User talk:Isomorphic/archive4 and Blockquote element: Difference between pages

Revision as of 14:39, 21 April 2005

Revision as of 12:10, 20 June 2007

Line 1:

{{otheruses4|the HTML element|the text quotation style|block quote}}

''Old talk archived at [[User talk:Isomorphic/archive1]], [[User talk:Isomorphic/archive2]], and [[User talk:Isomorphic/archive3]]''

----

In [[HTML]] and [[XHTML]], the '''<code>blockquote</code>''' [[HTML element|element]] defines a [[block-quote|block quotation]] within the text. The syntax is <code>&lt;blockquote&gt;blockquoted text goes here&lt;/blockquote&gt;</code>.

The '''<code>blockquote</code>''' element is used to indicate the quotation of a large section of text from another source. Using the default HTML styling of most web browsers, it will indent the right and left margins both on the display and in printed form.

== Thank you ==

It should be noted that in many [[Wiki]] [[Wikitext|markup languages]], this is different from the use of an initial colon in a paragraph, which may be translated into an HTML <code>dd</code> element enclosed within a <code>dl</code> element. (That is a 'data definition' within a 'definition list', without there being any preceding 'data term' or <code>dt</code> element). Other [[Cascading Style Sheets|CSS]] techniques may alternatively be applied. In any case, the intention is usually only to indent the left margin.

Thanks for your welcome and kind words. I'm glad you like the [[Khazars]] entry and I look forward to creating more. BTW, how do you do the redirect thing? --[[User:Briangotts|Briangotts]] 19:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

{{web-stub}}

Thanks for your support on [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anárion2|my RFA request]]. It seems that had I waited one day with self-nominating, it would have succeeded. {{User:Anárion/sig}} 09:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[[Category:HTML]]

Thanks for the clarification on [[tactical bombing]] versus [[close air support]] versus [[air interdiction]]. Your divisions make sense from a taxonomic perspective, but to a layman they can seem interchangable. What's your source for splitting things up the way you did? [[User:Brendano|Brendano]] 01:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response.

I 'preciate the kind words. I'm obviously new to the wiki thing, but not to the Web, writing or collaboration. This is a *very* interesting medium. One thing that's odd is this particular snippet of conversation - it's gone back and forth between our Talk pages, but reading each page is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. Is it common? I see a lot of threaded discussion on articles' discussion pages.[[User:Brendano|Brendano]] 01:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Terrorism ==

I feel your pain in regard to the long opening "definition" of terrorism. I would comment that the way the issue is handled there is, in itself, instructive of the world view toward the issue. I'm not sure how to tackle this, would almost be inclined to let the apoliogists keep the purity of their embarassment, but I'm also mindful that the person searching the wiki at least deserves a common-sense base definition. I will think on it and see what I come up with. -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] | [[User talk:Cecropia|''explains it all'' ®]] 18:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== Your ideas ==

Thanks very much for your comments and input on ''The Signpost''. For the time being, I'm finding the workload of just writing up the latest newsworthy happenings is challenging enough by itself. But my vision for where ''The Signpost'' can go in the future definitely includes things like your suggestions, content that is more "soft news" than the current "hard news" focus.

I'm not sure that a column specifically about the history and development of various Wikipedia matters could run regularly on our current weekly schedule, as I think it might burn out its material a little quickly, but it could be rotated in periodically. And the topics you suggest are all excellent; in fact, most of them have the potential to warrant pretty regular "hard news" coverage, which is partly why their evolution is also interesting. Anyway, I'm sure there's enough potential material for regular "soft news" content (another possible angle to use is reinventing [[Wikipedia:Great editing in progress|Great editing in progress]], a nice idea that never got much traction), and I'd definitely like to work some historical columns in.

