Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #208

Welcome! karmafist 00:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archives: 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012

2007[edit]

Hi, thanks for contacting me. I'd be glad to do some work on Archimedes bridges for you, I haven't covered them directly but I have recently finished a tunnel engineering module at university so I can answer a few of your questions and expand the article with a little research.

Your assumption in tunnel differences is correct, the immersed tube tunnels only differ in that they are placed just below original seabed level and then covered with concrete or rock armour to protect the roof of the tunnel from stray ships anchors or other hazards. The Archimedes bridge is assembled in much the same way as an immersed tube except that when they are pumped out less ballast is used so that they have approximate hydrostatic equillibrium (ie the tunnel is roughly the same overall density as water), whereas immersed tube tunnels are ballasted more to weight them down to the sea bed. This, of course, means that an Archimedes bridge must be anchored to the ground or surface to keep it in place (which of these depends on which side of the equillibrium point the tunnel is). Archimedes bridges are able to deal with seismologic disturbances easily (as they have some degree of freedom in regards to movement) but as mentioned they are rather vulnerable in regards to anchors and such necesitating restrictions on shipping or use in only very deep channels.

Hope that clears a few things up. I hope to improve the article (may have a go at Immersed Tubes whilst I am at it) tomorrow or Wednesday, thanks for bringing it to my attention. If there's anything else you want to know let me know and i'll hopefully be able to explain it, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say I haven't forgotten about these articles, I am a little busy at the moment so they have been put on the backburner for a while. I hope to be able to contribute more when I get back to university and have direct access to the library again. I am still keeping my eyes open in the various publications and papers I receive though for any mention of these tunnels so hopefully we can get a few decent refs from there but I am unlikely to be able to do any more until mid January, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008[edit]

Are you still on-line? Maybe you’d like to check this. I will be off-line in 5 minutes... :-( Ten Islands (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O. K., but I will wait for the opinion of Tanketz first. See you! Ten Islands (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Waldir! I’ve seen the changes on the article Fogo. I know that there is no Wikiproject Cape Verde in the English Wiki, but since you are coordinating the Geography theme in the Portuguese Wikiproject Cape Verde, I’d like to ask for your opinion. I was planning replacing the infobox in the islands of Cape Verde (which actually is an infobox for mountains) with this one (which is based on Template:Infobox_Island):

{{{name}}}
[[Image:{{{image name}}}|250px|]]
Geography
[[Image:{{{locator map}}}|200px]]
Location	{{{location}}}
Coordinates	{{{coordinates}}}
Area	{{{area}}}
Highest point	{{{highest mount}}} {{{elevation}}}
Administration
{{{country admin divisions title}}}	{{{country admin divisions}}}
Largest city or town	{{{country largest city or town}}} ({{{country largest city or town population}}})
Demographics
Population	{{{population}}} (as of {{{population as of}}})
Density	{{{density}}}/km²

What do you think? Ten Islands (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I’m not an expert in creating templates, therefore it’s natural if there are some mistakes:

1. Yes, it could have “Administrative Division” as a title.
2. Oops...
3. I don’t remember. Either it is a reminiscence of the “Infobox Island” template, either it was to put Barlavento or Sotavento.
4. You’re right!
5. In the french Wikipedia, the infobox for islands calculates automatically the density. I don’t know how it is done, but it can easy the work, no need to do calculations...
6. Oops...

Ten Islands (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waldir, I am genuinely sorry for not replying sooner, and no, I promise you that you have not done anything to offend me! Most of the other questions I was asked could be answered very quickly in one or two sentences, but the suggestions you have made are good ones, but they would take a long time, so I said to myself "I will get to that later when I have more time", and of course I never did. I think I need to admit to myself and to you that I just simply don't think that I will have the time to implement them. So my next best suggestion is that the Can-We-Link-It source code is all open and available under the GPL, and there are setup instructions available, and that if you're looking for a project then the suggestions you made (e.g. date section linking, list of suggestions for disambigs) all sound like valuable additions to me. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I've replied in part on Fritz's talk page. The main task for Cape Verde is to add new infoboxes to replace the old ones which have locator maps. See below. Each place in Cape Verde should have its own infobox with a locator map and coordinates: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Verde/Infobox. -- ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009[edit]

Hello,
I saw your note at User_talk:Supadawg/secedit.js so I thought you might like to know I modified the secedit.js to work with edit lead section. My modified copy is available at User:Nableezy/secedit.js. If this has already been solved let me know, dont want to have an extra script for no reason. Hope you like, Nableezy (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you removed (again) the category tag of the redirect page for Epipolar line, and now with the comment that the category should be in the target article. Since the target article already had a category tag, I'm a bit puzzled by your edit. Is there some rule against having both the redirect and the target article in the same category? --KYN (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waldir, read your msg on my talk page but realised (being new) I've no idea how to reply!! (LOL) Is this how you do it/where it goes?! I've really no idea :-/ If I've got it wrong please let me know/move my text. Went to your website (professional/stylish) but I couldn't find a means to contact you from it? Glad you like the CV work. I've got loads more planned, so I'll be seeking advice/opinions from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Verde group. Oh and feel free to call me Marc, Wiki User 68 is too much typing! Wiki User 68 talk 13:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AH! I see. You created a new section called <this> and simply pasted it. I assumed when I looked that the previous Cape Verde in your Contents here was related to your CV Section on my page, so that's where I stuck it! Now I see. I assume I only use a new section when starting a conversation on a new topic, otherwise I do as I've just done? Re my work so far; I've designed/built websites before but generally using GUI's for productivity purposes (yes I know it's bad) and now find myself paying for it on here (LOL). I do draw on the Wiki work of others for speed (codewise)but chop it to make it my own (is that naughty-laughter). Personally I don't mind people using mine whatsoever if it's for a good cause like Wikipedia. Plus it increases productivity with what little human resources Wikipedia has.

