Archives

Archive 1

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

Welcome, Codename Lisa!

— Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to draw your attention to MOS:LISTGAP specifically the best way to indent bulleted lists. Using :* instead of ** can throw off screen readers. Minor point but I thought I would spread the word. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DIYeditor: Depends on the syntax of previous material, actually. The effective and practical rule is to use exactly what the last list item (or talk page poster) used, plus whatever you're trying to add. E.g., if the last item was delimited by ::, and you want to add an indented numbered item under it, use :: then #, thus ::#. If you're replying to a post indented with :*:::, and want your post to have a bullet, use :*::: then *, thus :*:::*. So ** is not categorically wrong; it's quite right when the last item was * and you're doing an indented bullet item under it. Sounds complicated but it's not: just copy-paste the last item's syntax, and add your new bit to it. The main LISTGAPS "sin" is putting blank lines between list items; that will indeed break ** syntax, since there is no open * for it to nest under. A blank line closes any list of any kind formatted with wikimarkup instead of raw HTML: * and # and ; and : types.

Technically we should not be using : for indentation at all (nor ; for boldfacing, nor * for stand-alone bullet items), and we should fix this in articles because it's an abuse of the HTML elements and an accessibility problem. It's a lost cause on talk pages. In articles, one can indent with {{in5}}, {{block indent}}, and various other templates; do bullets with • and various templates; and of course bold with ..., though most abuse of ; in articles is actually for things that should be done as subheadings (most often ==== ... ==== or lower).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why you've picked an out-of-the blue and hard-to-make-any-sense-of-it fight with me at WT:MOSCOMP. Is there something in particular on your mind?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Yes. There is something particular on my mind. I have been trying to dissuade FleetCommand from personal attacks, and resort to personal attacks against him, backing him into uncivility. You were unnecessarily harsh: "redundancy" and "personal opinion" was enough. "hand-waving", "rant" and "rambling" was extra. Sometimes, I think we are all uncivil people who use a link to WP:CIVIL as a stick to beat each other. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You speak for yourself on that. You're mistaking specific criticisms of content for some kind of personal animosity (and not even about your person). Hand-waving, i.e. use of wordy and emphatic but unclear argument to try to convince people that one has a well-defending position when one does not, is a serious fault in both encyclopedic and policy writing. A rant is an emotionalized tone and focus problem in WP content (or its guideline material). Also problematic in both contexts are pointless verbosity and wandering into digressions. (In fairness, I suffer this problem myself, though in talk posts, not guideline or article material.) I have no means of prediction or control of what words (like "hand-waving") that you, individually, will react to disproportionately, and they were not criticisms of your material, so it's not really your business. If FleetCommand wants to object about it to me, he can do so; I'm somehow skeptical he's appointed you as his defender, given your self-declared pattern of being his critic. I again refer you to WP:KETTLE. There's nothing constructive about your personality-critical material about FleetCommand in your point no. 1 at that WT:MOSCOMP thread, or about me ("faking it", etc.) in that thread, nor about FleetCommand again on this page just above. One who has trouble restraining the urge to criticize editors rather than edits is not in a good position to lecture other editors about how to improve in this regard (though one can self-reflect, learn and change from ones' past mistakes change, then offer some observations about this process; I've done so myself at WP:HOTHEADS, and I think that essay might be of benefit to you).

I repeat my question: Why are you picking a fight with me out of nowhere about subjective interpretation of talk-page wording that doesn't concern you, when you and I have no prior history of conflict? [None that I recall, anyway.] I will now add a related question, why are starting a revert war about style trivia at .Net Framework on the false basis that my compliance with general MoS guidance somehow "violates" MOS:COMP when it clearly does not (and could not)? Continuing in this vein is not likely to end well. I would much rather return to the prior state of us having no conflict between us. I certain didn't provoke one from you, and I can't discern a cause or motivation for you to have done so. Take a break and watch some funny cat videos? I feel I've been netted in a bad mood of yours that has probably nothing to do with me, MoS, or WP. I and MoS certainly have nothing to do with how you feel about FleetCommand, or Microsoft, or .NET.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: "I repeat my question: Why are you picking a fight with me out of nowhere [...]". Oh, you are the one picking the fight. I was trying to prevent it. Actually, I am the one who feels you are in bad mood; one hell of a bad mood.

I will leave you and FleetCommand to kill each other however you two see fit. Now leave my talk page for 24 hours. Come back when you calmed down.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]