User talk:Steue

Hello, Steue, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

{{Div col|colwidth=30em|style=column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2;}}

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

{{Div col end}}

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or {{edit|Special:MyTalk|ask for help on your talk page|section=new|preload=Help:Contents/helpmepreload|preloadtitle=Help me!}}, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Hydromania (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

:Thank you Hydromania. I 'm not completely new to WP, I have been editing in the de.WP. But some things are different here in the en.WP. So I 'm thankful to have a personal terminal here, as well. Steue (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

{{WP:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse|Width of a frame|ts=Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)}}

Ja echt Verrückt was da abgeht....

allein das hier

[https://www.heise.de/forum/heise-online/News-Kommentare/The-North-Face-Kritik-an-Schleichwerbung-in-Wikipedia/Kopilot-verfasst-90-des-Artikels-zur-eigenen-Partei-J-Ditfurths-Oekolinx/posting-34599366/show/ "Kopilot" verfasst >90% des Artikels zur eigenen Partei (J. Ditfurths Ökolinx) ]

ist doch schon unfassbar

alles was nicht der dort vorherrschenden Ideologie entspricht wird gebannt,gebasht und gelöscht.

Antideutsch, Ökolinks ... :(

allein wenn man sich diese karte anguckt

[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bev%C3%B6lkerungsdichte#Weltkarte_und_Aussagekraft Bevölkerungsdichte]

[https://ibb.co/MGBWG7p WikiPsycho]

da wird einem ganz hinterhältig suggeriert das es zu viel Bevölkerung in Deutschland gibt.

Dann wundert einen der Name des Autors auch nichtmals.

oder was auch ganz schlimm ist sind die Weiterleitungen die einfach garnicht zum Thema passen

siehe :

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxin

Dieser Artikel behandelt giftige Substanzen. Zur deutschen Metal-Band siehe Toxin (Band).

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti

Der Titel dieses Artikels ist mehrdeutig. Weitere Bedeutungen sind unter Graffiti (Begriffsklärung) aufgeführt.

Writing ist eine Weiterleitung auf diesen Artikel. Für das Lied von Elton John siehe Writing (Elton-John-Lied).

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droge

Dieser Artikel behandelt Drogen in der Bedeutung von rauscherzeugenden Substanzen. Zu Drogen im ursprünglichen und pharmazeutischen Sinne siehe Droge (Pharmazie), zum Ort Drogen siehe Drogen (Schmölln), zur Indie-Pop-Band Die Drogen siehe dort, zur Person Otto Droge siehe dort.

Ich frage mich echt was soll das ?

[https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Auskunft&diff=prev&oldid=187716854 "keine Wissensfrage"]

auch lustig ;D

--WikiVerwelkt (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Information.svg I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. If you cannot provide a translation, please go to the list of Wikipedias, look in the list for a Wikipedia that is in your language, and edit there instead of here. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. --141.98.252.170 (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

:Repeating this here: I'm not sure that guideline really applies to two editors who both are more comfortable in German using their own language on their own user talk pages in order to facilitate communication between the two of them. We need to use English everywhere else, but I would think a user talk page is where one German-speaker should be helping another German-speaker understand English WP. --valereee (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

::Thank you so much, valereee, for your support and understanding.

:: To: 141.98.252.170: Because I understand politeness very well, I explained the reasons in my first sentence, and I did this in English and only on MY talkpage. This conversation between WikiVerwelkt and me started in the teahouse under Wikipedia:Teahouse#Hey_thank_you_:). If you are interested you can look there for more explanations. Your demand is IN!!!-appropriate on MY talk page!!! Steue (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

If anybody else wants to see how crazy the german wikipedia is:

{{collapsed|junta

Yes, really crazy what's going on ....

but this "co-pilot" wrote> 90% of the article to your own party (J. Ditfurth's Ökolinx) is already incredible

everything that does not correspond to the prevailing ideology is banned, blown and erased.

Antideutsch, Ökolinks ... :( alone if one looks at this map Population density WikiPsycho because a very insidious suggests that there is too much population in Germany.Then one wonders the name of the author not even.

or what is also very bad are the redirects that simply do not fit the topic see:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxin

This article covers toxic substances. For the german metal band see Toxin (Band).

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti

The title of this article is ambiguous. Other meanings are listed under Graffiti (disambiguation).

Writing is a redirect to this article. For Elton John's song see Writing (Elton John Song).

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droge

This article covers drugs in the meaning of noise-inducing substances. To drug in the original and pharmaceutical sense see drug (pharmacy), to the place drugs see drugs (Schmoelln), to the indie pop band The drugs see there, to the person Otto drug see there.

I'm really wondering what is this supposed to do?

"no knowledge question" also funny; D --WikiVerwelkt (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

|-

| junta

Yes, really crazy what's going on ....

but this "co-pilot" wrote> 90% of the article to your own party (J. Ditfurth's Ökolinx) is already incredible

everything that does not correspond to the prevailing ideology is banned, blown and erased.

Antideutsch, Ökolinks ... :( alone if one looks at this map Population density WikiPsycho because a very insidious suggests that there is too much population in Germany.Then one wonders the name of the author not even.

or what is also very bad are the redirects that simply do not fit the topic see:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxin

This article covers toxic substances. For the german metal band see Toxin (Band).

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti

The title of this article is ambiguous. Other meanings are listed under Graffiti (disambiguation).

Writing is a redirect to this article. For Elton John's song see Writing (Elton John Song).

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droge

This article covers drugs in the meaning of noise-inducing substances. To drug in the original and pharmaceutical sense see drug (pharmacy), to the place drugs see drugs (Schmoelln), to the indie pop band The drugs see there, to the person Otto drug see there.

I'm really wondering what is this supposed to do?

