Memory Alpha


Back to page | < User talk:Cepstrum

41,687pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Add New Page


Note: this is an archive of my 2010 (and a couple 2011) posts. Please do not edit this. To contact me, go to my talk page.

"Removed" (condensed) posts archive Edit

I've made the error of composing many posts that were far too long, off-topic, rambling, and full of extraneous content. To alleviate (and, I hope, ameliorate) the attendant grief thrust upon others, I'm attempting to correct this. When I come across my ridiculously long posts, I try to condense them severely, while retaining their substance, and remove the original post to a sub-page. I make a note of it and link to the original post to ensure easy access to the original. These original posts are on this page.

Thanks to all for putting up with those stupid original posts. I hope this helps things.

--Cepstrum (talk) 12:29, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page Edit

Please feel free to leave messages etc. for me. I'm new at massive collaborative wiki editing, so please forgive any missteps I'm bound to make. I am a long time MA reader but only recently decided to join to help with minor copy-edits. So I'm not that familiar with MA policies, interacting with a lot of other editors, or even the MediaWiki style (I'm used to using small Twiki wikis at my lab.)

For now I'm going to keep the automatic welcome message below, for it contains info and links I should probably be mindful of.

MA's Initial Greeting to Me Edit

Yes, it was automatically generated. But I'm keeping it here to (a) make my talk page look bigger ^_^ and (b) for its many handy links for newbies such as me.

Gral and Shran call a truce


Welcome to Memory Alpha, Cepstrum! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thanks for your edit to the Unimatrix Zero (episode) page! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community.

If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out:

One other suggestion: if you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment.

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in our Ten Forward community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha! -- 31dot (Talk) 11:37, September 5, 2010

The above named user is the most currently available administrator to contribute to Memory Alpha; their signature was automatically added by User:Wikia. If you have any immediate questions or concerns, you may contact that user through their talk page.

My talk page needs YOU! Edit

It's far too lonely.....I'm still waiting for someone to leave me a message. :/

About talk page comments Edit

Just as a friendly advice, please try to be a little more concise in your talk page comments. There's no need to apologize in advance for things you haven't even done yet, or things that are standard practice. You sometimes come across as overly submissive, up to the point where I thought about whether this might be some strange new form of trolling - if it is, it won't get you anywhere. :) You will most likely get more, and better, responses by employing a more "conventional" writing style when asking for or requesting something. -- Cid Highwind 13:42, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Dear Cid,
I'm terribly sorry for coming across as being a "troll"! I really don't mean to ever do that. I am very, very afraid of causing trouble and am unused to massive wiki editing. I don't know how to respond. It seems if I try to apologize when admins say I'm "nitpickish", "trolling", etc., I only get in more trouble. Please advise me and assume good, sincere faith on my part. I feel bad for this. What can I do? I've asked my "personal" admin User:31dot for advice. Perhaps you can assist me until I am able to be a positive community member?
One thing that's confused me is the article talk pages. I have been making edits to the Borg philosophy, and usually Sulfur will come within minutes to undo my edits. Most of what Sulfur has done has been very helpful, for it allowed me to better understand MA guidelines. Sometimes, however, some of my edits are simply undone with little or no explanation. I've tried using the article's talk page for a dialogue, but so far, no one has responded. I would fully accept Sulfur's revisions, for he is an admin/vet/pro, but I'd really appreciate an explanation so I can learn and avoid such gaffes in the future.
If you and other admins believe I'm not a useful member and should stop editing, I would do so. I just need guidance etc. I never would knowingly engage in an edit-war or edit-conflict: all my mistakes are a result of using an iPod to do this and lack of experience. I would like to be allowed to continue editing, but if you et al. believe I'm more of a nuisance and my potential for becoming a good member outweighs the growing pains I'll no doubt incur, I will abide by your decision.
Thank you for your time and consideration (and patience!)
--Cepstrum 15:31, October 4, 2010 (UTC) :) ^_^

