 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
James Holsenback <nom### [at] none com> wrote:
> On 06/28/2013 02:40 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> > I considered your answers a while and decided to withdraw from my offer to help
> > here. I hope, we are a community here and no one has to give "directives" as mr
> > tried.
>
> Well I think Maurice is a pretty reasonable fellow and I'm sure he
> didn't mean it as it was taken ... I think partly to blame here as I
> felt the methodical approach was best. He was working under my guidance,
> so perhaps if I step back and let you two hash it out you might reconsider.
Hi Jim,
yes I will reconsider. But I have some remarks. First: within a Wiki every user
has to have the same rights. That is one of the central ideas of Wikis. No one
has to give directives to others. If a user changed an entry usually he gives a
comment at the discussion page and another user can restore the changes (and
comment about it at the discussion page as well).
And I think that not every link is really worth to be restored by every costs.
You have to look at the content. Some are redundant or trivial or covered by
other entries, or simply outdated by newer and better approaches to a topic.
E.g. Sonyas trees were fine at the time she posted it, but nowadays we have
Arbaro, POV-Tree and other tools to create trees, which are much better. Why
preserve the old link? And do efforts to find it? Or for the 3D models section.
There you can simply eliminate links since there are a lot of new ones giving
other free models.
And... I think you know that I'm not a rookie, who offered help here.
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/29/2013 01:35 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>> On 06/28/2013 02:40 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
>>> I considered your answers a while and decided to withdraw from my offer to help
>>> here. I hope, we are a community here and no one has to give "directives" as mr
>>> tried.
>>
>> Well I think Maurice is a pretty reasonable fellow and I'm sure he
>> didn't mean it as it was taken ... I think partly to blame here as I
>> felt the methodical approach was best. He was working under my guidance,
>> so perhaps if I step back and let you two hash it out you might reconsider.
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> yes I will reconsider. But I have some remarks. First: within a Wiki every user
> has to have the same rights. That is one of the central ideas of Wikis. No one
> has to give directives to others. If a user changed an entry usually he gives a
> comment at the discussion page and another user can restore the changes (and
> comment about it at the discussion page as well).
>
> And I think that not every link is really worth to be restored by every costs.
> You have to look at the content. Some are redundant or trivial or covered by
> other entries, or simply outdated by newer and better approaches to a topic.
> E.g. Sonyas trees were fine at the time she posted it, but nowadays we have
> Arbaro, POV-Tree and other tools to create trees, which are much better. Why
> preserve the old link? And do efforts to find it? Or for the 3D models section.
> There you can simply eliminate links since there are a lot of new ones giving
> other free models.
>
> And... I think you know that I'm not a rookie, who offered help here.
>
> Best regards,
> Michael
>
>
First off let me begin by saying that the lesson in wiki concepts, rules
and best practices was unnecessary, however I will say that I can't find
fault with a single thing that you've said ... on a traditional Wiki all
those things and more apply. As for the POV-Wiki, the documentation and
the links list are the source for other processes, and as such there
have been rules imposed for good reasons. Other area's more closely
conform to your aforementioned idea(s) of what a Wiki should be like.
As for the merits of chasing a dead link or not ... me personally I'd be
inclined to cut my losses after only a short search, but I can't find
fault with someone who'd give the extra effort.
The more I think about it the more I just don't understand why you feel
like you can't contribute under those conditions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/29/2013 11:28 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
> The more I think about it the more I just don't understand why you feel
> like you can't contribute under those conditions.
And I can't understand why anyone would bother to pursue this with
someone who obviously gets WAY too upset over trivial issues so easily.
In the long run you're probably saving yourself a lot of hassle and
drama by just letting him go.
Todd
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> On 06/28/2013 02:40 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> > I considered your answers a while and decided to withdraw from my offer to help
> > here. I hope, we are a community here and no one has to give "directives" as mr
> > tried.
>
> Well I think Maurice is a pretty reasonable fellow and I'm sure he
> didn't mean it as it was taken ... I think partly to blame here as I
> felt the methodical approach was best. He was working under my guidance,
> so perhaps if I step back and let you two hash it out you might reconsider.
My point was really to make sure we wouldn't loose anything unnecessary:
provided dead links are kind of tagged instead of deleted; anybody can do
anything he pleases in joyous anarchy.
take care
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi all,
first of all I will apologize. I didn't intended to upset you. And I didn't
wanted to tell a lesson about wikis. I wanted an explanation why the POV-Wiki
has other rules as the Wikipedia e.g. so I tried to describe the differences. It
was not intended as a lesson about wikis. I was unaware of the fact that the
link-list of the POV-Wiki is a source for other processes (I assume it will be
synced with the original POV-site?) completely. That explains all and I have no
problems to accept this. But I had no idea about this so far.