"no knowledge question" also funny; D --WikiVerwelkt (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

|}}

WikiVerwelkt (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

On occasion of Cem

In most cases I want to express myself in the most unequivocal / least disambiguous way in which I can.

I also have in mind, that some things which I have written might be read a couple of hundred or even thousand years from now.

And I know that language is a developing thing, and original meanings and etymology can get forgotten / lost.

When I read that there is a "disambiguation page" I want to know which other meanings this topic can have.

So I tend to, more or less, always have a look at this disambiguation page, because it broadens my awareness.

It may be that, statistically, there can be declared a "primary topic", but it does not "hurt" any reader to get introduced to all the other meanings a topic can have.

And even if a reader does not read every word of the description of every other meaning, it does not hurt to find out that this topic can have a different meaning than what one had in mind.

Rather to the contrary: If the topic would always redirect to the disambiguation page this would broaden the awareness of the readers.

An other reason is "neutrality": My oppinion: The redirect of a topic should not "prefer" one meaning.

Therefore my oppinion is:

1. A topic should always redirect to the disambiguation page and

2. A disambiguation page should always read " (disambiguation)"

Steue (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

On occasion Geely

The first box reads:

This article contains too many pictures, charts or diagrams for its overall length. Please help to improve this article by converting charts or diagrams into prose text

I completely disagree. Three or four images per model would be quite acceptable. And I have nothing to do with this company. We outside of China don't get many images of modern chinese cars, and I become "geleous" when I read of the number of electric cars in China, compared to the west.

In all websites of companies which I visited (especially big ones, even Tesla, which I respect very highly for what it has done) there was a lot of rubbish (like moving and/or interchanging images and bla-texts and irrelevant images) so it would have taken me a loooot of time to get to the informations which I wanted.

So I appreciate all the images which I can get in the wikipedia, without !! all this "noise".

Steue (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If a diagram or chart is good, it is allways much better than a table. And any table or list is better than prose.

But I greatly appreciate explaining additional text to a list, table, diagram or image.

Steue (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If you participate in a talk page and care about what's there, you should follow it. Expecting others to take additional trouble to ping you is not a good strategy. And moderately off-putting. -- Elphion (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

:Thank you Elphion, for your feed back. English is not my mother tongue. I looked up (in the World Book Dictionary) what "put off" means, but I still don't quite get it. Would you be so kind to explain it to me?

:I do understand your viewpoint, but I allways ping the one, to whom I write, because I want the addressee to read it. I think every one should use the addressee's name as a link. I write this ""Please" ping me" because I encountered users who don't want to be pinged. If one does not get pinged one would have to visit all these disks, where one ever has written something, every session, only to, often, find out that there is nothing new in this disk. That is why I do ping and expect pinging as routine and appreciate pings.

:The only location where I do not ping is on a user's disk, because I know that this user automaticly gets a ping.

:Steue (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, and I appreciate that there may be loss of meaning across language barriers. To be clear, I have nothing against pinging users. It is especially useful in situations where you have reason to believe the user may otherwise not see your message. It was entirely appropriate to ping Metaeducation at the start of that thread on the GIF talk page. But in the middle of a conversation on a talk page, there is a natural supposition that the participants are paying attention. To expect to be pinged in that situation comes across like asking for special consideration, since (as you may observe on most talk pages) participants are generally not pinged. It feels like you are not giving others the courtesy of paying attention to what they say. I am sure you don't mean to convey that impression, so I wanted to point out that that is how it might be perceived.

It is easy to add a page (and therefore its talk page) to your WP:Watchlist. (That's what the star icon at the top of the page is for.) That way you can periodically check your watchlist to see whether pages you are interested in have been updated. For example, I have put your user page on my watchlist, so I could easily tell when your talk page has been updated. Similarly, the GIF page is on my watchlist, so I saw the question you put to Metaeducation without being pinged. (There's nothing nefarious going on behind the scenes!) I apologize if you are already familiar with this, but I think it's a useful answer to your objection above.

-- Elphion (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

:Dear Elphion,

:thanks for the explanation.

:I admit: I almost never visit a disk, once I have closed my browser, but I do not mean to be uncourteous.

:But What I do: Before I write, I try to understand fully, and if I get an answer, I take the time to try to fully understand and try to answer each point or question. This is my courtesy.

:I have seen quite some threads in which I had the impression that either one or even both participants did not take the time to fully read and really understand, what the other had written.

:What I also do: I try to type and spell as correct as possible, something which not all do. I take into consideration all those, like me, whose mother tongue is not English and who would have a hard time to figure out what was meant.

:I just, once, looked into my watchlist and understood what it is for.

:But I admit too: I never took the time to really study WP:Watchlist; thanks for this link, I will study it. So there is nothing to apologize for.

:And, as you say: I would still have to periodically check my watchlist.

:But as I understood (already before this disk), one can only put a whole page on the watchlist, not a specific thread, although I read that someone wished it was possible, I wish this too.

:And if I'm interested in something, I'm mostly interested in a specific thread. And within many threads there are several micro- threads going on, in which, often, I'm not intested in.

:This is why I don't use the watchlist --- and hope that I do get pinged.

:And this is, why I'm really thankful that pings are possible.

:I never supposed anything nefarious to be going on.

:Steue (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

User talk:GreggHilferding#Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Shantavira,

thank you for answering at the Teahouse regarding Phabricator.

I checked several e-mail providers, this was more than a year ago, but they all made it mandatory to give them my: official life name, address, tel.no., birth date etc.. And they checked, whether they are real or invented.

Do you know of an e-mail provider who does not insist on these data?

