Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:36, 23 July 2009

Cleanup activities

I noticed you are "cleaning up" articles, including the See also sections. You are using markup I have not seen before. For example in Transistor you use the markup

{|
|
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
|
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
|
*]
*]
*]
*]
|}

Would you please explain where this markup is documented? --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

wiki markup for tables

This markup should definitely not be used for list. Please, stop doing this. Consider using Template:Columns-list for very long "see also" lists, but also consider removing redundant or weakly related links instead, as having a very long list may indicate overlinking. Thank you. --LjL (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

They definitely should: Misplaced Pages:Lists#Streamlined style or horizontal style. My lists were not four items long—then again, the "When to use tables" is contradicted by "Streamlined style" and the below tables section for short lists. None of them were aware of a cleaner table markup, which is why they're written so. I did not use the templates intentionally as they are flawed, in the same way as the one-stile lists; there's too much white space between them. My wiki markup is also easier to write and read, and when they render stiles it's much better to reach them with the cursor; they are also categorically or loghicly arranged. -lysdexia 01:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in that page does it say that you should use tables, especially not by "Streamlined style", which calls for a non-list of a few items, without using any tables. It actually says that tables are discouraged. There are other ways, as I already mentioned, to use colums for lists that get too long, but you seemed to ignore that part...? Please, read again. Also, as someone said on the MoS talk page, the correct course of action when a "See also" list becomes so long that using columns becomes necessary is checking for irrelevant links to remove. --LjL (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The streamlined is not a non-list; the whole page is for lists. Later on it says where to use tables, which I did follow. I did not see any irrelevant links; rather, I made them tidier and easier than any format you came up with. So you didn't see how yours made the section worse. When you group all list items in your template, it breaks the categories I had already which were intentionally done by hand.

Your edits

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Misplaced Pages has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in various articles, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I see from your contributions that you have made edits to several articles, some of them with an edit summary about "formatting" or such, when in reality you have also changed content, usually by slightly modifying words, to the effect of making them either incorrect, unsourced or simply rare and awkward. That is not really useful for articles; please don't do that. Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. --LjL (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What in the hell do you mean? Your links don't work.

I mean what I said. And only one link doesn't work, that to "various article", because it wasn't really intended to be a link. Basically, it applies for 99% if not 100% of the articles you edited since you've been a user. --LjL (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, three links don't work. Your templates are bare code.

More edits

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Hoobastank. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please, stop randomly changing words in article into obscure synonyms or simply plainly incorrect words Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Hoobastank has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Especially, please stop doing the above while implying in your edit summaries that you're only doing other things such as "cleaning up" or "formatting"

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Jabberwocky. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please, stop randomly changing words in article into obscure synonyms or simply plainly incorrect words Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Jabberwocky has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Especially, please stop doing the above while implying in your edit summaries that you're only doing other things such as "cleaning up" or "formatting"

This time, hopefully, all links work, and thus you'll have no trouble understanding what I'm trying to convey. Cheers. --LjL (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The oldids still don't show up. Your claims are libel and your reversions are vandalism if not improper; I do not make unconstructive, vandal, or inaccurate edits or summaries. Format means diction as well; maths and words take precedend over someone's story. I don't see another user's opinion to agree with your impositions.

I'm not libeling you, I'm using standard Misplaced Pages templates to indicate problems with your contributions. Format means format, diction means diction; format doesn't mean diction. I don't understand your remark about other users. --LjL (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"unconstructive" and "vandalism" are so libel. Such names are for users who blank or leave in trash. What are the "plainly incorrect words"? Format means builded, and is everything one can see on a webpage; spellout and layout both fall under format. -lysdexia 03:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Changing modern English words into Old English ones randomly is incorrect and plainly unacceptable, for one. This is what you did, for example, here and here (with "outstretchan", which I even doubt is an actual OE word, but anyway) and here and here and here and here. In other cases, you gratuitously changed words of Latin origin into considerably more obscure Germanic words, such as here and here. Stop doing that, you've been reverted every time, and not by me; that should give you a clue, really. --LjL (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not Old English but English (Middel English). There is no modern English: http://google.com/groups?q="Benj+asks+about+history". Ballistic transistor had no obscure words. None of the edits were "random" or incorrect but were to strike out their words which were wrong or incorrect. It's not my fault if the world believes "large" means "great"—when it doesn't, but "broad"—or "thin" means "shallow" or "slim". A cloud is thin; a chip is not. And so on. This is not fair. -lysdexia 06:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)