Cape Verde has a bright future, and I intend to bring together the information resources to assist CV in achieving that, among other projects! Ah, I'm required..BFN Wiki User 68 talk 14:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to view "too much" on my talk page. I'm not sure if you knew, but I had added extra external links to the bottom of the main CV page which I felt were relevant to that page. The copy on my talk explain what happened to them! I would be interested in your opinion. Many thanks, Marc Wiki User 68 talk 16:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waldir, hope you've had a good week. Started watching the video but got interrupted, so it's on my list. I've been reading your pages and noticed you only give your English abilities as Level-3!? You Are joking aren't you!? I'm a Native English speaker and believe-you-me you're easily ((user en-5))((clear)) and I think you should upgrade your User page accordingly(not with that fake link of course). To be perfectly honest, no native English speaker would ever know you weren't English! (LOL) Wiki User 68 ^{Blah Stuff} 14:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, the communication we're having through this medium IS professional level (and more)!! You're very lucky to be this fluent in Criolu, Portuguese and English. You only need Espanol and you've got the World covered!!(LOL) Mi Espanol es muy mal. Para mi, no pasa nada. Talking of languages...

I noticed Wiki's available in "simple english" (very clever) but more interesting than that, it's available in Volapük! Why is that interesting you ask? The reason is that there's less than 50 fluent speakers in the world...but I believe there's about 1.5 million...

Cape Verdean Criolu speakers in the world...You know what I'm gonna say next (LOL) I feel a project coming on (Ooo!) Yes, I can see the shear terror on your face, but truthfully, I ask you..Volapük!? Who has THAT much spare time? At least Criolu is an officially recognised language and with, well in not too distant future, 2 million speakers. If you're up for it, we could start with a Criolu version of Opera (the browser). We request the list of words from Opera software and supply them the results. I believe it's straightforward. One day it will happen on both subjects. The question is; Who will have the time for it...Wiki User 68 ^{Blah Stuff} 00:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waldir, hope you had a good weekend. Glad I made you laugh! :-) Ok, where-to-begin...

What I knew re CVC - Different on every Island, with associated literature, but not Worlds apart considering. I personally believe it's very important for CV to...

a) Retain it's spoken/written use of CV creole (THE language AND its variants), note1

b) Not standardise the language collectively (ie. don't lose the variants) but either choose one variant as a standard National Form (as Italy did choosing Tuscan Italian over the other national variants in the last 100ish yrs - Yes, Italian is a recent language really!) or..

c) Scientifically make a variant that is a merger of the most common elements within the language {set}. That makes it not too alien to all.

note1 Retainment of CVC has cultural and commercial significance!

ie-It's a living medieval language and international tourism loves that!

Experience tells us that the Italian method works, whereas constructural methods have proven unsuccessfull...so far..(Esperanto, Volupuk et al)

I'll be honest, successfully standardising a medieval language on behalf of a sovereign nation, is definitely one to tell the grand-kids :-) But the truth is it's do-able. The secret is standardising the written/read language and allowing the variants to live freely in the spoken form.

I call it the Cake and Eat it theory...Why would I have a theory?...

While living abroad amoung many different Euro-nationals I came to realise that it is possible to construct a European language based on the most statisically used words across all the languages with a dual grammer system, ie house-white white-house etc. My scientific interest in languages goes back a long, loonngg way! There is even a reduced template of words (850) already in existence.

The one thing that is really important is that CV has to be a CVC and portuguese bi-lingual nation. That is a must in this World. The real question is what should CV's third language be...Wiki User 68 ^{Blah Stuff} 01:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waldir, Marc here. Read your msg. I'm on Yahoo, Gmail, Facebook, Skype - I think that's it!? I'm just reading up on the historical development of kea. In short, it's going to be either Santiago kea (least work) or the former and Mindel kea somewhow seamlessly merged together (more work)...

Pro's for Santiago is it's the majority variant. Cons are it upsets everyone else. I don't know enough (yet) about the variations between the two prominent variants. In addition, who on the islands knows the most on this subject academically or would that knowledge reside in Lisboa? Whatever decisions are made and implemented in the "digital" and then used will have a Life of its own - errors, mistakes and UPSETS and all! It's gonna need thought and consultation, and statisically there's the possibility that someone's working on it currently - you made reference to recent government work?! Wiki User 68 ^{Blah Stuff} 20:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waldir, just sent chat invite. I have questions: What variant do you speak? What variant is Asemana published in? What variant is most common with CV'ans abroad? How different is the CV portuguese from the European one? I know there are differences between the two, but not "by how much". You know the original variant is also the one spoken by the most people. Could be key. Wiki User 68 ^{Blah Stuff} 21:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waldir, just finished artical on CV Wikipedia and posted it to the CV WikiProject discussion page Wiki User 68 ^{Blah Stuff} 15:30, 08 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Waldir,
Since you appear to have Kabuverdianu as your native language, could you please take a look at this template? I would be extremely grateful if so, because all internet sources conflict with each other on orthography (I guess it would be best to use and use of capital/small letters...
Thanks in advance, Wikibelgiaan (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Visual stimulus reconstruction using fMRI.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waldir I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WaldirBot has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waldir, I'm spending a bit more time on CV related articles and I've noticed that someone is adding info to the above new-section topic...That's fine (and the country needs it!) but who is this person and there's no ref's. I suspect it's an authoritive source (hence no refs) but if that's the case it'd be nice to have him on board! I can ask my "friends" for a trace if need be? But it can be faked easily. It might be easier to simply post on his discussion page (It's just an IP addr). Mind you, it's good to see you guys produce a Special Op. Unit - very sensible. ^©Wiki User 68 ^Talk_Edits   Portal 02:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drop him a line :-) Wiki User 68 (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Plus one hour!?[reply]

Hi Waldir, just to let you know I've/We've had no response from this particular gentleman, and so I've remove the self-reference. On another note; I've developed better self-references located on my pages awaiting uses :-) Wiki User 68 (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Knowledge-based systems, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. YayaY (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your message!