See... that reply is exactly what I was talking about. No need to lengthily apologize for each and everything. That might have shortened the 2KB text block to a simple request. At the moment, I'm not even sure what exactly it is that you are asking - so, if you could give me that in a nutshell (preferably on this talk page, and not yet another), I might have a reply for you. -- Cid Highwind 15:40, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Could we please use the talk page? Edit

Moved from Talk:Borg philosophy


User:Sulfur and others have made many useful corrections to my edits to make it conform to MA's guidelines. I'm wondering: could we please use the talk page to discuss further significant changes? I know I'm a dumb newbie, but I'd really appreciate it if we could have a dialogue here. That way I can better learn the "ropes". My apologies for causing trouble if I have. I really don't mean to and will accept the corrections from the pros/vets/admins. I just want to be a positive contributor. It's difficult (and sometimes discouraging) for me to have my significant edits undone without me fully understanding why. And I *don't* want to engage in an edit war: I'll accept your decisions. Please, though, could you discuss them with me here? :)



--Cepstrum 15:11, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Can we not add umpteen needless sections to this talk page? Thanks! -- Cid Highwind 15:14, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Rats! Sorry, Cid! I thought I wad supposed to mention significant changes here. I was also trying to solicit feedback from those who've been undoing some of my edits (such as removing the section format) so we could have a dialogue here. I guess I am unclear about the purpose of articles' talk pages.

And truly: I do feel bad. To be honest, I have a very poor self-esteem and am easily frustrated to discover I'm causing such harm. I think I should either cease editing or find an admin who'd be willing to "mentor" me: ie, point out what I did wrong and what I should have done instead.

Again, I apologize for making "umpteen" comments/suggestions here. I honestly thought I was doing the right thing. Have you any advice for me? Should I erase all the text I added on this talk page? I'm eager and willing to learn.


--Cepstrum 15:42, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

OK, tutor mode - basic things about talk pages:
  1. Use them for their purpose only - article talk pages are for discussion of the article content. Your above comment seems to rather be a question about talk pages in general, or commentary directed at a specific contributor. We have general talk pages (including the "Ten Forward" forum) for the former, and user talk pages for the latter.
  2. If you want to discuss changes to an article, then by all means, add to the talk page. However, just state what you think needs to be changed, and why - don't apologize for thinking about changing an article, but only if no one objects and I could perhaps revert it myself if the changes are not good enough... you get the drift? :)
  3. Don't take things too personal, and don't assume that others do: we like to be concise and to the point. This should not be mistaken for rudeness, and we will not consider you rude if you leave out the apologies, excessive smileys and polite addresses.
-- Cid Highwind 16:02, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

concealer.css for mobile Edit

I doubt it will be sensible to do this. The only thing this css file does is to hide some page elements from view, and those elements are most likely specific to the "standard" skin and not its mobile variant. We will ask Wikia about problems with the mobile skin, and how it eventually re-uses some of the other CSS, but without access to any mobile viewing device, there's not much I can do to help you at the moment. Please be patient! -- Cid Highwind 12:43, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

