerned (though I try). And in other instances, an inquiry such as yours should be sufficient. Actually, it's not: I am concerned by apparent condescension in your commentary: please refrain from being perjorative in your notes. If you persist, I will accord such commentary all the respect it deserves. E Pluribus Anthony 16:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. As I noted, a diplomatic inquiry to clarify issues can generally quell any concerns about minor or major edits. I apologise for not adding edit summaries: if you glimpsed at the histories for all the Greek letters, though, you would have observed my edits to them – largely to update the placement of images in letter template – and I proceeded to edit them all in a consistent manner (they were inconsistent beforehand). The letter boxes now appear in precisely the same position in all articles.

So, I am all for consistency and style in Wp, and thanks for the link regarding Hatnotes. If there are formatting reasons or guidelines to move the information elsewhere (or format/call it differently) in those articles, I'm all for it. Also, the upfront notes should be brief enough so that they don't crash into adjacent objects in the articles. However, I feel your initial note smacked of incivility, and disrespect. When you refer to edits – by a Wikipedian as empowered to edit as you – twice in a lengthy introductory note as being "bad" without citing anything authoritative as to why, my response was and is completely justified. A spade is a spade.

Moreover, importantly, I disagree that the Greek letter articles and disambig articles are unrelated. I have only included such notices for the letters – like Alpha (letter), linking to alpha – and have no intention (and do not advocate adding such notes) to other articles (like "Alpha" in Minnesota). On its very face, you can see that they all have a common etymology (e.g., alphabet), and I believe this requires that the letters link back to the disambig. As I've mentioned, I'm ambivalent about whether the notes I added should be upfront or (perhaps) in a See also section at the end, but they need to be there: part of the issue I have with your position is that you disagree with any such links in those letter articles. I believe the absence of such parent-child linking to be bad form. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 11:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Actually, that was due to ignorance on my part—I didn't realize that it was intended for vandalism only. tregoweth 09:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still appreciate you pointing it out. It's a bit of a shame, though; it's hard to resist one-click rollbacks... tregoweth 09:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]