See my blog (http://bjornsmestad.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-wikipedia-logo.html) for what I remember on this story at the moment. In answer to your questions: 1. I don't think Nupedia ever used my logo. Another logo was selected from the competition and was used for Nupedia. Thus, when my logo was chosen for Wikipedia, it was not as the winner of the Nupedia competition. Probably, the other entries in that competition were more clearly "N"s, and therefore even less useful for Wikipedia... 2. As the Nupedia competition took place in 2000, it was already finished when ScottMoonen made those comments. 3. The two black vertical lines were included in an effort to make the logo seem like an "N". However, it is ironical that while I probably didn't succeed too much in making it appear like an "N", that may be precisely why it could be used for Wikipedia... Bjornsm (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, your category additions to peer-to-peer were reverted - though not by me, since I do think that they belong there. Categories are collections of closely related material, and those are certainly closely related. I've found that User:Kbrose, who reverted you, and then me when I put the categories back, often makes reasonably good contributions, but tends to flatly remove content that he or she disagrees with without explanation, and often without response to objections (which sometimes makes editing there difficult, since there are often few editors watching those pages). If you want to figure out why they object, you can do so, but you might also want to just put your changes back until they provide an explanation.    M   18:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gather, you're running on GMT+1, and I'm running on GMT+10. Your best bet is probably going to be dropping me an email. :-) Jude (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent discussion of this criteria on the policy page that probably explains it better than I could - Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 36#R3 - why only recent?. Basically from my reading the rationale was that people felt that older redirects should go through RFD as speedy should be kept to limited cases, although there were others who felt the wording should be removed. Davewild (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010[edit]

Hello Waldir! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 941 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. The Mad Stuntman - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected and restored the talk page since the history of the discussion might be useful. The history of the article remains deleted since there's never been consensus for anything but a redirect, as far as I can tell. I have left both the redirect and the Talk unprotected since there hasn't been any vandalism or edit-warring, but if either starts up and I don't catch it a request at WP:RfPP would, of course, be called for. Thanks for the heads up, I should have at least unprotected the Talk page when I recreated the article but I didn't think to look for page protection. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to the sandbox of {{expert-subject}}, so that it no longer breaks without a WikiProject, and I've also included the talk-page code you added to {{expert}}. Since you started the ball rolling, I want to see what you think before making a request to add it to the live template. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Film websites by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Film websites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't know if you're familiar with the new "development" village pump. You might like to try it next time as the responses tend to me more considered and less reactionary.
2. I wondered whether you had considered putting yourself forward for adminship. You would seem to be an ideal candidate.

Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been fiddling a bit with template:Chemical formula (see talk page) and used it on a couple of obscure mineral articles (Hisingerite, Hazenite & Brushite). I like the idea, but it do get cumbersome with non-simple formulas, but so is the  stuff. Problems include handling parens, commas and oxidation state while keeping track of even/odd positions. I'd be interested in your further thoughts on this. Vsmith (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied over here. --Waldir ^talk 07:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prizes known as the Nobel of something. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Joal Beal (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you re-ordered the templates on Notebook here. In case you didn't know, WP:HNP states that "Hatnotes are placed at the very top of the article, before any other items such as images, navigational templates and maintenance templates (like the "cleanup", "unreferenced", and "POV" templates)". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for pointing that out. My goal was to combine the hatnotes together, not necessarily under the maintenance template. I'll combine them over it, then :) --Waldir ^talk 11:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

please don't edit my comments like this. I don't use bold text in XfDs specifically because of an observation that some editors tend to simply read the bold text and then skip to the next line. I rather feel that participants in an XfD should be taking the time to examine the full content of people's replies. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I'll refrain from this in the future, even though I still think the standardization would be nice :) --Waldir ^talk 11:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early congrats! on your RfA —Tommy2010 17:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! you were one of the earliest voters, so early congrats are entirely appropriate :D I look forward to collaborate with you, should we come across each other in the future. Cheers! --Waldir ^talk 18:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Have fun! Go wander around and explore the wiki. I look forward to working with you (; —Tommy2010 18:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to inform you that I have closed your RFA as successful, and that you are now an admin. The community has seen it fit to entrust you with the tools, and I hope you'll use them prudently and effectively. If you'd like to test out your admin tools before jumping in, you can head to New Admin School. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 18:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) --Waldir ^talk 18:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed your improvements to the template code. At the moment, there is an update request pending (see Template talk:Drugbox#Styling update) which will undo your edit since the template's sandbox doesn't contain your code. Could you perhaps implement the update, working your code into the one in the sandbox so that nothing is lost? Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my congratulations for your successful RfA! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems TheDJ already performed the update. As you predicted, my change was overridden, but I did it again. Thanks for warning me about that, and for the congrats :) --Waldir ^talk 08:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see users response in Talk:Sarah Palin email hack#David Kernell continued