Steue (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|Steue}}. Yes you would need to do this from an established email account. If you have a Gmail account you would just click on the Google account icon (just below the three dots), and click on "Add another account". I believe you can have up to ten Gmail accounts. It's a while since I used any Yahoo or Hotmail accounts but I imagine they would have a similar system. You can call the new account anything you like so there is no way anyone could link it with your day-to-day account. I hope this helps.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

::Thank you very much, Shantavira.

::Steue (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

:::tutanota.com Article: en.wp: Tutanota. tip from user:Cullen328 .

To all:
If you want to answer to this topic, please enter your contribution to this topic below this note,
but ABOVE the link to "Access to "Phabricator"", thank you.

:An email service which allows for full anonymous registration (which like on wikipedia means that if you forget your password, you can never access the account ever again), would be ProtonMail, now proton.me. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

::Thank you, very much. Steue (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Back to the bottom of the first contribution in #Access to "Phabricator", in case you came from there.

Hi Savlonn,

Because you are Australian: Do you know the answers to these questions in:
Talk:Geographe Bay #Pronounciation and accent??

Steue (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hi Steue! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at :Help:Link that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia{{Snd}} it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

:

:Thank you CapnZapp for your hint, it had three positiv results:

:It brought to my attention a problem which I have, about which you can read, if you like, in the topic below, and it brought me to do something to handle it.

:This reference, besides it's main purpose, also brought to my knowledge the technique of Dummy edit, which I was needing/missing since quite some time.

:So, thanks thrice. Steue (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

{Note: I (still) have not gotten myself an access to "Phabricator", so I can't report this problem there.}

When I switch to "Edit (source)" mode, and scroll down, both, the "Minor change" and the "Watch this page", check boxes are blank/empty; they only show my background colour.

This is in-dependent of whether I actually edit or not.

And when I click into a "Minor change" check box, the frame of this check box becomes thicker. So far, so good.

Problem:

But the space in this check box remains blank;

there appears no (white) "chek" (on blue ground) in it.

And when I return, e.g. from a preview,:

• this check box is still blank, plus
• the frame of this check box is thin (again), as it was at the opening of this editing page,

so I can't see whether I have already checked this box or not;

I can only know from my memory - if this tells me :) .

This phenomenon is only in the English WP, not in the German WP.

In the German WP these check boxes are smaller than in the English, but show the check on blue ground.

I use: Windows 8.1 and Firefox (latest edition).

In Firefox / tab [General] / sub heading "Language and Appearance" /

I have set:

• "Colours" to my own colours and

:* "Override the colours specified by the page with your selections above" to "Always".

When I change my setting of "Override..." to "Never", then the content of the check box(es) is visible, but for this I would have to sacrifice my colours.

Steue (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

:Meanwhile I have posted this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

:Steue (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

:* "I (still) have not gotten myself an access to "Phabricator" FYI, everyone with a Wikimedia account has access to Phabricator.

:* ""Override the colours specified by the page with your selections above" to "Always". I've just tested these settings myself and this setting doesn't just override background colors, but ALL backgrounds, incl images. That is bound to break lots of things, incl the buttons in the editor toolbars for instance, but also dynamic maps, graphs, certain infobox maps etc etc.

:* "only in the English WP, not in the German WP." You are probably using different editors because of differing settings between these two or something. Wikipedia has over 15 different editors depending on which settings you configure and what kind of content you are editing. For the differences between them see Editor.

:—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you [ TheDJ ] for your detailed answers.

(I know, you have read and answered my new topic below, so the first part of my answer here is a little obsolete.)

Re.: Access to "Phabricator":

This is true only if one has an e-mail address and accepts certain conditions.

My concerns are (a little below) in the topic: #Access to "Phabricator".

Re.: Override colours.:

Yes, I have found out this by accident: moving my mouse pointer over an appearing blank space and wondering why it became a "pointing hand". And, yes, I have been missing some of these things you mentioned, but so far only very seldom, because I'm preferring source editing.

If, e.g., I want to check or change my Preferences, I can still resort to "Override: Never", temporarily, as I just did to check what type of editor I'm using.

If I understand the settings in my Preferences right, I have not selected a special editor; so it should be the default editor which I'm using.

Your hint to "Editors" is very interesting; maybe I'll try one or two for special tasks.

This also brought me to check all my settings (under standard ! colours);
and I found some usefull ones, e.g. re. differences of versions.

Steue (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

:In the top right corner of/on (almost) every page there is a button/link [Log in].
When one clicks on this button there opens a page titled "Log in".

:This "Log in" page bears the same ! name as the (general) article page Log in, but is the real/actual "Log in" (to Wikipedia) page.

::

::(Inbetween note: To create clarity (remove ambiguity):

:* The actual "Log in" (to Wikipedia) page would, better, be re-named to "Log in to Wikipedia" (I would prefer this "to Wikipedia" with-out parenthesis around "to Wikipedia"),

:* and there would, better, be created a help page especially for the log in procedure to Wikipedia;

:* and this help page would, better, be named "Help:Log in to Wikipedia"

:* and the word "log in" in the text on the actual "Log in to Wikipedia" page would, better, link to this help page, not to the article page Log in.

:* However, on this help page there could still be a link to the article page Log in.

::(End of the inbetween note)

:

:

:On the real "Log in" (to Wikipedia) page there is a check box for:
"Keep me logged in for up to 365 days".

:I just found out:

:When I clicked into this check box, the check became visible !! -- although I had my colours ON ! .

:The check was in my text colour and the (back)ground of this check box bore my background colour.

:This proves: It IS possible to have check boxes although the user has his browser set to override the website's colours by his colours.

:Steue (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice Redrose64.

When I insert blank lines in a talk, then only to make it easier for myself to find a specific contribution of another because, e.g. I want to copy something of this contrib.

I could as well remove these lines when I don't need them anymore, but I thought, a few blank lines would not harm any one. How wrong was I!