If and when you're able to help out, I would love to see articles from you. You're one of the people that comes quickly to mind as being thoughtful and well-informed about the community, and would be a valuable addition to the project of reporting about it. Until then, enjoy reading. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 22:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==WP introductory pages==

I see you added links to the discussion at the Welcoming committee talk to a couple of them--I just added links from a couple of the others. My opinion is fairly clear by my post at the WC talk page, while you have (probably very smartly) veiled yours. If the main activists in this area don't join the discussion, I will probably leave messages on their talk pages asking them to join the discussion. It seems a bit anti-Wikipedia to persue wholesale changes without discussion. (FWIW, I still hope to get back to my 'guide' someday--main topics I see are naming conventions for new articles and making sure they don't already exist under a different name, ways people can contribute ''other than new content'', and maybe some advanced topics like tables and infoboxes.) [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 16:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== New Mathematics Wikiportal ==

I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new [[Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Mathematics|Mathematics Wikiportal]]- more specifically, to the [[Wikipedia:Mathematics Collaboration of the Week|Mathematics Collaboration of the Week]] page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to [[User:Ral315|my user-talk page,]] [[Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal/Mathematics|the Math Wikiportal talk page]], or [[Wikipedia talk:Mathematics Collaboration of the Week|the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page.]] Thanks a lot for your support! [[User:Ral315|ral315]] 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week]] ==

I would like to revive this project. I noticed that you've added yourself to the list of available Spanish-to-English translators. Are you interested in working on Spanish Translation of the Week? &mdash; [[User:J3ff|J3ff]] 06:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Sandbot==

Hi. I appreciate the thought, but could you run Sandbot less often on the Tutorial sandboxes? They aren't edited as frequently as [[Wikipedia:Sandbox]], and I think it's useful for newbies to see other people's experiments. It helps them see what works, and it also makes them more comfortable experimenting if there's already stuff there. I think cleaning once every week or two would be sufficient. [[User:Isomorphic|Isomorphic]] 18:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

: Done. Will be running every Monday, each week, around 6:48 AM Pacific Standard Time (-8 hours from UTC). --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 18:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== M.C. Church ==

I didn't catch his nomination until a few weeks after the fact, no; in fact, I didn't even notice it until I restored the Minions list and saw EventHorizon there. So it should probably stay live. He's also recreated his pet article, this time as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambition_(cards) Ambition (cards)] (which I won't link to directly), and taken his puppet show to Usenet [http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.playing-cards/browse_thread/thread/ce3f0761804d652e/83a31ecca1596c2f#83a31ecca1596c2f].

I haven't deleted the article, since it's substantially different to the old one, it's more reasonable in scope and claims, and he's not trying to promote it in irrelevant places, yet. &#8212;[[User:Mirv|Charles]][[User talk:Mirv|&nbsp;P.]][[Special:Emailuser/Mirv|&nbsp;^{<small>(Mirv)</small>}]] 02:12, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== Sock puppet check ==

Let me know the accounts and I'll check. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 13:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== Advice ==

Young fellow, I am going to give you some good advice so that you do not involve Wikipedia in a libel suit and thereby cause problems for you and others who operate in good faith, here. Stop asserting or implying, parenthetically and otherwise, that a third party is promoting himself when i) you have no proof that is the case and ii) when it is untrue, as is the case. Be aware, too, that even when what you assert is true, if does harm to someone's reputation or ability to make a living, it remains subject to libel law. If you have any doubts about this, you best confer with your recent dinner partner, Jimbo Wales, who is well aware of the potential dangers, here, especially given the financial status of Wikipedia. Fora such as these do not give people license to say anything they want about other people. I suggest you edit your exuberant and unfounded remarks, and that you get control over your obsession with my contributions. Criticize them, call them unworthy, unimportant, or minor, but do not impugn the integrity of uninvolved parties who are not hiding behind the veil of anonymity. These Javert-like tendencies, also evident in the Church matter, will get you and, unfortunately, others, including Wikipedia itself, into trouble. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