Constitutionguard (talk · contribs) asked for help on their talk, they claim to have consensus for the change, so I've asked them to discuss it with you, etc.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice :) --Waldir ^talk 18:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Waldir, I have responsed to your question, apologies if I seemed a little too hasty. Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This query will probably not be answered because Eubulides hasn't been editing for many months. Anthony (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip :) Btw, looking at that diff, can you tell me whether the changes should be applied or not? I think it has something to do with this. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 19:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know. Anthony (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waldir, I probably wouldn't have done the history merge if I were you. IMO history merges should *only* be used to fix cut-and-paste moves, not in cases where two articles were merged; the latter case causes confusing diffs, as you noted in the Actaea page history. I recently ranted about this topic at Talk:Biblical canon#Major surgery on the "Christian canons" section. If I were you, I would have just merged the articles by copy and paste with an edit summary like "merged with Actaea (mythology); that is sufficient attribution. Or you could have moved the old "Actaea" history to a title like "Talk:Actaea/Old history to preserve it, moved "Actaea (mythology)" to "Actaea", and merge it from there (noting where the old history was in the edit summary). Undoing the history merge should be relatively straightforward, if you want to do that, since not too many revisions are involved. Or I could rejig it for you. Graham87 13:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I thought this was a good enough excuse for a dummy edit. :-) Graham87 14:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not worth the effort to un-switch the histories. As for restoring revisions that were deleted through old AFDs, it's quite acceptable, and it's what this section of DRV is for. Graham87 15:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your "un-history merging" of the Chitrakoot Falls page was fine. Graham87 15:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good. I've restored the history. Graham87 03:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. However I just noticed that in the DRV page that I just linked, it said "behind a new, improved version of the article", so I technically violated the rules of that page. However I would have done the restoration anyway. Graham87 02:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Yeah, I think that was a good time for IAR; it was a less extreme version of my major goof-up at disability etiquette. Graham87 06:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit summary here. :) Question, why did you added an option for 'small'? If I look at this template it should be and already is small. So why this extra option. Garion96 (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That should teach me to use the sandbox instead :) About the parameter, I explained the addition on this edit summary. Case in point: P versus NP problem#Notable attempts at proof. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 13:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was quite a long discussion about making this template larger (and there currently is again a discussion about this) which was rejected it would have been better to first discuss this change on the talk page though. Personally I don't really like it, I prefer keeping this template always "small". That said, if it only is large when used with other templates I also don't mind that much either. Garion96 (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the lengthy discussions regarding this template; but since I didn't change the default behavior, and the need for this change, in the use case I pointed (to align with other templates if there are any) is pretty uncontroversial, IMO, I thought it wouldn't be a problem. Besides, I purposely didn't include a mention of the feature in the documentation (but this can be added later if there's consensus that it would be harmless). --Waldir ^talk 14:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from putting this daft template [1] om Mistress (lover). It serves no purpose there at all. In fact, it's hard to see what possible purpose it could serve anywhere; it is one of the most pointless and clumbersome things I have seen in my years at Wikipedia.  Giacomo  09:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what is the problem with the template. It serves the same purpose as the countless other navigation templates. Do you believe all of these are useless and should be discontinued? Otherwise, do you think this one is different from the other navboxes? If so, why? --Waldir ^talk 10:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is unecessary because it is peurile, a fool knows what a relationship is. It then goes on to list all form of relationship known to mankind and quite a few it seems unknown to mankind. If you must plaster these things all over pages, they should be discrete and at the bottom of the page, not distorting the lead and causing great white voids. I have devised templates myself (or to be precise had other people devise them for me) see Template:The Winter Palace, but that was to provide links to similar pages that most people really may not know existed or were connected. The most kind thing one can say about your template is that it is patronising to the reader.  Giacomo  10:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to convert the template into a standard {{navbox}}, but removing it altogether from the article for (1) aesthetic purposes ("distorting the lead and causing great white voids") –especially since layout often changes depending on the device used to read the article and there's no absolute way to ensure a pleasing visual structure– and (2) because it doesn't fit your definition of useful (which is personal; e.g. it fits my definition of useful – neither of us is "correct", because "useful" is a subjective concept) without providing any reason why this template is substantially different from the countless other navigational templates which are placed in the same manner (vertically, along the article, rather than horizontally at the bottom) is not imho a valid action. --Waldir ^talk 12:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite valid and I have no intention of converting it into anything, as there is no need for the great clumbersome thing anywhere. If you must have it somewehere, so and place it on a a page where the primary editors don't mind such distractions. Finally, there is no nedd to be keep templating my page with your talk back thing, I have you on my watch list.  Giacomo  13:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we clearly disagree and I see no way to expose my points any clearer than I already have. I'll restore the article to its state before this discussion and request comments from other editors on the talk page. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 14:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a second thought, before doing a RfC, and since the template has been on the page for a long time without any complaints, I think your reasoning (even if I agreed with it) is not enough for removal (for the reasons I stated above). I'd suggest you to contact User:Stevertigo, who has been one of the primary editors of that template; he should probably have valuable input. --Waldir ^talk 14:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well what a good job I finally spotted it and removed it from despoiling the page. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject and what clearly dreamt up by someone with far too much time on their hands. I have removed it. Please stop vandalising the text with it and place it somewhere more appropriate.  Giacomo  16:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you would like to participate in the active discussion regarding the default date format on WebP, since you recently participated in another discussion on that article. I requested a third opinion, and the discussion is progressing well, but I feel the presence of another editor could really help build consensus one way or the other.
--Gyrobo (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't chipped in on that one because of its length, but now I read it and added my opinion. HTH. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 08:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, FleetCommand opened a case against me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You've been a prince to participate so far, thought you'd want to weigh in.
--Gyrobo (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only saw this now. Anyway, seems like it's already been resolved. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 19:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special Cases ^{Spit out your comments} 08:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Oh, your new signature? Well, you can put whatever you want, but I wouldn't say that's what ought to change. A non-offensive one sure is better, imo, but I'd rather see well-meaning editors with harsh signatures than the opposite. Not that you need to please me anyway, I just had to let that out :( --Waldir ^talk 09:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know, if you didn't already, Special Cases (talk · contribs) was indef blocked. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

76.66.199.238 (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

76.66.199.238 (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A draft version is available now... User talk:76.66.196.13/List of star extremes

