JamesBWatson: I was going to say, your reaction seemed more than a little hasty! I assure you it was not a bad edit; no "perhaps" is necessary. As it says right there in the Rabbit article, baby rabbits are called "kits", not "kittens", so the correction I made to the photo caption was obviously needed. Thanks for being watchful, though. — Jaydiem (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are quite right, and I corrected my mistake. At first your edit looked like vandalism, but then I realised it wasn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested grammatical edit to the {{usertalkpage}} template was done today. I didn't do it (I'm not an admin), but I tagged it so it got done. Just for the record, in order to gather appropriate attention for such an edit, you need to tag it with {{editprotected}}. WCityMike 17:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please find my response to your proposal Redirection of "Rooting". -- Ben4Wiki (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jaydiem. Regarding Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Distinguishing abstract concept from same-named publication in which it was introduced (WP:D). If you are hoping to resurrect this discussion and get people to participate, I suggest moving it to the bottom of the page. Nobody may notice it up near the top. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, good sir! — Jaydiem (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The request that is the subject of this discussion can be found here: WP:Requests for undeletion#Talk like TED

WP:REFUND is not a discussion that requires "endorse". A clear, obvious reasoning was made not to undelete something that was indeed deleted for good reason. "Endorsing" undeletion in that forum doesn't help once the decision is made the panda ₯’ 22:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @DangerousPanda: By "[a] clear, obvious reasoning" do you mean the comment by DGG that appears immediately above mine? If so, I must point out that DGG's comment was made six days ago, and yet there was no indication that the request had been "closed" in the sense of a decision being made. On the contrary, the floor appeared still to be open for discussion; therefore I added my carefully-thought-out comments. [attn: DavidMCEddy] — Jaydiem (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change my words: the header was chosen carefully to ensure you were aware the same issues apply to future posts at WP:REFUND as well the panda ₯’ 23:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I see no reason why people should not comment as they see fit about undeletion requests, or any other request for that matter. As I understand it, the policy on such matters is NOT BURO. DangerousPanda, If you feel otherwise, I'd be interested in knowing the reason. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it merged, let me know if it isn't what you wanted. GB fan 23:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm so sorry for troubling you; I see now that I should've just left the old /Notes page deleted and forgotten about it, as my request created unnecessary work for you, and also left unnecessary extra page moves and page deletions in various logs and edit histories. Also, it didn't occur to me beforehand that merging the edit histories would result in the merged article content jumping back and forth between the completely different old and new pages as one steps thru the merged edits during the overlapping period of time. Argh! I will be more judicious about requesting history merges in the future. Thanks again for your help. — Jaydiem (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) I know of no specific or paraphrased version of that quote attributed to Masahiko Kimura or any other bonsai teacher/artist.

2) I have not read The Magical Technician books, so it is possible the quote may be found in one of them.

3) Googling "imperfection + bonsai" yields several comments by bonsai teachers -- but not specifically Kimura -- which deal with the concept of wabi-sabi," the aesthetic which is sometimes described as one of beauty that is "imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete." Taken together, these references could easily be paraphrased/summarized into the "Very few understand the significance of imperfection in art" quote. Hope this helps.

— RJBaran (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, sir! If I should find anything further on this question, I'll be sure to let you know. — Jaydiem (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you have reverted my removal of those blank lines. According to WP:INDENTGAP "Colons at the start of a line indent the line. ... Blank lines should not be used between indented lines as they are currently rendered as the end of a list and the start of a new one." Just above that is WP:LISTGAP which says "Do not separate list items, including items in a definition list (a list made with leading semicolons and colons) or an unordered list, by leaving blank lines or tabular column breaks between them, since this causes MediaWiki to end one list and start a new one. This results in screen readers announcing multiple lists when only one was intended. Lists are meant to group elements that belong together, and breaking these groups will mislead and confuse a screen-reader user. Improper formatting can also more than triple the length of time it takes to read the list."