Your hint to WP:INDENTGAP brought to my knowledge the possibility to add colon(s) in front of blank lines.

Would it be OK with you, if I also placed colons on such lines, so I don't have to remove them? I mean: I don't insert blank lines in all talks which I read.

Steue (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

{And I'm not even complaining:

• neither about the long "voyage" to the page of "Phabricator"
  (If I actually did have access, I - probably - would make myself a link to "Phabricator" on my user page (two clicks, and I'm there)),
• nor do I complain about the additional log in.}

If you desire a shortcut, the interesting issue starts at my point no. 13 below.

The "voyage" to "Phabricator":

1. en.wp "Main page"

2. (left pane)

3. (heading) "Contribute"

4. (link) [Community portal]

5. (heading) "Interact more"

6. (sub heading) "Village pump sections"

7. (box and link) "Technical" Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or
(short) WP:VPT

8. (in the text: the mention of "Phabricator" as link to)
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator

9. (A little bit below, in the little frame) "Go to Wikimedia Phabricator",
which is a link to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/

10. (in the middle pane) (the link) "Report a software bug" (which actually is a link to

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/edit/form/43/ )

11. I'm required !! to "Log In or Register" again !! (left green button).

{I once tried to get an answer on why "Phabricator" needs it's own ! registration, but from the answer(s) to this, all I understood, was, basically: "It is as it is.}

12. And when I click on [Log In or Register], there opens a new tab (in my browser)
titled: "OAuth - MediaWiki" which has the URL (e.g.):
https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AOAuth%2Fauthorize&oauth_token=b7a7f223de8101bd6653381defbb3c14&oauth_consumer_key=515956f268dcf5738beabe21154df11f

{{anchor|the issue}}

13. There, a scroll box (in the middle) informs me of:

"In order to complete your request, phabricator-production needs permission to access information about you, including your email address, on all projects of this site. No changes will be made with your account.

Leaving two buttons: [Allow] or [Cancel].

Up in this sentence, there are two things which reject me:

i) Why does "Phabricator" need to know:

• the titles of all articles in which I have ever edited and
• the titles of all Talks in which I have ever written something,
  and not enough the titles, but down to the exact wording of my contributions in talks!
• the dates and times when I edited, etc.?
  

just to let me report a bug! ?.

I mean: I don't even request the right to create a task.

I'm perfectly willing to let somebody else decide, whether my report should be made into a task, and to let this somebody else make it into a task.

Sorry, but this reminds me too much of Orwell's "1984". I'm from Europe and there -- we are quite sensitive as regards personal data, as you might know.

To my ! sense, this blatantly violates the right for anonymity, which is said to be granted/guaranteed in the Wikipedia.

Maybe with "Phabricator" I can create an account in-dependent of my username in wikipedias;
I havn't tried yet (due to the e-mail problem, described below).

ii) But this sentence alrady announces the need ! of an e-mail address.

14. And if I really click on [Allow] and

15. try to register, without ! giving an e-mail address, the procedure doesn't continue; it INSISTS on an e-mail address.

My concerns with an e-mail address you can read a little bit up in a previous topic, here on my talk page: #Where do I get an e-mail account without having to give personal data?, if you like.

Steue (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

{{anchor|bottom of Ph}}

:* "Why does "Phabricator" need to know:" That's the same information that is publicly available for your account If you are not aware that Wikipedia traces all edits that you make to it and were in under the impression they were not public, then you should probably stop editing Wikipedia.

:* "I'm from Europe " So am I.

:* "This blatantly violates the right for anonymity" Both sites are by the same organization, the Wikimedia Foundation, which already has this access, the data is just being accessed by a different system of that organization (which goes through that dialog for technical reasons). This point thus makes no sense.

:* "But this sentence alrady announces the need ! of an e-mail address." This is a valid point. Unfortunately most systems in the world UNLIKE Wikipedia require registration with an identifier in order to use them. The same goes for phabricator. If you are unwilling to provide any sort of email address, then unfortunately it is not possible to use Phabricator, much like it will be impossible to use lots of systems on the Internet. It is unlikely there is a solution for this.

:—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you [ TheDJ ], for your affirmation that "Phabricator" is part of WMF. I was doubting this due to their completely different domain and own registration and authenication; this vaporizes my aversion.

I did be aware that even IP addresses could see what ever I have edited -- if they know how to.

Meanwhile I've had a look on your user page.

Maybe, with the help of Proton, I'll come to get an e-mail address. :)

As for other systems: I don't miss these, in general. I only once in a while come across an answer from a search engine, which then I'm not allowed to even read, like by Twitter, or Facebook - so be it.

Steue (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Steue. I have undone three of your recent edits to Plough; i did give explanations in each of the edit summaries, but thought i'd just pop in here to be sure you understand and expand on one of them. In mine opinion, the image i move back to Etymology doesn't really fit there, either, but it is not such a good image as the one currently at the top of the article ~ it's not nearly as clear, nor is the plough as visible; i'd probably remove the thing altogether, TBH. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 12:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I have a laptop with Windows 8.1.

As kind of every 30 minutes (or so) this dam'd stupid Windows 8.1 was starting to rattle with my hard disc, which got at my nerves.

So I aborted it by holding down the main ON/OFF key for several seconds.

Later - after restart - one of my WordPad files was not showing any content anymore.

But the cursor could move and rest every where where words had been visible before, which indicated that these words are still there, but just not shown.

However the properties say it has over 100 kB.

When I tried to save it, I got the message, that I was about to save it in a different format. It seemed that I was about to save it as '.txt', although I had always had it as '.rtf'.

It had also reset the font to what I suppose was/is the default font.

Because I understood this with the 'txt' too late, I changed something in it and saved it.