76.66.203.138 (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think of it so far? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The next few days will be terrible for me in terms of available time. If you can wait a few days, I'll give you some proper feedback :) --Waldir ^talk 08:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure no problem. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SchmuckyTheCat moved the draft into articlespace and cleaned up. See List of star extremes. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome :) Thanks for your patience so far, I'm still quite busy but I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 08:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional tables that can be added to List of star extremes or to List of brown dwarfs ... see Talk:List of brown dwarfs/workpage ; the historical table at Talk:List of nearest stars/workpage can likewise also go in either List of star extremes or List of nearest stars. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The next article draft will be located at User talk:76.66.203.138/Extremes of the Solar System. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great so far :) I wish I had time to help research some of the entries, but for now I still don't have much time in my hands :/ I might take care of the galaxy extremes and the navbox, which can be done faster. --Waldir ^talk 02:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no prob. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions on what else to list in the first section, "by feature" ? -- I've got the largest canyon, mountain, volcano and scarp already there. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest craters, but I see they're already there... btw that table could include the body's name in addition to the feature's name. And what about atmosphere density? And in general, anything present in Extremes on Earth for which there's data available for the other planets. --Waldir ^talk 20:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, body has been added. As for densest atmosphere, should that be divided by class of object, or just one value for the whole Solar System? (either just Venus, or Sun+Venus+Titan+Pluto) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally (as a reader)I think it would be more interesting to have values for different body types :) --Waldir ^talk 18:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, perhaps it's time to take the page live? It's taking time to fill in the blanks, so moving it to article space with a {{listdev}} on it may be better. It'll be like the star extremes article with some blank boxes to be filled, since it's substantially filled out already. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the list of brown dwarf firsts and list of brown dwarf extremes is currently located at brown dwarf. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Due to your past contribution to Technological utopianism, you may currently want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.

I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:

Loremaster says he is:

"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."

Loremaster wants people to:

"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."

Loremaster sees his editing as a 'fight' and he states:

"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."

81.151.135.248 (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB[reply]

Sorry, 81. I sympathize with your cause, but I have no interest in stepping into editing conflicts, especially since I only performed a single, minor edit to that page. I do have another similar issue to address, at the Venus Project article, so that will take my priority once I feel like dealing with strong-opinionated editors. All I can say is good luck – and allow me a suggestion: if you register an account you'll probably be able to build a reputation and be taken more seriously by some editors; think about that. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 19:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Waldir. You're a person of wisdom. --Loremaster (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Loremaster, I didn't mean to imply I agree with your edits. In fact, I didn't even look at them in detail (it'd take me a lot of time, given the amount of changes you made to that article), so I don't have an opinion either way. Thanks for the compliment, though. --Waldir ^talk 01:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2012[edit]

There is a difference that you as a researcher should appreciate in that object tracking see ( http://www.willowgarage.com/sites/default/files/orb_final.pdf http://www2.imperial.ac.uk/robotvision/website/php/ and http://www.ri.cmu.edu/publication_view.html?pub_id=4664 http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/~theobalt/index.html#research ) as well as a hundred other research groups are working on tracking without the use of markers using computer vision techniques.

These techniques lack the resolution and subtlety of systems specifically designed for Motion Capture which these days almost always refers to marker or sensor tracking, the terms "Motion Capture" and "Performance Capture" have come to mean a specific way of tracking despite the hardware, so a magnetic, ultrasound, Inertial or optical marker based tracker are all motion capture. If you add face and fingers it becomes performance capture. While a technical person can understand the nuance, 99 percent of the readers coming to Wikipedia will not. They see a movie or game and think of that as motion capture.

Optical motion tracking might include marker tracking but in the next few years you will see techniques that have the advantage over motion capture in that they don't require the user to wear markers and can track objects without any sensors affixed to the object being tracked.

Since the OpenCV community and computer vision communities are rather small, and the articles would be too technical for the average Wikipedia reader, it is important to try to keep them short enough to be useful and give them references like the above to allow them to find out more. Whenever I added these links, companies would remove them because it competes with their products since in many cases the software can be obtained free by other researchers.

Merging topics because they are related forces the articles to be even further watered down.

Frankly I don't have the energy to try to educate people when our commercial competitors are trying to keep their dated technology alive and not let people know what is available. Even my own page has been vandalized and the PhaseSpace page was removed because although we are the 4th largest player in the industry, someone decided we aren't noteworthy enough.

While I use Wikipedia daily, I am thoroughly disgusted with the ability of the troglodytes to water down the content, because some kid who watched "making of Avatar" is sure they know more than I do, or a competitor is afraid we will sell more systems if people know how things really work.

Tmcsheery (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given up working on Wikipedia pages. We are doing some amazing things with Stanford, Berkeley, MPI, and others, but this has become advertising only for my competitors, and it's a waste of time trying to educate people sadly. Every time I mention what we are doing someone will delete saying we are advertising. Might as well stick with the old expensive stuff. I can't even put stuff on my own page without someone editing it!!!

Tmcsheery (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its been brought to my attention that you moved some departments of Colombia to lower casing. To my knowledge, the consensus on here appears to be to use capitals were large admin division names otherwise move to something like Amazonas (department). It's only India and a few others which inists on lower casing. Most countries use capital latters, which I and several other active geo editors endorse. If you dispute it, you could open an RFC, but please don't move any more until a wider discussion has been made.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is such consensus documented? I guided myself by the WP:LOWERCASE guideline. Maybe a "see also" link should be made to the appropriate geo-related guideline, so others can find it in the future. --Waldir ^talk 15:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See you there!