:I have no desire to be your friend ''or'' your enemy, though we certainly ''could have been'' friends, for we share several interests. As for arguing the case, you gave me no chance whatsoever, you merely revert without discussion, indeed, you seem to pride yourself in this. I have made a number of useful edits, I think, over the last six or seven months, and I should have thought you might inquire with me. I don't think I have ever reverted someone's contribution (other than in cases of obvious vandalism) in the entire time I've been here, and I try to bring my points up on the discussion page when I disagree. I certainly never would revert based on a suspicion or a belief that I could not demonstrate. Indeed, I do not even revert people who change my stuff; I move on to other things, for as someone you admire says, things will eventually get right. In any event, I have tried to make meaningful contributions, and I am sorry you disapprove of them. I certainly did not mean to be patronizing to you (it comes with being an old so and so), and I apologize for that, but I am perplexed and somewhat exasperated by this. I, too, shall simply drop the whole thing and avoid the area of dispute, for it's not that important, as you say. I do wish you well. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]] P.S. By the way, I made no legal threat!!! What I said is that what we say about others, here, could have untoward consequences, and I noted that you (and others) have been careless in several cases and should be more cautious.[[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

:Thank you. And, actually, I should like to be friends. After reading a great deal of your stuff and seeing your picture, I knew you were a kind and earnest person, and that you take Wikipedia very seriously. My wife knows Berumen...she is a professor and has worked for him before; that is the root of my interest. I don't disagree that he is minor, but he has come up with ideas that are provocative. I am a disabled physician with too much time on his hands. I am going to delve into other areas, now, perhaps the philosophy of science. I, too, like economics...tried my hand at libertarianism (I am not one, but I am interested in it), but people are too passionate about their beliefs, there. All the best to you. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

==Bring back quickpolls==

I think it's time that [[Wikipedia:quickpolls|quickpolls]] be re-evaluated as a solution to short term disputes between users. [[WP:BBQ|What say you?]] --[[User:Merovingian|<font color="green"><big>R</big>yan!]]</font> | [[User talk:Merovingian|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 05:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

== New Mathematics Project Participants List ==

Hi Isomorphic.

In case you didn't follow the discussion on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics]] here: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Reformat of Participants list]], I'm writing to you to let you know that I've converted the "[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Participants|WikiProject Mathematics Participants List]]" into a table. It is now alphabetical, includes links to the participant's talk page and contribution list, and has a field for "Areas of Interest". Since your name is on the list, I thought you might want to check and/or update your entry.

Regards, [[User:Paul August|Paul August ]] [[User_talk:Paul August|&#9742;]] 14:10, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

==Thank you==

Hi Isomorphic, I'm writing to say thank you for supporting me in my adminship nomination. I appreciate it very much and will do my best to live up to it! ;-) Best, [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 03:28, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

==Tutorial overhaul==

It's held at ten pages for 11 months, but yes, they've all grown to varying degrees--the Talk page one seems to have spun the furthest out of control. I think much of the growth has been by people thinking about a specific topic in a vacuum, instead of contemplating the relative priority within the entire tutorial (I know I've been guilty of this--for example, I think I added both the AE/BE section (or at least greatly expanded it) and the 'don't cut&paste move' section, but in reality I think the latter is far more important to get in front of new editors). Also, 'cool' tricks like [[Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wikipedia links)#Alternate endings]] probably are good candidates for removal--as long as people know how to get the job done with <nowiki>[[fiction|fictional]]</nowiki>, why confuse them. And yes, [[Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wikipedia links)#Categories]] is pretty spartan, but I'm not the person to expand it either, unless to mention how to alphabetize people's names properly. Looking at entire pages, the Namespaces one seems the least valuable, with 'related site links' probably second. And, actually, the ''essentials'' of the 'Talk pages' page (they exist for both articles and user pages, they're where discussion takes place, they're the only place you add your sig., and 'new comments to the bottom') could probably be boiled down to a single paragraph that could be moved to some other page. This discussion has also started me thinking that instead of a single 'advanced' guide for both potential builders and cleaners, I should split it into a 'content-building guide' and a 'housekeeping guide'--not only for brevity, but to increase the chances of my actually getting around to finally finishing at least one of them. [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 04:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Overloading the Intro's Talk page with discussion of all pages didn't seem like a good idea, but neither did having the discussion spread over all 11 Talk pages, so I concluded it would be better to have a subpage just for the project, and starting with the current framework seemed like a good way to facilitate people taking a holistic approach to it, so I created [[Wikipedia talk:Tutorial/Tutorial v2]], then added comments about things I think could be pared down. Oh, and I don't know if I ever mentioned it to you, and other than a small edit in Feb it looks like I haven't worked on it since last summer (I didn't realize it had been ''that'' long; jeez), but [[User:Niteowlneils/Guide outline|this]] is as far as I got developing ideas for the Guide(s). [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 04:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I am thinking April 30/May 1 would be a good weekend for me. Would that be good for you? If so, I think the first thing to do would be to pick a place for people to stay. Are there any cheap motels you can think of? [[User:Danny|Danny]] 23:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Thank you! ==