Now it shows only five blank lines, although the properties say, it still has got over 100 kB.

Can this be repaired?

Steue (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear Stavros

In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolomeo_desk_lamp&diff=prev&oldid=1115312905 your edit] of the article Tolomeo desk lamp you only wrote (in the "Edit summary"): "Better organization".

But you did not only just re-arrange the content, you also DELETED ALL my edits.

Plus: you did NOT deliver any reason at all for your deletions, which you kow (best - after 17 years) you are supposed to, by our rules.

And this, although I did, before I edited, explain my argument in the talk of this page.

To me (and very likely to others too) -- this looks like you tried to cover up/hide your deletions.

This may be a way to prevent automatic "revert notations" to the other editor, but I consider your behaviour ... - to word it (very) mildly - bad style.

If you do have arguments then put them into the talk !!

You deleted information which would have been valuable to all readers of this article.

And with this you did behave AGAINST the purpose of the Wikipedia.

Think about it !!

On your user page you are mentioning Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, but in this edit you did not abide by this rule. You lifted this lamp up into the sky of arts as if you had a personal interest in this lamp.

Steue (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

:Sorry, Stavros,

:I did you wrong.

:I did not see that the sentence about the springs indeed [ was left / is ] in, because:

:* in the history view which I use (side by side) the paragraphs were vertically dis-associated,

:* I expected it to be (at least) as a seperate paragraph and

:* in a location before the design award para.

:Steue (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

::Hi Stavros,

::I just found (and this is NO accusation): You changed the wording of my sentence to such a degree and placed it in a different location, that the wiki software did understand/represent your wording as something completely new, and thus did represent it in thin letters (not in bold, for which I {only} was looking for).

::Steue (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

:::You can't expect the comparison tool to cover every case. --Macrakis (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@ Stavros,

Of course not, I don't - any more. It's software and man-made. And it takes an awfull lot of time to make software real good. And there are many other tasks waiting to be programmed. But it is good to know what we can not expect - currently - . Next time I'm missing something, I know I have to look at the new thins too.

Steue (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I edit with the purpose/intention in mind that my changes can most easily be understood / followed up (in the "side by side" view of the history) even without a written explanation (in the "Edit summary").

;When I want to change the wording,

I tend to make it in such a way, that in the side-by-side-view the two versions are exactly side by side, that is: (more or less) at the same level, respectively that the two boxes at least begin at the same level.

In case of a long paragraph containing many sentences and references, and escpecially if it is a long sentence, I would even advise/recommend to:

1. split off the sentence which one wants to change as a separate paragraph,
2. save this,
3. change the wording
4. save this and then
5. re-unite them and
6. save this.

And this does not mean much more work because, when I edit, I first (in the source code) insert three to four blank lines each before and behind the thing to be changed (normally without saving). This makes it much easier for me, to keep my orientation and my focus.

Of course, afterwards, I remove the blank lines before I save.

;When I want to change the sequence,

but these to be sorted things are not yet paragraphs, I first make them into paragraphs, and save them, so that their change of sequence can be followed up easier and that it can also easier be checked, that in this step there were no changes of the wording.

This way: If someone else wants to check the altered sequence, he/she only needs to look for boxes/frames with exactly equal content.

;When I want to change the sequence AND the wording,

I do this in two steps and save each one separately.

Which one first is not important.

;Advantages

• This way the checker has much less to compare.

• The time which I invest in this method is much much less than the time the checker needs, to figure out and understand exactly all that I did.

Steue (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Explicit

Before you deleted Talk:Bag pudding did you check whether any links do link to this page?

Now there are four (now red) links to this page name.

Steue (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

:Hi, Explicit

:I repeat my question.

:Steue (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Materialscientist,

I could only find THAT you blocked him.

Steue (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Patafisik (WMF)

In (what is now in the archive 1):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vector_2022&oldid=1134767180#Better_Feedback_link

I made the following reply to your question about "article tools". I replyed that I was very disappointed about mediawiki.

{Cite:}

Sorry Patafisik (WMF),

I wanted to comment regarding "article tools" on the mediawiki page, but:

* mediawiki does not accept, that I am already logged in in en.wp.

* Mediawiki also does not accept my user name from en.wp in creating a new account in mediawiki.

* I tryed to register Steue, it sayd: "already in use".

* But when I searched on mediawiki for "user:Steue" there was none such listed.

* So: mediawiki CAN check the user names of en.wp,

* but does not accept them for login.

* Mediawiki also does not accept a username "Steue (MWF)" (is blacklisted).

* Mediawiki insists on at least 8 characters for the password (This is: putting users under tutelage!).

On "article tools" page I edited a probable misspelling (was: "revisit", should probably be "revise"); I inserted a (careful) "[revise ?]". The user:Clump reverted it, but gave NO explanation. I checked the history. His/her user talk page is blocked, he/she writes: "because of 'excessive vandalism' ". No wonder if he/she behaves like this. Is it not mandatory, at mediawiki, to EXPLAIN a revert?

As long as mediawiki behaves like this and makes it difficult for users to contribute, I am THROUGH with mediawiki. To hell with them!

Signed Steue

{End of cite.}

Now my reply is neither on the current page, nor in the archive.

And in the history I can't find any clue of: that my reply has ever existed, nor where it was moved or by whom and for which reason.

And this allthough I do rember having seen my reply on the page.

If I move something, I leave a note at the original location, and in the summary.

What happened?

