User talk:ChyranandChloe
Click here to leave a new message
Changes of titles and boundaries: eye movement
Now just one minute. I saw no notification of these changes on talk pages. Why is eye momement now cast totally in terms of "sensory" in that article? The categories "Eye movement in reading" and "Eye movement in music reading" are now totally unsatisfactory. Move them back, please, to language and music, respecitvely. TONY (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Eye movement is an ambiguous term — a term relative to its context — provided that there is also Eye movement in reading and Eye movement in music reading; therefore a disambiguation is necessary, and the slot where "Eye movement" formerly held has been allocated to that of the disambiguation page. Furthermore "Eye movement" has been categorized as a "Sensory system – Visual system and eye movement" well before the move was made. Eye movement in reading, formerly named Eye movement in language reading, is over-elaborated: the "language" portion is unnecessary as there can be no reading unless there is language medium. "Eye movement in music reading" has not undergone any major changes except for the addition of the disambiguation link and the a slight modernization of its syntax. I apologize that the warrant came after the move; seeing that the discussion pages has been well under-develop, a sign of inactivity, there was no need for one. I can agree that each article is unsatisfactory to some degree, but in a way this move brings the attention needed to either improve these articles or bring about their merger. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Further vandalism will result in an AN/I. Please heed this warning. As I've flagged elsewhere, I'm taking steps to move the language reading title back to its former wording. Do NOT make major changes without consensus, and certainly not before discussion on the talk page; this unilateral action now characterises your activity.
- Your presumption is insulting, if you wish to continue this discussions please see the talk pages in which the articles are in dispute. This talk page is not a vehicle for a transgressing personal attack. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Flush left
Hello. I don't know if prominent portals and icons are going to be well received. If they are I still love this design for daring to make them show up. One comment, and apologies because I'd have to look up a source if you need one. In English, left to right is the default for reading, thus flush left text. I find the text-align:right an understandable choice here but too hard to read. —SusanLesch (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Woops, so sorry I didn't notice this was already reported. I will try to check back in a week or so to see the latest developments on your proposal. Good luck! —SusanLesch (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
hide/show main page design
Hi, thanks a lot for your help on the syntax of my main page idea (and sorry it took me so long to get back to you). I've finally put up some responses (thread link), including more about the "little white boxes."
I also wanted to tell you that I'll have only infrequent internet access for the next week or two, and so I'm thinking of archiving my proposal and putting up a copy that everyone else can feel free to mess around with. If you see that I've done that, and want to take a stab at it, consider yourself personally invited. — eitch 16:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there ChyranandChloe. You made some good comments on my proposal, and I was wondering if you could fix the coding with your suggestions? That would be much appreciated! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent - thanks a bunch for your help there, it's much appreciated. Take care! Ryan Postlethwaite 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
IRC
I'm in a lot of different channels, #wikipedia-bag on freenode is the most related. BJTalk 18:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)