User talk:Jerzy
| User language | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Users by language |
Talk to me at w:User talk:Jerzy if you care how soon i read it.
Note to non-native speakers of English: I got stuck in my brain, years ago, the idea that there's something wrong about modern English singling out the first-person singular pronoun to be spelled with a capital letter. So i spell it without the capital, except at the beginning of a sentence, or when i'm not the sole author. If you follow my example, native speakers will just figure you're ignorant of the basics.
Inheritance between Pages?[edit]
[I wrote this on my m: user page when i was clueless. I haven't thought much about it since, but i'm not sure it should be discarded. But clearly this is a better place for it.]
_ _ Tell me if you know of any discussion that has gone on about adding inheritance to Wiki-wiki. That strikes me as a valuable feature for something that templates and sometimes bots seem to currently be doing. All (or nearly all) article pages, for instance, would be descendants of an "Article Template" page, and all (or nearly all) country-article pages would be descendants of a "Country-Article Template" page that would be a descendant of the "Article Template" page. Unless and until an editor saw a need to turn on a page's "divorce this page's current parent" option, the content inherited from the parent would be protected from editing, and editing would consist entirely of filling in the blanks the parent page provided. (A divorce would turn any grandparent into the replacement parent, and copy into the page, in editable form, the content that the former parent had added in blanks the grandparent provided. Re-adopting the former parent would discard the changes made to the former-parent-derived content; note that those changes could if desired be moved into blanks the former parent provided before re-adoption.) Presumably template-pages with many descendants would be carefully watched, since vandalism etc. of them would have especially high impact, but otherwise they would differ from ordinary pages only in using some additional syntax (as yet undefined).
_ _ I've neglected describing here the technical issues of implementing such a feature.
_ _ Even if you haven't heard it discussed, you may be able to save me searching/experimenting to find out where such a discussion is most appropriate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 September 2003 (at its original location) (UTC)
So I've been thinking basically along the same lines...found this by google...seems like it would be a fairly natural extension to Semantic Mediawiki. Any responses?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.206.245.184 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, i'm ignorant of this S'c MW. But i've noted (silently) some time ago that most of what i really had in mind in writing the above has since been provided via Templates.
--User:Jerzy·t 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Good faith[edit]
I cited EXACTLY what Mardetanha had said. It was YOU who cited wrong between "would" and "wouldn't", although Mardetanha had corrected his edit after one minute only. Unfortunately, based on your mistake, you criticized me. Had you considered my good faith, and had you checked the source more carefully, we had not wasted most precious time. Avia 02:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- (Less than one minute, for your kindly: [1].) Avia 02:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- More clearly: I had provided Mardetanha's first edit [2] because I cited for the phrase "totally inactive". For that purpose, the link is exact.
- You used that link to cited for another word, not look at the immediately following edit [3] by the same Mardetanha. It is your problem, not mine.
- Regards, Avia 02:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. I can't decide whether I was never aware of that msg, have forgotten my timely response, or just couldn't imagine a response that would be better than not responding. I usually make wiki-responses to what I deem to call for a response on the same talk page, and I think that usually applies even to messages that I find incomprehensible, as I now find this to be.
My people say "Let sleeping dogs lie", meaning "Where inaction appears unlikely to cause (further) harm, defer any further action until and unless action seems less likely than inaction, to lead to further harm." And of course "let bygones be bygones". And BTW, I can't recall an English-language discussion with anyone that I took to be a native of South Asia, where language seemed so high a barrier.
Oh, but after saving, there should be no harm in following Avis's link.
--Jerzy•t 05:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wow. I can't decide whether I was never aware of that msg, have forgotten my timely response, or just couldn't imagine a response that would be better than not responding. I usually make wiki-responses to what I deem to call for a response on the same talk page, and I think that usually applies even to messages that I find incomprehensible, as I now find this to be.