Steue (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @Steue, I opened this topic on MediaWiki linking this discussion, I hope someone will give you answers concerning your MediaWiki account. About [https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Reading%2FWeb%2FDesktop_Improvements%2FFeatures%2FPage_tools&diff=5725255&oldid=5714777 your change in the project page]: I've reported your suggestion to the Web Team, but consider giving it in the talk page of the project a next time instead of changing the project page directly. Thank you, Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

::Hi, did you try logging in at mw:Special:UserLogin. From your description it sounds like you tried to create an account, which didn't work because you already have one, but you never tried just logging in. Searching for your account won't reveal anything on mediawiki.org until you actually log in and do something on that wiki. MediaWiki.org and Wikipedia (and all other Wikimedia websites) use the same account database. Bawolff (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Patafisik (WMF) for putting my question to mw.

Re. the "revisit/revise" thanks. I was stressed. You are right: If I was uncertain, I should have put it on the talk page, as I usually would.

Thank you Bawolff for your answer.

On the mw page I can/did not see the button [ More options ].

Reason: I use my own colours i.e. I have my browser (FF) restricted to "always use my colours".

I had the same problem on the new skin (not seeing the new menue button, left from (or should it be "of"?) the page header).

After reading your answer I searched for the button at the top right corner and found it.

So: "Sorry" to mediawiki.

• Please, could this problem with "own colours" be solved?

Images (gif, jpg, png) are visible despite my colours.

So, one solution would be to always use such images as icons.

I can see this: link=.

Maybe this info helps in finding a simple solution.

But from what I understand now from the article SVG it IS, in it's nature, comparable to jpg.

• How could I know that "Log in" can be accessed via mw:Special:UserLogin?

Steue (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

:You're not the first person i have heard make this complaint. In particular i heard one of the stewards express worry that the new skin will result in people making multiple accounts resulting in extra work to clean up. Bawolff (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

::Hi Bawolff

::I don't see the relation to what is above your last post.

::I'm not aware of having complained of such.

::Could it be, that yor post went to the wrong target?

::Steue (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Steue,

I see you started a reorganisation by category of comments to the Question#2 of WP:V22RFC2. However, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FRollback_of_Vector_2022&diff=1135455774&oldid=1135455569 it seems] you are experiencing some difficulty and instead of giving a better organisation you are creating further confusion. If you think that it is too difficult a task, I suggest you restore the list to how it was before, and ask for help from {{u|Kizor}} who rearranged the main RfC's comments. Æo (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

:Thanks Æo for caring so much. This is appreciated. And you are doing it very kindly.

:In the beginning, I encountered a few contribs which neither were one or the other. So then I did feel like needing help. But meanwhile I feel sure what I'm doing. I'm almost through with the preparations. I had to study the discussions, which went on under a "Support" or "Oppose", and I had to find out how to indent them, so that they get the right indentation. I'm almost done, and can start now sorting into 4 groups. Then I only have to move 4 groups into the main groups. I'm even keeping the original sequence. It's not my 1st sorting of this size. That's why I dared to undertake it on such an important page.

:Steue (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

::Good, if you are sure of what you are doing go ahead. Æo (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Serial Number 54129

Re. your restoring of my removal ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Rollback_of_Vector_2022&oldid=prev&diff=1135710691 )

1. I was the author of this post, so I'm allowed to remove all or part of my post.
2. There is the wp rule that the talk pages are there only for discussions of improvements of the concerned article. So even if I would not be the author of this post, this rule would give any one the right to remove such personal informations.
3. The lack of what I removed does not render the following posts un-understandable.

So I'm going to remove this again. (I don't want to use "undo" because there are so many new posts, that undo might undo them too.)

P.S.: If you undo something you are supposed to give the reason (in the edit summary field at the bottom).

Steue (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

:That's not correct, Steue, plrase read WP:REDACT. Serial Number 54129 was correct. I've restored the comment. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

:If you would like to redact that portion of your comment, you may use your text here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at :Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Additionally, please read WP:INDENT and WP:TALKGAP. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Closed arb discussion

@Barkeep49

Re. my edit on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case #Statement by Levivich, which you undid.

Sorry. I had been reading from the top. How could I have known that this discussion is closed? I remember having seen other pages where a box explicitly said that this discussion is closed.

Steue (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

:We were hoping that the yellow box with the message {{tqq|The following discussion is paused pending the formal opening of the case. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.}} up top would let editors know. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

::@Barkeep49

::Thank you very much for mentioning it in such a patient and friendly way. :)

::Now that you mentioned it, and I checked the page, I remember having read it.

::I guess I did not grasp the full meaning of 'paused'. Although the

:::Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

::should be clear enough.

::But I was used to formal and separate boxes.

::

::So, may I suggest, that this restriction, at least, be placed in a separate box. Although I think a formal box would even be better.

::

::As for the 'yellow': here goes the old problem of me having my browser set to using my own colours, which prevents such yellow background.

::I'm very thankful that the programmers finally have implemented a solution to this, so that I, at least, can see such icons like [Notifications] and [Messages] and the [little triple horizontal lines].

::Steue (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Such case makes people to think: "Resistance is rising... because path between blue and red wire elongates.". Otherwise people could just think: "OK, handle is going right and the needle goes right..." not trying to understand why needle goes right while handle goes right. - piom 10:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

:Hi piom

:I do understand your intention: to make the watchers think about the cause and effect of what they see.

:How about putting the explanation which you just gave here, as a sub text under this gif, like: "When the path between the left end and the wiper increases, so increases the resistance." -- or, if you want, use the 'right' end.

:For me it still is easier to think, if things go synchrounous.

:It's the same with negations and -- even worse -- double negations.

:But I will respect your viewpoint.

:

:Besides: Thank you for this example of a smarter way of how to link to a user page in a different wiki: it's done with a "::" before the "user".

:

:Steue (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

::You are welcome! Well, description seems to be a good idea. - - piom 15:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

:::@ piom

:::I have now also a page on meta, which should solve all signing problems on all wiki projects: :meta:user:Steue.

