User talk:Hephaestos/Articles
Sorry, Hephaestos, but on the assumption that you really would want to know, yes, it did hurt my eyes so much that I abandoned my effort to read your list of articles. Now, if someone constructs a "brag list" one assumes that person desires for those who click the link actually to read the list -- so where's the point of making it difficult to read? I'm not the sort of meany who would edit your CSS to use a more legible font in a larger size, although to do so might certainly get your attention! But please -- I really would like to read what you've done. So maybe you should reconsider the CSS. What if the whole of Wikipedia looked like that?
Just so you know I'm not at all hostile, just sincerely an ageing guy with indifferent vision -- I'm a Macintosh user, too: 300MHz Power Mac G3 beige model (before they went to fluorescent colours and translucent housings), OS 8.6. And drooling at the new dual-processor G5 as my machine's getting obsolete; more and more things are "no longer supported"... :-) Ditkoofseppala 01:09 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Same here -- I found it very hard to read. I would suggest a paler background colour and a larger typeface, if you can manage it. LOL Deb 17:39 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Sorry about that (especially Ditkoofseppala, I didn't even see your message til just now). I'll see if I can change it around today. The new has worn off. :) - Hephaestos 17:46 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Oh, I was disappointed to see all the fancy CSS stuff gone! Now it's legible but the fun has disappeared. Oh, well, maybe one day you'll find a middle way. Any way you cut it, it's a challenge to figure out how to list that many articles - your output is intimidating. Thanks for the kind words on the dog articles. I'll take your suggestion up with Sannse as I'm basically in agreement. What we humans call "breeds" are a special case indeed, since they don't exist at all without our intervention! Many dog people don't understand that and think their breed has species status, much to the detriment of the dogs themselves. Any taxa below species level are questionable, and sometimes even there the distinctions exist largely in the minds of the taxonomists. ;-)) Ditkoofseppala 23:52 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Nice to see you back. Hope the controversies ongoing don't turn you off the site... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 03:16, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)
- Not at all; although the controversies are annoying, they're not likely to drive me off. I do go out of town from time to time though and lose Internet access frequently when I do. - Hephaestos 17:17, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Tom, I appreciate that you found the problem with the page; nonstandard Microsoft detritus bugs me as well, and I often go around myself fixing it where I find it. (I had the whole 'pedia cleared of "8217" at one point, but there's no telling how much has re-accumulated since the search engine's been turned off.) I thought I was somewhat immune from it myself here, since I was doing the bullets with option-8 on a Macintosh, but as your screenshot proved, that wasn't the case.
On the other hand, it's an unfortunate abbreviation used by the HTML standard, and I just couldn't reconcile myself to having the list of articles I've worked on peppered with "bull," so I've replaced them with a middot. *grin*
Thanks again. - Hephaestos 17:17, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Sorry the entity is so unfortunately named :-). -- Tom
- Welcome back. :) - Hephaestos|§ 21:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Who's "Samuel W. Kearny"? I did a Google search and got one hit (interestingly... User:Hephaestos/Articles :-). ugen64 01:53, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)