on the contrary, I'm 'exceedingly' grateful for your help. Things work satisfactory now, and I see no reason for you (or anyone but me) to rush to change the look of the mobile skin. I really can't describe how thankful I am. And the concealer (I assume) is working fine when Wikia decides to load pages without the mobile skin ^_^. The only real problem was changing my text to black in my wikia.css instead of my wikiaphone.css.
Just to assure you, I have no problems that need addressing right now. I only thought that perhaps down the line you et al. might want to create a mobile skin that is consistent with the regular one. And there are some useful web sites that allow a web designer to view what a page will look like to a mobile user. I can look up the link and give it to you if you're interested. But for now, I'd say things are just fine.
Out of curiosity, do you know if we'll still be able to make changes to our CSSs when Wikia finally implements everything and takes away user control? If we can't, then I'd be stuck! Thanks again. You're very kind and thoughtful to work on my behalf: evidently I'm either the only one forced to use a mobile device or the only one who cares when I can't read/edit MA! --Cepstrum 13:12, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
What are these sites? I could throw one together once everything is working. - Archduk3 13:20, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
Archduk3, thanks for your willingness to help. But new "problems" have 'just' arisen. Now, my mobile view looks like a strange hybrid between the regular skin and the mobile one. The background suddenly changed to dark (like in regular MA), so I had to change the body text to light gray. But some things still show up with a white background, such as TOC, categories, captions....well, pretty much everything that isn't part of the article. Clearly, something is going on at Wikia: my mobile viewing keeps changing! Good news is that it's still readable, just ugly and a little annoying. I think it would be best to wait to work on a mobile CSS for interested MA users until Wikia stops constantly changing things! heh heh. The link to the site for mobile viewing on a regular browser for web developers is on my really old iPod. I'll see if I can locate it and post it here soon. Thanks again. --Cepstrum 13:37, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Link to mobile browser test site Edit

Here is one I quickly found; I believe there are others. Here. Wait. Oh rats. That site only gives you info on how "good" it will look for mobile viewers. I'm certain there are actual ones out there, but I just can't recall them right now. I'll post any I find here, but I won't be making it a big priority, for MA is working acceptably for me, and Wikia keeps changing the mobile format! --Cepstrum 13:46, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Monaco CSS Edit

FYI, my monaco CSS is only for use in the new skin via a import link in my wikia CSS file. I choose to use the monaco CSS location as a bit of morbid irony, since the CSS there is suppose to make the new skin look as close to monaco as is reasonably possible. - Archduk3 17:52, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Talk page discussionsEdit

Please note that the talk page discussion that you responded to this morning was just about three years old. There is no need to "necro" these discussions (ie, bring them back from the long dead), and unless the discussion or your comments will have bearing on the page contents, just leave them "dead". Thanks. -- sulfur 11:15, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

ok, sorry. Earlier someone told me to not consider a discussion "dead" merely because it'd been dormant since 2007 (which was how I initially considered it). I thought I was making up for that alleged error in this case. Consider it "hypercorrection". Really sorry about it. :( I suppose it would be equally bad for me to go and erase what I added. Rats. Again, sorry, Sulfur.
--Cepstrum (talk) 11:34, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Talk:Allan Kroeker Edit

Hi, Cepstrum. Just wanted to let you know that I liked your post on Talk:Allan Kroeker; it's impersonal, to-the-point and not an essay! You're definitely heading in the right direction! Keep up the good work. :) --Defiant 15:28, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Defiant! I really appreciate your kind, salient words. Going out of your way to tell me this means a very great deal to me. ^_^ I really want to make proper edits, as well as use article talk pages appropriately. At last I've finally done it! (famous last words, I know....)
Best regards,
--Cepstrum (talk) 17:44, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

copy editing Edit

Dear Cepstrum, if you are merely editing to fix for grammar, or awkward sentence structures and fix links etc, then I dont think you need that "notice" up there. I am under the impression that it is used for a major overhaul and extensive rewrite of an article. Anyway, just wanted to let you know. Cheers. – Distantlycharmed 17:48, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, DistantlyCharmed!
Concerning your message on my talk page regarding the "in use" tag on the USS Voyager article:
It's essential that the page be frozen for just a little while (I'll finish it today), for I'm going through the entire article to make a lot of fixes. (Not just copy edits but fixing other things such as improper linking style – see the article's talk page.)
If someone makes a change before I upload my rather extensive editing (not to the content, which I've left for you and Nero210 to figure out ^_^), then that (and any other changes) will be lost when I upload later today.
Thus, I believe the "in cite" tag is appropriate, and, indeed, vital.
Best regards,
--Cepstrum (talk) 18:22, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
I'm unused to having dialogues via user talk pages and was unsure whether to respond to you here or as a reply on my talk page. :Given the importance of temporarily "freezing" the article until I can upload it, I wrote here. I hope you don't mind and I :didn't violate etiquette! Thanks for your patience and consideration!