:::

:::As for your gif:

:::I got the idea of two meters: one for the resistance ( labeled "ohm" ) and another for the current ( labeled "ampere" ). The potentiometer in sequence to a battery and an ampere meter; plus an ohm meter parallel to the potentiometer. This would tell the whole "story". Then the counter relation between the current and the resistance might be understand even easier.

:::Steue (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Hallo, I don't think that sentence belongs in a new subsection there, as the section is about entries which should exist - but perhaps it ought to be in "Individual entries" above, possibly under "Examples of individual entries that should not be created"? PamD 07:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:Hello PamD

:Thanks for your comment.

:

:1: Is this a German "Hallo" because you know that I'm writing from Germany?

:

:2: But why on my talk page and not on the talk page of MOS DAB? Is this a hint that you consider my edit completely in-appropriate and you want to save me the embarrasment of telling me this on the other talk page?

:

:Steue (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::1: No, I spell it that way anyway!

::2: It was a snap decision after we had an edit conflict when I tried reverting your first 3 edits - I then saw you were still editing, so left you a quick message to see while you were still editing. Yes, talk page would have been as good a venue. PamD 10:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:::I've implemented my suggestion as above, as you didn't comment on the content of my post. PamD 10:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::::User:PamD

::::It's OK. I didn't comment because I'm still studying this topic. I'll collect my comments, questions and edit suggestions off line until I have a full grasp of this topic.

::::Steue (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Remsense

Is there anything wrong with cleaning up the talk page of "Ping"?

--Steue (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Curb find, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:@ Dan arndt

:This "article" was a disambiguation page.

:Since when does a 'disambiguation page' does need references?

:I had read that a disambiguation is not considered to be an article.

:

:The result from your action is that, if someone searches for "Curb find" they do NOT come to "my" disambiguation page 'Curb find'.

:Please explain to me, why this new situation/condition is better, from the view point of an ordinary reader, than the old situation.

:Steue (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::A disambiguation page should link to multiple articles, which use the same name. This only links to one article and would be better served as a redirect. Dan arndt (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@ Dan arndt

:::Would a redirect let the reader(s) know the other / "everyday" meaning of 'curb find' (something found at a curb)?

:::I repeat my question: Why is this new situation/condition (NO disamb page) better, from the view point of an ordinary reader, than the old situation (A disambiguation page 'Curb find')?

:::A disambiguation page should do this too (link to multiple articles), but my oppinion is: the primary duty of a disamb page is to show (ALL the) different meanings -- even though a few might not yet have an article. And there may not yet be an article for a meaning, but this meaning nevertheless should already be listed and it is OK to list it; I've come across several such cases.

:::Steue (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Steue (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jac16888

Re. your revert of "* Wintergreen (computer make) as mentioned 'Current desktop'" in Wintergreen (disambiguation). ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wintergreen_%28disambiguation%29&oldid=prev&diff=1279619394 Diff.])

I've seen several disambs with red links. Which rule forbids this?

What means "rm"?

Steue (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, "rm" is an abbreviation for "remove" in this case, and generally on a disambiguation page if there is no linked article there should be a valid reference or related article for that listing, this only had a link to somebodies userpage, which is not an appropriate thing to link to from an article--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jac16888

Thanks for the explanation of 'rm'.

What I meant and had expected was a *link* -- like Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts -- not a repetition.

If you take the rules literally you are right. But it makes me sad that this tight spirit has entered this wp. There are more basic rules like "good sense" and "exceptions".

I thought, the purpose of wikipedia is to give the READERS the most complete view.

Sad that meanwhile here are editors and rulemakers who see this different.

There are two types of editors:

• those who write and edit for the readers and
• those who indulge in riding rules just for their personal fun, but suffer from the illusion of doing the right thing.

Steue (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::What this is all about: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AUser_pages&diff=1284673976&oldid=1284361456 Difference]

@QEDK

Thanks for the "oops" and "sorry", it's nice and friendly, but I don't get upset or even mad about such double pings, and I don't take it for bad intention if it happens; we all make mistakes, and there are much worse things than this -- in our world today. So I do accept your apology.

Sorry that I had to undo both of your edits, but you will understand, that I didn't want to take the time to revert everything manually.

This is *my* style.

This style may be oldfashioned or from the time when people wrote on paper, but it is my style. If it would have concerned typoes, I would've said: "thanks a lot! You are welcome to do it again."

You do bloody well know that this type of editing of someone else's contribution in a disk is against rules. And the page you did it on indeed IS a talk page.

I'm perfectly willing to listen to your opinion and advice and arguments -- carefully, and ponder about it, but not in this manner.

Some of your "fixing" was clearly against how I intended/wanted it. Especially the moving of my "{} (in 3 and 5) = ..." into the previous line.

• First it was a different editing (which I wanted to be visible) and
• second it was intended to be at the beginning of the line as an explanation of these "{}"s.

And if I'm addressing two different persons with two different sentences, I start a new para and place their names at the start of the line, because I want to make it easy for each of them to find his name.

And if I make an insert / a side thought like "by the way ..." I want this to be visible. That's the reason for the extra line(s).

Sorry, honestly, if this is interrupting your routine of reading. But my experience is that people have over-read some of what I wrote while I had everything in a single flow/para with no empty lines inbetween. That's why I've switched to using lots of empty lines and are writing by the rule: "One thought, one para!".

And, until now, you are the only one who has complained about it; so it can't be this terribly annoying and disrupting the reading. But if indeed there are others -- or even many -- who consider my style hard to read, I shall think about it.

Isn't your revert already the start of a war??

I'm this close to call it VANDALISM !!

Do you really think that your admin rights give you the right to violate our rules and be such violent and {{nowrap|F O R C E}} YOUR opinion on others?

Which rules do support your behaviour?

Your behaviour reminds me on a very recent politician.