• Friday, Jan. 4th at 1700 UTC/11AM CST
• #wikimedia-office

--EpochFail^(talk|work) 22:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013[edit]

I've been making some progress on Snuggle development recently and I could use your feedback. Specifically, I've created a work log that I plan to update every time I get a chance to work on Snuggle. My intention is that you'll be able to watch that page to track my progress so I can get your feedback on features when they are early in development. The most recent entry (also the only entry) discusses new functionality for interacting with newcomers via Snuggle. I posted some mockups in the work log that show how I imagine the new features to work and I could use some feedback before I start writing the code. Thanks! --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 20:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

per the discussion on template:sms, you may want to consider template:smn, which appears to either broken, or universally incorrectly applied. it claims to use a line in MediaWiki:Common.js, but it appears this was never deployed or was removed on this wiki. 64.134.48.7 (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to see that it's broken, try sorting the second column in User:Ysangkok/Sandbox#Heading custom, and notice that it does not sort numerically, but alphabetically. 64.134.48.7 (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring this up at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 13#Template:Sms. I'm a little busy these days and won't be able to sort this out. --Waldir ^talk 02:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant)#RFC:Article_Notability Please bring friends. John W. Nicholson (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that discussion. I've stated my opinion there. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 13:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Waldir. After you commented, the "Oppose" commenters started writing Oppose at the beginning of their statements, so the "Support" commenters started doing likewise. You might want to consider doing so, or it might look like you intentionally held back. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up :) --Waldir ^talk 11:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And, please see if you can round up any help that you can. John W. Nicholson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I deard about and delved into the tau-stuff, and I couldn't believe my eyes. I tried to restore a Wikipedia-article on tau, but it was soon blanked again.

Imagine my surprise when I saw that you were involved in the discussions! Perhaps I shouldn't be, since you usually seem to have wise ideas going. But it's a small wiki-world, isn't it! And soon it's half-tau day. ;) –St.nerol (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thanks for the kind words! I'm afraid my involvement hasn't brought much help to the cause, however... there's a fierce anti-Tau movement doing anything they can to keep information about it to a minimum and tucked into a corner of Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm confident that with time, the issue will eventually be settled reasonably. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 22:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you are interested in creating a page for Tower of the Dragon, a movie project I'm working on. I know if I create the page, someone will flame war it. There is enough information on Google if you are interested. Tmcsheery (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you if you start the article on a subpage of your userpage. The page Help:Userspace draft has comprehensive instructions on how to do this. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 15:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words on the op-ed I wrote. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikify/tutorial has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GoingBatty (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the X11 color names are determined by the computer coding. The hex code color codes for Red, Yellow, Green, Cyan, Blue, Magenta, Black, and White are the most basic, and all other colors are generated from those eight colors. Purple (800080) is that tone of magenta which is exactly half way in hue between red and blue and halfway in value (brightness) between white and black. Most of the rest of the color names were in wide use before 1987, and the color codes were mostly accurately formulated by matching them with the color by that name in general use. However, some mistakes were made. The color shown as Brown in X11 is actually the color Red-brown. The color called Chocolate in X11 is actually the color Cocoa brown. Some new colors were formulated in X11 like Gainsboro. The color called Violet (color)#Web color "violet" in X11 is not a violet at all but is a light tone of magenta. Keraunos (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way I found out that the X11 colors were formulated in 1987 was by in 2008 asking a person who at that time was active in the Color Project, a woman from England who is a skilled computer programmer whose screen name is PaleAqua (talk). In the early days of Wikipedia around 2004, she created the color box template that is used on Wikipedia to display the colors (she has updated it a few times since). She is not active at present in the Color Project but still edits occasionally. You should ask her any questions regarding finding clues about who formulated the X11 color list (since she is not that active currently, it might take several days before she replies). It would certainly be interesting to find out who the person was and to e-mail them to find out how they put together the list! Please let me know about any significant information you can find out about this. Keraunos (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find the information you needed? Also sort of curious. PaleAqua (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to Template:BoardChart/core! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help :) --Waldir ^talk 19:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggle, the newcomer socialization tool I've been building, is finally ready for general use. All you need to do to get started is point your browser to https://snuggle.grouplens.org. Let me know if you run into any trouble. I'll be watching WT:Snuggle. Or you can also just contact me directly. Thanks for your patience.

See also:

• Documentation
• Bug tracker
• Open source code repository
• My work log describing the last few months of work

--EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 19:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop by to say thanks for taking the time to reports all the bugs and features. I'll be looking into them over the next couple of days. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 16:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Reporting them is the easy part ;) The tool's looking great already, congrats :) --Waldir ^talk 18:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Waldir. I am thinking about altering an edit you made on 22 Aug 2011, and since the issue is a bit complex and since you seem to have been the only editor involved, I would like to explain what I am proposing first, and see whether you agree.

In an article on Depth perception, under Monocular cues, there is a section headed "Depth from motion." It refers to our ability to perceive the distance of an object by means of the dynamic changes in its size during motion, as when we perceive the distance of an object as we are driving and can estimate the "time to crash." The article labels this as kinetic depth perception. You (as I understand it from the History pages) undersrtandbly made an internal link to a redirect page, Kinetic depth perception, and pointed the redirect to Kinetic depth effect. The problem is that the Kinetic depth effect refers to a different psychological phenomenon (although the Kinetic depth effect page is unclear and needs rewriting). The KDE refers to the fact that a viewer can perceive a three-dimensional object even when only two-dimensional information is actually seen, provided that the two-dimensional array moves in particular ways. For example, suppose I construct a wire-frame cube, and place it behind a translucent screen, with a point-source of light throwing a shadow of the cube on the screen. If the cube is stationay, an observer in front of the screen would see simply a pattern of lines. But if the cube revolves, the observer's visual system can reconstruct depth information from the particular patterns of movement in the shadowed lines, and a three-dimensional cube is seen. That is what is properly called the Kinetic depth effect. ^[1][2]

What I propose to do is to remove the internal link to Kinetic depth perception on the Depth perception page. That will make Kinetic depth perception an orphan page, since nothing else links to it. This would remove the potential confusion for the moment.