Hey there, general practice is to keep responses to comments on the talk page they were initiated - that makes it easier to track and all :) So i moved it to your talk page since i asked here.

Anyway, fair enough. I am not saying you shouldnt have that "notice" up there, I just thought given what you do it *might* not be necessary :) – Distantlycharmed 19:00, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

You are correct: I am too "jumpy/scared/etc." And yes, I'm very afraid of messing up, bothering others (such as you), and creating conflict. Consequently, I tend to worsen things by writing lengthy apologies and, in this case, trying to solicit poor Sulfur's help to ensure I was not making another error with the "in use" tag. (It's a vicious circle!)
I will finish the job on the USS Voyager article, upload it, and then give serious thought about ceasing to edit here. I don't think I'm being very useful, and I probably lack the necessary skillset to ever be a productive member. I hate causing conflicts, have a terrible self-image (suffering from many immobilizing, life-threatening and life-altering health issues, which has caused massive depression.) So I think I just don't fit the profile of someone who can handle collaborative wiki participation. (Look: I'm already guilty of the very thing you justly accused me of!)
At the risk of causing more offense, I still want to apologize to you. You don't deserve this.
MA will certainly continue to do great things without me, and I can still enjoy reading it, as well as practicing MediaWiki and CSS markup on my user page.
Best regards and thank you for your patience.
--Cepstrum (talk) 19:45, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Response Edit

Feel free to correct anything I have said, and do not take anything I say badly- it is only intended to offer feedback.

You seem to be afraid to be bold and make/discuss changes to an article, for fear of having them reversed, altered, or being told you are wrong. Those things are normal parts of editing any wiki and have happened to everyone. If we all were too afraid to make changes for those reasons, we would have a very poor wiki. Wikis rely on people making changes.

The key is in discussion with others and learning from our mistakes. If you examine my talk page and archive I have not been the perfect editor and will never be. But I am willing to correct mistakes that I make and discuss edits that I have reversed(or my own reversed edits). As long as you are, you won't have any bad feelings from others.

You seem to interpret criticism of your edits as a personal disparagement against you. From what I have seen, though, they are not- they were only intended to explain something or provide you with information. Criticism is not necessarily a sleight against you.

I can't decide for you whether you should continue to edit or not. I don't wish to see any good-faith editor stop or leave. I think I have told you before you should have the level of involvement that you feel most comfortable with, but you should not decide based on comments that have been given to you in an effort to improve your work.

An aside- don't worry about having "Thanks" and "best regards" in your talk page posts. Most legitimate, fair users assume good faith on the parts of others and do not consider the lack of these words in talk pages to be rude.--31dot 16:11, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful, considered response. I agree about criticisms/reverts and wikis: they go together. I also agree that no one has been particularly rude/unkind to me or offered more than constructive criticism (well, except for one editor who used rather deragatory words to describe me). The only correction I'd make of your assessment is that I don't reverts etc. personally; rather, I feel bad/guilty for messing up/doing things incorrectly, which forces admins to both unfo my goof and reprimand me. I can take edit reversions; I can't handle making extra work for an admin and the subsequent reprimand.
What's been frustrating to me is not that my edits get reverted (very few have, actually); rather, it's the appearance that I'm continually doing things the wrong way, which has required admins such as Sulfur to have to almost constantly watch me and point out my logistical errors – reverting my edits and then having a dialogue about it would, I think, be fun. Instead, however, I keep doing things such as use talk pages incorrectly, use wrong formatting, apologize too much, and even as you noted, sign my posts with "regards" etc. (which, in fact, is how I sign most of my emails – I like to be formal and polite irrespective of the situation. I'd even address you by your honorific title, if you had one, but "Dear Admin 31dot" doesn't look right.)
So you see my dilemma: I want to edit and be useful (and don't mind being reverted, especially if it means there's a chance for a dialogue), but the near-constant technical and etiquette-type errors/gaffes is supremely discouraging (I've been reading the help pages but still obviously don't "get it"). That's what makes me feel like a nuisance.
I think massive collaborative wiki editing requires a certain kind of person/personality; that's probably why edit wars erupt so often. The shy and obsequious folks such as I probably just can't handle it.
I will honor my word and finish editing the USS Voyager article soon. After that, who knows. Despite being active here for more than two months, I've not made any "friends" or acquaintances, and I don't think anyone would care if I ceased. I've tried reaching out for some support and guidance with no luck. I realize this is not a social network thing, but I was hoping I could at least find someone (like an admin) who'd be willing to help guide me through the learning curve as well as address my questions/concerns (eg, how I should handle dealing with an admin who won't respond to my questions about reverting my edits).
I hope that clarifies my position. I'd appreciate further advice but am reluctant to try to further obligate you with taking your time to focus on my ultimately trivial case. Still....
(I would thank you and sign this with my customary signature, but to respect your request to keep it plain):
--Cepstrum (talk) 18:52, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't address me by any title- my head is big enough already. :)