Thank you for supporting my nomination on RfA, it failed because of Wikipedia's minority rule system, although I thought 21/8 support was sufficient. It was also cut short by 12 hours. But your vote of confidence is greatly appreciated, now let's build an encyclopedia! --[[User:Biekko|Bjarki]] 13:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Khazars ==

[[Khazars]] is up for nomination on [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates]]. Since you were involved in some discussions I thought you would be interested. Your vote and/or comments would be appreciated. Thanks! --[[User:Briangotts|Briangotts]] 16:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Your point about organization is well taken. For me, I prefer an article to have maximum info organized as efficiently as possible. I really dislike having to link to different articles (i.e. "See Main Article: History of such-and-such"). If someone else wishes to organize the Khazar article in that way (and does a good job of it) I wouldn't object. It's a matter of personal preference in balancing completeness and ease of access. --[[User:Briangotts|Briangotts]] 19:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::You said:

::''"Maximum info" has limits. An article like United Nations can't possibly contain all the relevant information available on its subject. The main article on any subject is intended to stand alone and serve as a fairly consise general introduction. "See main article:X" is used to direct a reader to more information, but only if the reader is interested in that particular subtopic. We don't expect that most readers will actually read all the spin-off articles, and that's fine. Don't forget that Wikipedia is intended for everyone. As much as possible, physicists and auto mechanics should be able to read articles on history and art, while artists and historians should be able to read articles on cars and physics. We often fail to reach that lofty goal (many of our mathematics articles are opaque even to math students) but we do try. Featured articles in particular are expected to reach a general audience, since we'd like to put them on the Main Page for all to see. Like I said, I'll try to do some smoothing myself, and definitely do try the Peer Review people. Isomorphic 20:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)''

::I agree with you to a point. Your example of the United Nations makes sense because there is such a huge volume of information out there. But the truth is there is not all that much definitively known about the Khazars beyond what's in the article already. I wrestled with the idea of doing a number of separate articles ("Khazar history", "Khazar religion", etc.) but it seemed too disjointed and incohesive. I feel that the separate articles would be too short to be of any use. That said, you have more experience with these issues than I and I look forward to seeing what changes you make to the article.--[[User:Briangotts|Briangotts]] 21:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== See Also? ==

Any particular reason you stuck the 'see also' on my user pagg? I'm just wondering.... --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 04:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==Thank you!==

Thanks for your support on my RfA! And from another quiz bowler, I see (though my team hardly ever makes it out anywhere, alas). I shall attempt to put my shiny new buttons to good use! [[User:Mindspillage|Mindspillage]] [[User talk:Mindspillage|(spill yours?)]] 05:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== A familiar, um, face ==

How very odd.... -[[User:Finn-Zoltan|FZ]] 22:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Hey, thanks ==

...for the link to the DC meetup. Somehow I missed that this was even happening! Peace &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]^{[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]} 04:38, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

== De Havilland Goblin ==

Hi Isomorphic,

I'm new about here - I hope this is the right place to talk to you - if not move it and put something on my talk page. First, thanks for being interested in [[De Havilland Goblin]]. It's nice to colaborate on something I'm particularly interested in. I've a question: the text from

EnginesUK is not paraphrased. Do you think this is OK ?