User talk:Hq9++fan

From Esolang
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please stop it with the code golf image (File:Code-golf.png). It isn't being removed because it's "unused". This is why it's being removed:

  1. It breaks up text awkwardly, being different from the surrounding text in many ways
  2. It detracts from readability, as it cannot easily be indexed and read by text to speech
  3. It takes the place what could be the links Code golf or Category:Golfing_language, which are more useful
  4. It isn't consistent with the style of the wiki, as there are no other tags replaced with images

Please stop claiming it is "recommended". The fact that it constantly gets removed proves otherwise.
Enoua5 (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, we're not cheating, we're overruling you. --Ørjan (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please can you stop replacing random characters with Unicode equivalents, especially in people's talk page comments? Although improving the formatting of the mainspace is generally desirable, you've been repeatedly demonstrating that you don't necessarily know what the characters are used for; and when people are commenting on a Talk page, we normally let them make their own choice as to how to format their comments. It's often non-obvious as to what the correct Unicode for something is. (A good example of this, although it doesn't exactly match any of yours, is that aᵐ and am have entirely different meanings, and it's bad for accessibility to use the wrong one.) I'd especially recommend, though, that you learn the difference between the various sorts of hyphens and dashes before you go around correcting them. (Also, that you don't get into revert wars; once something has been reverted once, you should probably discuss it with the other person reverting before reverting it again.) --ais523 10:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"aᵐ and am have entirely different meanings": depends on the intended meaning of them. For example, both may mean a superscript (in this case the former one is recommended; it is customizable by the font designers, and copiable), or the former one may mean a superscript and the latter one may mean two independent texts made with a golfing method (which has a chance of it not working as intended in certain future browsers which may render characters inside the HTML <sup> tag as real superscripts, which usually look less mature and thicker than shrunk normal characters in fonts). Hq9++fan (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
No. is actually a phonetic modifier letter that's only supposed to be used in IPA, and is not intended to be used for general purpose superscripting. (Compare , which is intended for use in mathematical formulas and thus is likely much more appropriate for this wiki.) As I said, you should probably learn how Unicode works before editing it into articles. Characters have semantic meanings in addition to visual appearances, and just picking a character that "looks right" may cause the article to become meaningless. --ais523 22:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC) says it's a superscript. But using fake superscripts (the <sup>/<sub> tag) is a sin because they are not customizable by the font designer. Hq9++fan (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

𝖳𝗁𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝗅𝖾𝗆 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁 "𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅" 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗌𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗉𝗍, 𝗌𝗎𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗉𝗍, 𝖾𝗍𝖼. 𝗂𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝖺𝗅𝗅 𝗀𝗅𝗒𝗉𝗁𝗌 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝗌𝗎𝗉𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝗈𝗇 𝖺𝗅𝗅 𝗉𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝗌. 𝖠𝗌 𝖺𝗇 𝖾𝗑𝖺𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾, 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗎𝗍𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗅𝗒 𝗎𝗇𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖽𝖺𝖻𝗅𝖾 𝗈𝗇 𝗆𝗒 𝗌𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗉𝗁𝗈𝗇𝖾, 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖨 𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗀𝗂𝗇𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖺 𝗅𝗈𝗍 𝗈𝖿 𝗌𝗒𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗌 (𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅𝗅𝗒 𝗈𝗅𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗈𝗇𝖾𝗌) 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗎𝖻𝗅𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝗅𝖺𝗒𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗇𝗈𝗇-𝖠𝖲𝖢𝖨𝖨 𝗌𝗒𝗆𝖻𝗈𝗅𝗌 𝖺𝗌 𝗐𝖾𝗅𝗅, 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗅𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗆 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗅𝗒 𝗎𝗇𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖽𝖺𝖻𝗅𝖾 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖼𝗋𝗒𝗉𝗍𝗂𝖼 𝗌𝗒𝗆𝖻𝗈𝗅𝗌 𝗐𝗁𝗂𝖼𝗁 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝗐𝖺𝗒 𝗁𝖺𝗋𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗉𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗒 𝗐𝗈𝗎𝗅𝖽 𝖻𝖾 𝗎𝗌𝗂𝗇𝗀 "𝖿𝖺𝗄𝖾" 𝗍𝖺𝗀𝗌. 𝖭𝗈𝗍 𝗍𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗒 𝗅𝗈𝗈𝗄 𝖺𝗐𝖿𝗎𝗅 𝖺𝗇𝗒𝗐𝖺𝗒 ZM (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention that not even all letters in the alphabet have a sub/superscript version: letters like b, c, g, w or y all lack subscript versions, for example. ZM (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
These two issues are because of font designers and Unicode designers respectively. It's their fault. Hq9++fan (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


The purpose of the <includeonly> tag is to control how a page behaves when transcluded. It's not intended for commenting out code; you can use comment markers <!-- --> for that. (That said, you shouldn't be putting comments on pages without a very good reason.) Trying to use transclusion control markers for the purpose will break transclusion of pages for no good reason. (It's not a feature we use much on mainspace pages, but there's no point in breaking software features for no purpose.)

Note that in either case the wiki engine will have to parse the page, so putting large or unnecessary comments in a page is a bad idea. In particular, filling a page with almost a mebibyte of whitespace is basically putting a lot of load on the servers for no good reason. We rely on donated hosting (and have often had trouble paying for / finding hosting in the past), and it's best not to abuse the resources we've been given (especially for no benefit). I've deleted the excessively large revisions. --ais523 13:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: the question you asked in an edit summary on my talk page, see mediawikiwiki:Help:transclusion for information about transclusion. However, I would strongly recommend that if you don't know what transclusion is, you don't use any of MediaWiki's transclusion-related features (such as <includeonly>). In general, you're causing a lot of damage to the wiki (causing its administrators to spend a lot of time and effort cleaning up after you that we'd rather spend on other things) due to repeatedly using features that you don't understand (such as transclusion control markup and Unicode characters which have a passing visual resemblance to HTML). --ais523 14:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)