I think it is important to realize that if others are criticizing your edits on technical grounds, they are probably doing so without caring about the actual information you are posting- and as such others want to help you learn the right way to do things so that you can keep providing worthwhile information. I'm not sure if anyone has called you a nuisance but if they haven't then they probably don't think you are one. People are pretty direct here.

If it helps you, I might suggest starting smaller and limit yourself to pointing out errors or suggesting stylistic changes on talk pages and leave the actual changing to others. As you get used to seeing how others do things you can then gradually move to taking things on yourself if you want. This is a suggestion to help you only, and not anything you need to do. There are many different types of users here- some just read articles, some spend a lot of time researching and writing articles, and there are people that are in between with varying degrees. I think that you can eventually find the spot you are comfortable with.

While I am not the most knowledgeable expert in wiki technical matters, I am willing to help you with anything that I can. Whatever you decide to do, I would encourage you not to just leave.--31dot 02:17, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

(just plain) 31dot,
Wow again: thanks for your well-considered response. I'll try to make my response brief (a first for me!)
  • About Being a "Nuisance:
you're right; no one's directly called me that. It's my own perception based on (a) the amount of effort admins such as Sulfur put in correcting technical errors of mine and (b) chastisements for, eg, using article talk pages inproperly (even though I've been trying to use them to discuss the article itself). But it's my fault: I tend to blame myself for things IRL. I'm trying to work on to avoid burdening others with my sniveling obsequiousness.
  • About Editing:
my favorite thing to do is suggest stylistic and prose changes. I love editing others' work (it's hard to do your own). I've written and published several scholarly scientific, peer-reviewed journal and conference papers and believe my experience with that style would suit an encyclopedic format well. (I was often "praised" more for my prose than for the actual scientific content! :/ )
  • About Continuing:
I think if you would avail yourself to let me ask you questions (eg, whether it's ok for me to voice a disagreement or whether I'm correctly apply the policies), I'd be inclined to stay. I've just desperately wanted someone I could go to for asking questions about such matters. (Another example: I get confused when someone leaves a message clearly about editing an article on my talk page: do I respond here, on his/her page, or the article's page? And how can I extricate myself when I write an apology but am then called out, or even called names, for doing so?). Those are the types of questions I'd like to be able to ask you on your talk page. (One more type: what do I do when a situation arises in which an editor or admin says I'm violating some rule, but I'm not sure I actually am? Could I ask you to take a disinterested look?)
  • Being Reverted:
I don't mind it at all, especially if it's a subjective issue. But I've had trouble getting people to have a dialogue with me about it on the article's talk page (something I'd enjoy). Instead it often just shows up in the edit summary, and I won't undo someone's changes lest I start an "edit war".
thanks again, 31dot. I look forward to hearing from you. --Cepstrum (talk) 14:56, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Stop Edit