In the long run, the section "Depth from motion" ought to be revised to remove the phrase kinetic depth perception. What is described there is really not a depth cue (having to do with the three-dimensionality of an object), but rather a distance cue (having to do with how far away something is.) Also, there ought to be a description of the real kinetic depth effect on the Depth perception page. I will work on those changes. But I thought I should start by removing the link that redirects to a page that discusses a different phenomenon entirely.

Does this make sense to you? Brazzit (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, all of it makes perfect sense and I agree with everything you said. Thanks for taking the time to sort through this; please proceed with the edits :) --Waldir ^talk 01:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've removed the misleading link. Untangling the Depth perception page looks daunting - the confusion of depth and distance cues is laced throughout the whole article, and the Talk page looks contentious. Not sure how to deal with that one, but I'll keep you informed if you would like. Appreciate your support. Brazzit (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please keep me posted if you don't mind :) Cheers, Waldir ^talk 23:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's the situation. You're a much more experienced editor than I am, so your opinion would be helpful.

The "Depth from motion" subsection of Depth perception was added on 29 May 2007 by an IP user (68.8.216.160). This user also edited the article Headway which deals with spacing between trains in a transit system (a related topic). No edits from this IP address have been made since.

The "Depth from motion" subsection is relevant, makes perfect sense and is clearly not vandalism, although no sources are cited. It describes the sense of depth (actually distance, but never mind) that results from the changing size of an approaching object. The editor called this kinetic depth perception without citing a source.

Well, is that a commonly used term? I only care because of the potential confusion with kinetic depth effect, which definitely is. A Google search turns up only a couple of cases where "kinetic depth perception" is used in the sense of this entry, and those are "Ask An Expert" sites that are probably mirroring the WP article. Everything else that Google yields refers to the kinetic depth effect. (tedious details omitted here)

I suspect that "kinetic depth perception" is a term invented by 68.8.216.160, who was probably unaware that a very similar term has been used since 1953 to describe a different phenomenon. I wish I could contact 68.8.216.160 to ask, but there's no way to do so. (Or is there? You're a WP administrator and maybe you know of tools that can track down long-vanished IP users...?) If only he or she had called it dynamic distance perception (which is really a more accurate term) I wouldn't be obsessing about this now.

All I really care about is to distinguish the two phenomena, so I can get back to my underlying project, which is a bio article about Hans Wallach, who (among other things) discovered and named the kinetic depth effect.

A low-impact solution would be to add a section on the KDE to the "Monocular cues" section of Depth perception, add wording to make clear that this is distinct from the "kinetic depth perception" mentioned in another subsection, and get the heck out of there.

A bolder solution would be to change "kinetic depth perception" to "dynamic distance perception," add a note to the Talk page explaining the potential for confusion and noting that KDP is unsourced, whereas KDE can be extensivelty sourced, and take the heat for the change. But the Talk page suggests that the inhabitants of the Depth perception page are a contentious bunch, and I really don't want to get into a fight.

I'm leaning toward the low-impact approach, but I'd value your advice. Brazzit (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bill. First of all, sorry for taking a while to respond this time; I was away this weekend. Regarding the KDE issue: I must commend you on your diligence and clue. You clearly are an able editor who knows what he's doing and knows when to ask if unsure; keep it up! Now, really regarding the KDE issue :P — I think you're right that the term was likely invented by the IP. Unfortunately there is no magic way admins can use to reach IP editors, so that's out of the question.

The best solution seems, in my opinion, to change the term (I endorse your choice of words). However, I don't think that it is that much bolder; specifically, I wouldn't say a talk page message is required; an informative edit summary —something to the effect of "replaced unsourced term (inserted by 68.8.216.160 on [date]) with one less prone to confusion with kinetic depth effect"— should be enough.

In any case, should anyone raise issue with your change by reverting it and/or commenting on the talk page, please let me know and I'll post my thoughts on the matter, for what they're worth.

Cheers, and have fun with the Hans Wallach article! --Waldir ^talk 07:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Waldir. I had already decided to explain the problem on the Talk oage and put up a Rfc, so I have done that. Feel free to weigh in on the issue if you're so inclined. I'll wait a week or two, and see if a consensus emerges. I very much appreciate your kind words and support – I still feel very new to this whole process. Cheers. Brazzit (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll check it out. For future reference/convenience, here's a link: Talk:Depth perception --Waldir ^talk 11:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waldir. Just FYI, I've rewritten the section in question along the lines you suggested, and I found a more appropriate term and some citations in the literature. Thanks again for your help. Brazzit (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office ^connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)}, Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waldir! I just wanted to post a reminder that this discussion will be happening in about 24 hours. See you there. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 15:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :) Thanks for the reminder! I already had it marked in my calendar; I'll be there (at least for a while, depending on other work) --Waldir ^talk 18:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{CurrentEventsYear}}, which you made about two and a half years ago, has been rewritten to use {{calendar}}. This has improved the look of it (with consistent-sized month boxes) and got rid of the redundant previous- and next-month links. It also means that it is a hardcoded instance of {{calendar}} where the same functionality could be provided by {{calendar}} (WP:CSD#T3). Instead of deleting it though, I hope you don't mind but I thought it might be worth moving into your user space since this is where it's used (the only place it's used). Sorry to be messing around with your user space but I reckon it makes more sense than deleting it whilst it doesn't seem (to me) to make a lot of sense keeping it in the template space when it's used only by one user in their user space. Jimp 10:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the template. You made a good call by moving it to my userspace (and updating my userspage page that used it). Of course, with the {{CurrentEventsCalendar}} deleted I can't really compare the previous version with the new one, but I trust that you made sure the result is unchanged apart from cosmetic tweaks. Speaking about which, the show_year=with month parameter doesn't allow all boxes to be the same size, at least with my browser's font settings (the year wraps to a new line in the longer month names such as "September"). It might be necessary to widen the boxes a little more if that value of the parameter is used. I looked a bit and couldn't find where the width is set, but I assume you'll know where to tweak.