Steue (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:I highly suggest you read up our rules on civility before continuing further on this wiki. qedk (t 愛 c) 21:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::QEDK Q1: What of my behaviour do you consider un-civil? Be concrete and precise! Out of your reference (Wikipedia:Civility #Avoiding incivility): "* Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood. It {{em|does}} spill over. (See Editing under the influence and No angry mastodons)" and "* Try not to get too intense. Passion can be misread as aggression, so take {{strong|great}} [bolding by Steue] care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully." Out of Wikipedia:Etiquette #Principles of Wikipedia etiquette: "* If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate." That's what I've done, I've explained my editing -- you have uttered your {{em|opinion}}, but you have not {{em|explained why}} and you have not given any {{em|source}} for your "fixing". You havn't answered a single question of mine. Out of Wikipedia:Etiquette #Principles of Wikipedia etiquette: "* Do not ignore reasonable questions." I'm (again) asking you to answer my questions, especially: Q2: Which wikipedia rule demands not to use line breaks (in these cases)? Q3: Which wikipedia rule demands not to place '@'s in {{em|different}} lines and at the {{em|beginnig}} of a line if the addressees are addressed in {{em|different}} sentences? Q4: Which wikipedia rule demands not to address two different persons in two different paragraphs? Q5: Isn't your {{em|repeated}} revert already the start of a war? Q6: Why do you think that these line breaks are bad? Please explain it; I would like to understand your viewpoint. -- Steue (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::

::Do you really think that above version is easier to read -- and answer -- than the following version?

::

::@ {{noping|QEDK}}

::Q1: What of my behaviour do you consider un-civil? Be concrete and precise!

::Out of your reference (Wikipedia:Civility #Avoiding incivility):

:::"* Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood. It {{em|does}} spill over. (See Editing under the influence and No angry mastodons)"

::and

:::"* Try not to get too intense. Passion can be misread as aggression, so take {{strong|great}} [bolding by Steue] care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully."

::Out of Wikipedia:Etiquette #Principles of Wikipedia etiquette:

:::"* If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate."

::That's what I've done, I've explained my editing -- you have uttered your {{em|opinion}}, but you have not {{em|explained why}} and you have not given any {{em|source}} for your "fixing".

::You havn't answered a single question of mine.

::Out of Wikipedia:Etiquette #Principles of Wikipedia etiquette:

:::"* Do not ignore reasonable questions."

::I'm (again) asking you to answer my questions, especially:

::

::Q2: Which wikipedia rule demands not to use line breaks (in these cases)?

::

::Q3: Which wikipedia rule demands not to place '@'s in {{em|different}} lines and at the {{em|beginnig}} of a line if the addressees are addressed in {{em|different}} sentences?

::

::Q4: Which wikipedia rule demands not to address two different persons in two different paragraphs?

::

::Q5: Isn't your {{em|repeated}} revert already the start of a war??

::

::Q6: Why do you think that these line breaks are bad? Please explain it; I would like to understand your viewpoint.

::Steue (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{box|What of my behaviour do you consider un-civil? Please be concrete and precise. Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles of Wikipedia etiquette says "If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.", and that's what I've done. I've explained my editing, but you have not explained the reason for your "fixing". What's wrong my usage of line breaks and what's wrong with addressing different comments from different people in different lines (and putting the ping at the beginning)? {{pb}}Your Wikipedia:Civility#Avoiding incivility says "Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood. It does spill over.", and I'm afraid that's what's happened here. Isn't your repeated revert edit warring?}}It's not just your linesplitting; it's mostly your unnecessarily verbosities and impassioned filler text—especially disastrous and overwhelmingwhen combined with your linebreaks—the removal of which would not change the meaning of what you say. And yes, I do prefer the above box over the below:{{box|What of my behaviour do you consider un-civil? Please be concrete and precise.{{pb}}Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles of Wikipedia etiquette says,{{pb}}"If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate."{{pb}}That's what I've done. I've explained my editing, but you have not explained the reason for your "fixing".{{pb}}What's wrong my usage of line breaks and what's wrong with addressing different comments from different people in different lines (and putting the ping at the beginning)?{{pb}}Your Wikipedia:Civility#Avoiding incivility says,{{pb}}"Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood. It does spill over."{{pb}}I'm afraid that's what's happened here.{{pb}}Isn't your repeated revert edit warring?}}There's a reason paragraphs are usually of a certain length in English, to which evolution has tuned our brains. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Whoever happens to come here is welcome to comment upon it.

::Steue (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::FWIW, I have reverted you 0 times, I only formatted your comments once and have done them no further given your disagreement. I don't care that you disagreed but I respect your right to. Secondly, I think negative comparisons to politicians is definitely not civil, I can point out further but as I said, feel free to disagree. Thirdly, I also don't mind you being uncivil, I simply mentioned it because sooner or later, you will see that it is not conducive to building the wiki. I am not going to engage further on this thread, good days! --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::For my own reference: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/FWIW FWIW].

::::

::::Sorry, qedk, what I called "your second revert" actually was a 'rollback' done by User:Aaron Liu.

::::

::::Aaron Liu, thank you (again) for the reference to MOS:LISTBREAK ( which lead me to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Lists ).

::::

::::I tested it (on my user page); I suggest you (both) have a look here: Steue #F.

::::

::::Steue (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

The problem is, for example:{{tqb|

1. 10: Ask the millions of only-readers whether they like such stuff!!
   

Steue (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

{} (in no. 3 and 5) {{=}} my additions. Steue (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

1. :I am – at the very least – }}

Plus, annoyingly excessive paragraphs is already in and of itself a great nuisance (and line breaks are themselves a semantic/accessibility issue when used to denote different paragraphs, as the policy you linked mentions.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)