Cepstrum, please stop posting on my talk page. I dont wanna know if you make edits to articles, I dont want to hear your disclaimers and apologies before you make the edits and i dont want ot hear your explanations after you make the edits. I just dont. You have now dragged several admins and now me too into your insecurities and incessant need to elaborate on your editing and presence here at MA and it is disruptive. I am glad 31dot is willing to hold your hand through this, but I am not. I am sorry for your health issues and I sincerely hope you get better. – Distantlycharmed 17:01, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I won't. I am sorry, though. I hope I can continue working with you. I didn't mean to cause anything.
--Cepstrum (talk) 21:19, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand I do like to help you out, on the other hand I feel that it just makes everything worse as it prompts you to respond with even more length and ultimately it simply goes beyond the scope of this forum. The last thing I want to do is kick someone when they are down though. You are in a terrible health condition and apparently are unsure as how to handle wikis and criticism and only mean well. It's not that i dont want to interact with you, I just need to make it clear to you that i dont need explanations or elaborations or disclaimers about your edits here on MA. You dont have to worry about hurting my feelings. They are not hurt. It's cool. We're cool. Just get better and be happy. Peace. – Distantlycharmed 21:40, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; it was nice of you to say that. If I ever do any more editing/discussing, I'll strive for concision. (though I probably will lay low or altogether stop. At least no more big, high-profile edits.)
Best regards,
--Cepstrum (talk) 23:02, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Re: your reprimand to me Edit

moved from User talk:Cid Highwind


(I hope this isn't inappropriate; I'm still unskilled at MA, despite reading the guidelines and help pages.)

On the USS Voyager talk page, you – appropriately – reprimanded me for my posts that fueled an (inadvertent) debate with Distantlycharmed, telling me to stop it now, etc. You were right: I made a huge mess. I am sorry. I'm such an idiot. 

I've (justly) earned the enmity of three admins I greatly respect – you, OuroborosCobra, 31dot – as well as a fellow editor, DC. Frustratingly, I've become the archetypical editor I intended not to be! (I wanted just to have fun cooperating here, not mess things.) :(

Perhaps it would be good for everyone if I were blocked or banned. And/or have all the mayhem moved to my talk page. I might be in error even posting here, soliciting your advice. I just don't know. If you are willing, can you aid me or point me to whom or where I should go for assistance? In the meantime, I'm apologizing and appealing to all (leaving similar mea culpas to the others.)

(Note:  Please feel free to delete this or remove it to my talk page.)

--Cepstrum (talk) 14:25, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but having read through most of your comments of the last days and weeks, I sometimes get the impression as if you actually strived after being "reprimanded" by people here. Perhaps this really is the case and has to do with your issues and health problems, perhaps I'm just misinterpreting things. So, without this being a reprimand, I will just politely ask you the following:
  1. From now on, please do not be too detailed concerning your various health problems. We're neither medically nor psychologically schooled to deal with this and, while most of us will happily take it into account when dealing with you, some of your comments have definitely included "too much information". Should any too detailed description appear in the future, I will just take some "poetic license" with that and turn it into a generic "I'm having health problems". If you want to talk about these things, there surely are dedicated fora for it - MA is not one of them.
  2. Also if, in the future, you believe you've crossed some line and need to say sorry, please do just that: "Sorry, didn't know about this rules, hopefully won't happen again." - no need for lengthy essays on several talk pages at once. We understand how one can mess up, because we all did and sometimes still do. I will not touch comments you add to "User talk:" pages other than mine (these users might want to move comments to your talk page, though), but might take the liberty of summarizing your comments on article talk pages.
  3. Last but not least, about your request to be blocked/banned - this will happen if you vandalize or can't be reasoned with after breaking policies, but I don't think it would be wise to do this just now. If you don't want to participate any longer, you can just move away - which, of course, is not an invitation or request to do this.
-- Cid Highwind 15:00, November 15, 2010 (UTC)


A big thank you! You've made it clear (a) what I've been doing wrong and (b) what I need to do in the future. I will do my best to abide by these guidelines (they're just the kind of explicit direction I've needed.)