Whether colons (for normal talk page indenting) or asterisks (for a bulleted list) are used, there should be no blank lines between list items. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, Redrose64! Welcome to my talk page. I think the crux of our disagreement is that I distinguish "lists" (of organized information, appearing in an article) from threaded discussions. As you know, it's in the nature of Talk pages that they get edited almost as much as they get viewed; therefore the ease of reading and interpreting the page source is as important as the ease of reading and interpreting the rendered page. Simply stated, maintaining a blank line between separate comments greatly aids the eye, especially in lengthy discussions. The purpose of the advice against blank lines in lists, on the other hand, is to curb the tendency of some folks to create lists of information that are coded like this:

My favorite desserts include:

* Ice cream

** Pistachio
** Neapolitan

* Chocolate cake

* Figgy pudding

* Peaches and cream

Now that would could problems, and I completely agree that the blank lines should be suppressed. But that's a true list, not a discussion thread; hence the difference. Does that make sense? — Jaydiem (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with irregular spacing; it's about the semantics of a page, and how the various elements are announced by screen reader software, which makes it a WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue. Discussions may not seem like lists, but unless there is zero indenting (as with both paragraphs in my first post in this section), they are marked up as lists. If you understand HTML, use the "view page source" feature of your browser (most browsers provide this) to have a look at the HTML source for a discussion page. You'll see that when discussions are indented using colons in the wiki markup, the HTML uses the <dl>...</dl> and <dd>...</dd> elements: these are components of a definition list. Similarly, when discussions are indented using asterisks in the wiki markup, the HTML uses the <ul>...</ul> and <li>...</li> elements: these are components of an unordered list. In both cases, a blank line causes the current list (whether it be <dl>...</dl> or <ul>...</ul>) to be closed and another one opened, with an adverse effect on screen reader software. If there is no blank line, the current list is kept open. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand all that. The argument I'm making is that in the case of discussion pages, the benefit of greatly improved readability offered by insertion of whitespace between comments outweighs the miniscule cost of possibly making a few screen readers say "new list" between comments; whereas in an article, there's little to no need to insert whitespace into the source text of lists to improve readability, and the greater benefit of stricter compliance with accessibility guidelines is clear. Indeed, when reading a discussion with a screen reader, "new list" could simply be interpreted as "next comment". — Jaydiem (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A talk page discussion that is indented with progressively more colons, and no blank lines between posts, is announced as a series of successively deeper sub-lists. If we have, say, a post indented by one colon, followed by one that is indented with two colons, the first will be announced as a list of two items: the first item is the text that was indented with one colon, and the second item is a sublist containing the post that is indented with two colons. If a blank line is interposed, there is a list of one item containing the text that was indented with one colon. Then comes a separate list, also of one item: that sole item is a sublist containing the post that is indented with two colons.

WP:ACCESSIBILITY applies everywhere, not just articles: talk pages are not exempt from accessibility requirements. Users like Graham87 (talk · contribs) or RexxS (talk · contribs) can give further explanation. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a blank line between definition lists (those starting with colons) is indeed not as big a deal as doing that with bulleted lists, because the only screen reader I know of that reads the former lists with "list of 2 items", etc is NVDA. Graham87 14:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, in the case of discussion pages, it appears to me that strict enforcement of the accessibility guideline regarding blank lines does far more harm than good. Suppose we knew that only one of every million people who read talk pages were using a screen reader. Would you agree then that strict enforcement is counterproductive? How about one in 10,000? One in a thousand? One in a hundred? One in ten? Where is the threshold at which the proportion of talk-page readers using a text-to-speech system becomes, in your judgment, large enough that accommodating them in this one small way justifies the loss of readability to all other readers? Note that WP:ACCESSIBILITY is only a guideline, and carries a top notice that we should "[u]se common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions."