Cheers, Waldir ^talk 12:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can undelete it and move it for you. I'll look into what can be done with the year wrapping. Maybe a non-breaking space would work. Jimp 13:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I could undelete it myself to check. As I said, I trust your judgment :) As for the line break, indeed a nbsp would do the trick, but it would be better to figure out why it is being compressed in the first place. Usually tables auto-expand unless a width is imposed on them. I couldn't find any but assumed you'd know the inner workings of {{calendar}} better than I do. --Waldir ^talk 14:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waldir, there is currently a discussion about a change in the way the syntax highlighter handles nested bold and italic tags. I'd appreciate your comments: User talk:Remember the dot#Syntax highlighter: Minor error in highlighting of combination of bold and italic tags. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pedobear may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• /　＿＿　 ヽノ　/´>　 )
• 　　　　　　 ＼＿)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grading/lk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Waldir, Your user page mentions some background in computer graphics. My interest is to find out if there are programs for 3-dim graphs for visualizing data which you might have experience with. In concept, the table on [Statistics are maintained in section 4 of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment] can be graphed on three dimensions and can shown the "hills" and "valleys" of the inflection points on the computer screen once the data points are plotted. Any possible thoughts? BillMoyers (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't really work much with data visualization, but I recently heard about some tools that might be useful: DataHero or D3.js (the latter requires some coding, as far as I know). Hope this helps, Waldir ^talk 15:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Waldir, Thanks for the quick info. These two packages are very nice, yet somewhat overdone for the tiny app in mind. This is the table which would be nice to see as a 3D graph, can you think of any easy way? (x-axis is importance scale, y-axis is quality scale, and z-axis is the value from this table.) What is the simplest possible way?

All rated articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low ??? Total FA 1,556 2,447 2,375 1,892 180 8,450 FL 179 665 761 695 109 2,409 A 354 682 783 579 83 2,481 GA 3,164 7,188 14,512 18,990 1,730 45,584 B 16,562 32,133 53,049 65,454 20,282 187,480 C 16,549 53,061 132,217 296,044 84,139 582,010 Start 18,475 91,826 411,489 1,574,169 395,974 2,491,933 Stub 4,228 31,619 278,247 2,772,480 760,433 3,847,007 List 4,755 16,855 53,029 187,792 66,689 329,120 Assessed 65,822 236,476 946,462 4,918,095 1,329,619 7,496,474 Unassessed 117 481 1,247 19,131 424,446 445,422 Total 65,939 236,957 947,709 4,937,226 1,754,065 7,941,896 About this table

BillMoyers (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Google Charts? --Waldir ^talk 20:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Waldir, Remarkable. After wearing out a new grove in the left click of my mouse, one can find a Graph3d program. Could you glance at this. Since I am not an expert programmer of any sort, could you let me know if I would be able to do a one-off for the Table above. It would look well on the high traffic "Wikipedia" page next to the new section on "Internal Quality Control" there. The sequence of tabs for left clicking is

>Google Charts

>Chart Gallery

>Additional Charts page (link at top)

>CHAP Links Library

>Graph3d

Since I am no expert programmer indicating this in layman terms may help to enhance the new subsection on the "Wikipedia" wikipage. My appreciation for helping to locate this. BillMoyers (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you to ask in the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. I'm sure someone there is able to help you. As I said, I have never worked with these tools myself so I can't really advise.

ps - In case you din't know, you can linked to graph3d directly :) --Waldir ^talk 20:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Waldir, Good suggestion, and I did put it on the village pump there, yet the traffic there is quite low. Also Graph3D only works for continuous functions and not discrete data like this table. If you have a follow-up idea let me know. There seem to be these 3D graphs in every other issue of Time magazine or Newsweek using square columns or round cylinders of different heights to show the z-axis values. Possibly you may have seen these types of graphs somewhere in magazines or textbooks? BillMoyers (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Linux adoption, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's up for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_9#.5Cx22Weird_Al.5Cx22_Yankovic. —rybec 22:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up :) --Waldir ^talk 23:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up for deletion, that's Rybec's incorrect interpretation of the debate. Fram (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it, thanks. I'll comment there. --Waldir ^talk 14:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014[edit]

		The Multiple Barnstar
		This Basic Supply of Barnstars is for everyone who worked on getting WikiProject Basic Income up and running. Three cheers for providing basic information about Basic Income! It's an important topic, and you've pitched in to help us make a good start.-- Djembayz (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement, Djembayz! Looking forward to collaborate with you in making the WikiProject a success. I see you've already jumped right in assessing articles and helping out -- it's great to have you on board! Cheers, Waldir ^talk 02:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Comparing the template with before you edited and after you edited: It did not specify what method each app used to give the output. It still does not. But it was method-agnostic before you edited it; now it is vague.

Unfortunately, there is a problem that appears only after your edit: The template is now using esoteric syntax.

I am afraid I prefer the old revision, in the light of what I just said. Or we can create separate comprehensive navboxes for each category: Category:2D animation software and Category:3D animation software. Nothing good can come out of this blend.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the feedback. I am not 100% sure what you mean by method-agnostic. Do you mean the 2D/3D distinction? Because if so, that's going to be my next step (notice in my edit summary I mentioned it was a work in progress). If you mean something else, please clarify.

Regarding the syntax, I am fully aware of that, and I'd personally have preferred to use a cleaner approach, sunch as a navbox variant. I did look up the available templates and even gave it a shot with {{navbox with columns}}, but it was impossible to build the structure (essentially a 2x3 table) using any of the existing templates I could find. I saved the table-based version for now, but I'll ask in WP:VPT to see if the wizards over there can help in making the code more standard and maintainable. I'll have to work on that tomorrow, though, as I'm out of time for today. Hope that's ok with you :) --Waldir ^talk 22:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[