Quick, yes/no question: Is it ok for me to go back, edit my talk posts to make them succinct and remove the TMI (perhaps leaving a note saying I've edited them for brevity and relevance)? I still don't quite understand whether that sort of thing is a violation of policy – I can see why it'd be a bad thing to remove/edit talk posts that are relevant to the article, but removing extraneous material seems to be a different case. If so, I'd be very glad to remove my foolish, over-long tangents.

Thanks again!

--Cepstrum (talk) 15:46, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

I think it won't be problematic if you edited your own comments, as long as you make it clear that the comment has been edited (you can use a short disclaimer like "Below comment edited for brevity", as you have suggested). Otherwise, people may come across that discussion later and wonder how a short "innocent" request could have resulted in such answers by other contributors. :) -- Cid Highwind 16:08, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I created a a talk sub-page expressly for archiving any posts I condense/edit for length (while trying to preserve the substance of the post – I don't want to unfairly change the content after the fact.).

My first attempt at this is in my reply to DC's response to my initial post in this sub-section. If you can, let me know if I handled this appropriately.

Thanks. --Cepstrum (talk) 13:49, November 16, 2010 (UTC) 

Looks good! :) -- Cid Highwind 14:13, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Hooray! ^_^

I'll try to clean up/condense any other silly "novellas" (as OuroborosCobra aptly put it, heh heh) of mine I come across in the same manner. Thanks again, Cid! --Cepstrum (talk) 14:41, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

PS Just thought of something: would it be good/appropriate for me to do likewise to my ridiculous (or at least far too long) posts on users' talk pages? That's a little different, for it's "their" space. But I think in most cases they would actually prefer it. I need to ask you here lest I clutter their pages with yet another distracting/bothersome question. (Unless it's the case wherein I first need their permission.)

You're right - it's a little more difficult there, but I guess still worth a try. Perhaps you can edit your comments (or remove them completely in case the other party hasn't yet replied) and then state in the edit summary: "cleanup: @USERNAME: feel free to revert if you want to keep the original". That should make it clear to the "talk page owner" that you're not trying to hide information, and make it his choice whether he wants to keep the original. -- Cid Highwind 14:49, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Great idea; I'll conduct a trial on a few of the poor admins who were subjected to my patent nonsense. If it's well-received, I'll continue.

Thank you again, Cid. You have reinvigorated me and given hope that I might yet be able to make amends and integrate myself here. Very kind of you.

--Cepstrum (talk) 12:40, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Redirects and wiki-linkingEdit

The reason I changed [[gaseous]] to [[gas]]eous is simply to take advantage of wiki linking. It's the same thing with plurals. Simpler, effective. Having "gaseous" as a redirect is a good thing, since that will catch searches and suchnot, but using the shorter link in this case is mildly preferable. Especially when it is linked that way in 3 other related articles. :) -- sulfur 15:31, November 25, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand; I'll try to keep pondering it (I'm just now discovering you can do this after seeing what happens with plurals.) Would the same reasoning be true for doing this method instead of a piped link? – that's what I did before creating the redirect. Thanks much for taking the time to explain this to me, Sulfur (or do you prefer "sulfur"?). I really appreciate it! ^_^
--Cepstrum (talk) 20:19, November 25, 2010 (UTC)