To be more constructive. I was not lazy the last hours and worked through nearly
all the links Maurice has left (the 3d resources and half of the include files
is missing so far, but I have visited all other links - from the macro and
object files up to the peoples pages. I have the odd habit to start bottom up.).
I regained a lot of the broken ones by the "wayback machine" but not all.
But for the moment I only scribbeled it down to outprints of the link lists and
it will take a week to have it in a form I can present you, I fear.
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/30/2013 03:51 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> first of all I will apologize. I didn't intended to upset you.
LOL ... I had this really clever retort, but I'm just going to settle
for no one upset here ... least-wise not me!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> first of all I will apologize. I didn't intended to upset you. And I didn't
> wanted to tell a lesson about wikis. I wanted an explanation why the POV-Wiki
> has other rules as the Wikipedia e.g. so I tried to describe the differences. It
> was not intended as a lesson about wikis. I was unaware of the fact that the
> link-list of the POV-Wiki is a source for other processes (I assume it will be
> synced with the original POV-site?) completely. That explains all and I have no
> problems to accept this. But I had no idea about this so far.
>
> To be more constructive. I was not lazy the last hours and worked through nearly
> all the links Maurice has left (the 3d resources and half of the include files
> is missing so far, but I have visited all other links - from the macro and
> object files up to the peoples pages. I have the odd habit to start bottom up.).
> I regained a lot of the broken ones by the "wayback machine" but not all.
>
> But for the moment I only scribbeled it down to outprints of the link lists and
> it will take a week to have it in a form I can present you, I fear.
>
> Best regards,
> Michael
Thanks a lot for your help.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> On 06/26/2013 07:46 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > Something I have wanted to ask about for a while: the font size is very
> > small, especially the green ones. For the younger people this might not
> > be a problem, but for older ones like me, they give serious trouble with
> > reading ;-)
> >
> > At least, why not make the green text of the same font size as the rest
> > of the document?
>
> In the html version the font size is dependent on what browser default
> size is set ... Ctrl + makes it bigger Ctrl - makes it smaller Ctrl .
> resets to default. Does windoze version have similar?
In all my browsers except Opera, the monospace text is much tinier than the
regular text. Inspect element doesn't show anything untoward in the style
sheets, so I suspect that there is some common browser default that sets
monospace smaller than regular. This differential is present regardless of how
many times you press Ctrl +.
The text is exactly the same size in Opera. I have tweaked my Opera setup over
the years, and I do remember messing with the monospace font size, so that
/might/ explain why Opera is different for me.
I have posted some screen shots to p.b.i.
Web browsers: Chrome, Firefox, Konqueror, and Opera.
Operating system: openSUSE 12.2 Linux/KDE.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/04/2013 02:17 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>> On 06/26/2013 07:46 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Something I have wanted to ask about for a while: the font size is very
>>> small, especially the green ones. For the younger people this might not
>>> be a problem, but for older ones like me, they give serious trouble with
>>> reading ;-)
>>>
>>> At least, why not make the green text of the same font size as the rest
>>> of the document?
>>
>> In the html version the font size is dependent on what browser default
>> size is set ... Ctrl + makes it bigger Ctrl - makes it smaller Ctrl .
>> resets to default. Does windoze version have similar?
>
> In all my browsers except Opera, the monospace text is much tinier than the
> regular text. Inspect element doesn't show anything untoward in the style
> sheets, so I suspect that there is some common browser default that sets
> monospace smaller than regular. This differential is present regardless of how
> many times you press Ctrl +.
>
> The text is exactly the same size in Opera. I have tweaked my Opera setup over
> the years, and I do remember messing with the monospace font size, so that
> /might/ explain why Opera is different for me.
>
> I have posted some screen shots to p.b.i.
>
> Web browsers: Chrome, Firefox, Konqueror, and Opera.
> Operating system: openSUSE 12.2 Linux/KDE.
>
>
>
In firefox edit->preferences->content->Fonts & Colors->Advanced you can
set the default monospace font size ... ctrl + and ctrl - work as expected
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-7-2013 22:38, James Holsenback wrote:
> In firefox edit->preferences->content->Fonts & Colors->Advanced you can
> set the default monospace font size ... ctrl + and ctrl - work as expected
I have the latest firefox, but there is no such thing as
edit->preferences->content->fonts.... ;-)
You get there through: Extra->Options->Content->Advanced.
Anyway, thanks for the tip because I had not realized it could be
adapted by the user. Logical when you think about it, but I still
assumed those things were fixed by the builder. My knowledge of html
dates from 10 years ago and my wiki knowledge is 0 :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