⋮

Note also the example given in that guideline of the output of a screen reader of a vertical bulleted list: "List of 2 items: (bullet) White rose, (bullet) Yellow rose, list end. List of 1 items: (bullet) Pink rose, list end. List of 1 items: (bullet) Red rose, list end." Suppose the example "list" instead consisted of a series of nested discussion comments, of widely varying indentation levels. I just don't think the speech output generated when there's a blank line between comments would be significantly more cumbersome than it would be without them. Moreover, it seems to me quite likely that the user would switch off announcement of list item boundaries entirely, and instead have the text recited in order from top to bottom—in which case having blank lines between comments would actually be helpful because they would be treated as new paragraphs, causing a slight pause in speech to demarcate them.

⋮

Good heavens… WP:Flow can't possibly get here too soon. — Jaydiem (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can have gaps between contributions in the edit window without annoying NVDA users by simply using a blank paragraph indented at the same level as one of the contributions either before or after it. I've yet to find anything that reads that out loud. If you want to increase the spacing you see between contributions in the rendered text you can always add something like dl {margin-top: 0.8em;} to your Common.css file. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible solution: A threaded-comment template[edit]

Hey guys (Redrose64, Graham87, RexxS)—I just had an idea for a way to overcome the problems we've discussed here. What if we create a new template that can be used to enclose each separate comment in a discussion thread? The template could take as parameters an indentation level (integer, 0 or higher), the entire content of the comment, and perhaps a !vote value as an optional parameter. The default would be to display a single bullet at the beginning of the comment, even if it extends to multiple paragraphs; there could be an optional parameter "bullet=no" to suppress the bullet.

The beauty of this is that the template could automatically and silently handle all the HTML markup necessary to make a screen reader correctly interpret the comment aloud, such as by saying "New comment, indent level 3: (comment text)" rather than "New list, one item, (comment text)". Perhaps the graphical indentation could be handled with CSS spacing properties rather than HTML lists or definitions.

Given how very frequently it would be used, the template would need to be given as short a name, and be as quick and easy to use, as possible. I see that the single letters A, K, O, and Z are all presently unused as template names or redirects; "Tdc"—for "threaded discussion comment"—is also available. Whichever is selected as the base template name "__", maybe "__0", "__1", "__2", etc., could be used as shortcuts to the base template with the indent-level parameter "0", "1", "2", etc. (Note: This search reveals that A#, Z#, and K2 are already used for other things, so that leaves K [if K2 is redefined] and O as possible single-letter names compatible with this shortcut.)

Do you see where I'm going with this? What do you think? — Jaydiem (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This still has WP:LISTGAP/WP:INDENTGAP problems: leaving a blank line between (say) a {{o1}} and an {{o2}} closes the first list and starts another. But the biggest factor against is that expecting people to use templates where they never did before requires the re-education of millions of users. It's simply unrealistic. So instead of fixing a problem, you're giving the existing problem a disguise, and creating another bigger problem. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: You're being waaaay too quick to dismiss this idea, and it's clear that you didn't read my outline of the solution very carefully. The whole motivating purpose behind this template proposal is to promote WP:Accessibility of threaded discussions! As I specifically stated before, the actual HTML/CSS markup that would be used to display the discussion would not use HTML lists or HTML definitions! Therefore WP:LISTGAP and WP:INDENTGAP would be done away with as problems for threaded discussions. And "re-education of millions of users" is really not a problem at all. How do you think most new editors learn how to indent talk-page comments? By monkeying what others do. As experienced users become aware of this new technique, which upon rollout I expect would be fully endorsed by the WP:Powers-that-be, its use will quickly and easily spread virally. Moreover, nothing in this template will cause the old techniques of colons and asterisks to break; there is no need for a sudden, absolute changeover, as if we're all switching to driving on the other side of the road. — Jaydiem (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 29#TEN. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC open there and social media addiction. Its quite basic linguistics but now the article is being suggested for deletion based on the linguistics. Any thoughts appreciated! --E.3 (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]