leaving lengthy comments on article talk page Edit

It is not necessary for you, every time you do make an edit or insert a pna tag or whatever, to go to the articles talk page and leave lengthy and long explanations. Unless you are removing large info from a page, there really is no need for you to announce every edit or justify it on the article's talk page. Imagine everyone did that. Now in some cases it is justified but often I dont see the point. Also, if you do have questions about broken links to an article or whatever technical/MA format questions just fix it, or ask someone you know is competent in the area on their talk page about how to fix it. I know you are trying to be thorough but some of these lengthy notes can get too much at times. Now please dont take this the wrong way and go running to half a dozen people crying about my comment. I am just telling you often your comments, while considerate, are not necessary. I have noticed you have become more comfortable with your edits, which is good and I hope you will continue to be confident enough that you dont feel like justifying every edit with 3kb of text afterwards. cheers...:) – Distantlycharmed 19:31, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Hi, DC.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand what prompted this. Could you give me some examples? I am trying to be useful and avoid my past ways. Any help/advice for improvement is welcome.
I'm also unsure who the "half-dozen" people I'd "cry" to. Do you think I should seek help? Perhaps I could ask Sulfur or Cid. Maybe I'd better before I do too much damage.
Cepstrum (talk) 20:05, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

I dont keep tabs on these things or jot them down, I just recall noticing that when you do make edits of some kind, you often - not always - post on the article's talk page explaining it. The Fred Freiberger article comes to mind right now. I dont see why you needed to explain at length why you added the pna tag - just add it and add the relevant info you think belongs there with citations. If someone were to ask your or has a problem with it, you could then explain to them directly. This is what we call overkill - the result of which is most people will just not respond to the talk page or bother reading it. well, at least I wont. Imagine if all archivists, everytime they did an edit of significance, would post on the talk page first explaining the edit. – Distantlycharmed 20:42, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, because you cited the Mr. Freiberger article, I'll ask Cleanse, the admin who worked with me on it. I looked and found I didn't ever write 3 KB of text, though. Almost all of my talk page posts were around 200-600 bytes. After reviewing my posts, I think a couple egregious examples were on Talk:Apogee, Inc. and Talk:Sela (really stupid!). You were right about those: they were dumb, and I regret them. I had thought the Talk:Fred Freiberger page resulted in a successful collaboration, and nothing I posted exceeded 1 KB. No crying will be involved: I'll just ask Cleanse for his opinion and hope he's candid with me. ;) I'm going to also ask Sulfur or Cid to see if I can move/condense my posts (with a link to the original), as I've done before. I don't want to harm MA, and I thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Again, DC: Thanks for alerting me. I'll try to get on track. Rats! >.< Cepstrum (talk) 21:45, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

You dont need to thank me as I doubt you "appreciate" me pointing this out to you. The fact that you are once again going to make a huge deal out of this by bothering other people asking them about it etc, is exactly my point. Take suggestions as just what they are and stop getting all nervous and caught up in it. No one is planning a court-martial. Anyway, I can see that even suggestions bounce off you and are taken the wrong way and go nowhere. Well, at least I leanred something here and wont point it out to you again. And by the way, the 3kb was not to be taken literally but to illustrate the point that your talk-page justifications are overkill and go beyond what is necessary. The fact that you are going to whine to people about it (sorry but I dont know how else to call it), makes the point. Take care. – Distantlycharmed 22:17, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't force you accept that I did indeed appreciate you alerting me – though I admit it surprised and dismayed me to learn I was causing harm again :-(. BUT, thanks to you, I looked through my history, saw and saw examples of these kinds of things. I wouldn't have known had you not alerted me. Now I can try to make sure my talk page posts are relevant and concise. So truly, I am pleased.  ;-)
I will refrain from "whining" to anyone for now, and see if I can fix the problem myself.
So thanks (really!!) Cepstrum (talk) 23:02, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Wayback Machine links and referencesEdit

A couple of things, please use the {{brokenlink}} template to link things to the Wayback Machine site rather than direct links there. This method quickly shows "broken" links. Also, references (ie links to external sites) should be tied directly to the item that they are referencing. Thus, they should not be moved to External links sections. -- sulfur 20:41, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; many kudos to you!
Cepstrum (talk) 20:52, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki