Welcome to Philosopher's talk page.



Hi Philosopher! Just letting you know that when you add categories to U.S. States which already have the name of the state as a category (i.e. If a page has Category:Hawaii) you don't need to add Category:U.S. states to the page. This is because the state category will already have Category:U.S. states as a parent category. Hope this makes sense. Cheers! -Orashmatash- 17:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The instructions for Category:U.S. states said that the state should be in it as well as the state's category. This makes sense and is consistent with the instructions for eponymous categories at en's WP:EPON. Since our local guideline doesn't touch on that kind of category, I assumed it defaulted to the en.wikipedia guideline, per WP:Rules. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well, Djsasso seems to agree with you (he's reverting the others), so maybe I was mistaken. I still think it's unhelpful for readers if categories that have identically-named subcategories are only in that category. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Actually I was just reading your comment here now and am surprised by en's instructions on the matter. I have always seen it done this way on en in the subject areas I edit. So its possible I am wrong. Their instructions don't make sense to me to be honest. -DJSasso (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
The problem is that if you don't make an exception to the rule for eponymous categories, articles like Iowa and France, if categorized consistently, will only ever be in Category:Iowa and Category:France, respectively (excluding maintenance categories). Which kind of defeats the purpose of categories, in my opinion. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Oh I know...to me that is sort of the goal on main articles like a country or state, to reduce down to the most important categories possible. And if you need further categorization you click through the cats. But I can completely see your other point. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply



I found the stat by dividing Iowa's population (3,046,355) by the area in kilometers (145,743 km squared). The mile figures are also off; however, the source I used for the population lists Iowa's square mile population density at 54.5, not the enWP's 53.5 square miles, which leads me to think the mistake is not on our part. Albacore (talk · changes) 22:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. Since we don't have a source for the information in the infobox currently, any objection to my sticking the Census information there w/ reference? (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/19000.html, bottom of the page) I think I'll do the same thing to en:Iowa. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
This is already used as a source in our infobox. Best, Albacore (talk · changes) 23:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Oh, good. Didn't notice that for some reason. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:refToolbar 2.0


Can you please install it here? ;) --weltforce (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I tried - doesn't seem to have worked, so I've asked for some assistance at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Gadget problems. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure how stable those userscripts are. The change here meant that en:MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js wasn't getting imported. It's working on my screen now (I'm using monobook with Firefox). Does it work okay for you now? Osiris (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it's working now. Thanks! --weltforce (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Working here, too (Vector with Chrome). Thanks! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply



Hello. -- (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Admin activity


This is just notice to let you know your account was below the inactivity requirement of 100 edits and/or actions on October 1st. Should you still be below 100 on January 1st your admin tools will be removed per WP:Inactive administrators. If you know you will not be active in the next couple of months feel free to let us know and we can just remove them now otherwise it will be done automatically at the beginning of the new year. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You can help me understand better? (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC) I want to talk freely to someone (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Do you know what my concerns are? (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC) I am happy to help :)Reply