User talk:Ingoolemo/Archive 07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Archive

• Archive 1: 2004, from May 23 to Dec 31
• Archive 2: 2005, from Jan 01 to Jun 23
• Archive 3: 2005, from Jun 23 to Sep 05
• Archive 4: 2005, from Sep 05 to Dec 01
• Archive 5: 2005, from Dec 01 to Feb 10
• Archive 6: 2006, from Feb 10 to Apr 14
• Archive 7: 2006, from Apr 14 to Jul 09
• Archive 8: 2006, from Jul 09 to Nov 15
• Current: current discussion

[edit] NO ILLEGAL PHOTOGRAPHY!

Here's that link to the crazy lady freaking out: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-901817593001531987&q=illegal+photography&pl=true She seriously screams for four and half minutes before they shut off the camera. Make sure to keep the speakers/headphone loud to hear what the people in the background are saying. Share with your friends! Useless Fodder 20:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Easter

Happy Easter/Zombie Jesus Day. Hope you're having fun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Useless Fodder (talk • contribs) .

[edit] 3-views

Please do not include the {{3-view}} template. It's meant as a {{subst:subst:subst:}} only. ericg ✈ 00:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP. You did not adequately test 300px, and that code (not 300px) is being pasted into the entries you're editing. I'm fixing this with {#if:} now, but hold on until I'm done. I'm having to follow you around and clean up. ericg ✈ 00:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Both 300px and {#if:} don't work properly if substituted. They affect the size, but the code remains and it's super sloppy. However, we can't have hundreds of template calls for something as simple as a 3-view image - that'll get the template nazis on our asses again for sure. You'll have to be content with manually controlling the size. I'm removing the size code from the template. ericg ✈ 01:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armament section of Airtemp

I see you've gotten in on this game as well. Unfortunately, the changes you made to the template leave a lot of whitespace (see XB-15, B-17, B-18), and the whitespace looks simply hideous. Also, it seems silly to have the armament section unbulleted when all the other sections of the specs are. Some of the linebreaks also seem gratuitous: why break lines to say that a plane can carry 10,000 lb of bombs? Ingoolemo ^talk 01:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to be asking a different question: why have parameters for armament at all? A simple |armament= section allows editors to format it as needed for the aircraft at hand. Why do we need a header for bombs at all when you can simply say "3,000 lb (x kg) of bombs or missiles"? ericg ✈ 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The way I've set the template up, the more restrictive code can be completely overwritten by specifying |armament= (using template syntax {{{armament|more restrictive code}}}). However, many aircraft don't need the looser code option have armament sections structured almost identically to the system I designed for the stricter code option, so we might as well templatise it. With this system, we can accommodate both flexibility and easy of input. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be happier if I put all the guns, etc. on the same line? I seem to remember that you're not fond of linebreaks. See my changes at XB-15. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fan of clarity, not a hater of linebreaks. Having one line for each weapon type/caliber/whatever adds clarity. Having a separate section for each type of weapon, however, just adds cruft. Compare:

• 2× 20mm cannon in the wings
• 3× 7.92mm machine guns in the nose

versus

• 2× 20mm cannon in the wings, 3× 7.92mm machine guns in the nose

The former clearly shows the two types of weapons carried, while the latter does so much less readily - the 3× is not immediately evident. Sections per type, however, don't do nearly as much, and often clutter up an otherwise clear topic. I'm also unsure about mentioning cannon in a header called 'guns' - they're not guns, they're cannon, and 'Guns: 3 machine guns' is redundant anyway. ericg ✈ 20:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think we were basically on the same page. The trouble with not bulleting the headings 'guns' 'bombs' etc. is that it inserts an extra (blank) line between the header and the bulleted list; had it not, I think we'd be on the same page formatting wise. I kind of overreacted, because in the classic skin inserting ; at the beginning of a line doesn't cause boldface. (If you could have seen what I saw, I think you'd understand my panic. But oh well.)

Your comment about the distinction between guns and cannon is an interesting one. I can see where your coming from, though I'd like to bring it up on WT:Air, because I'd be curious to get some more input.

'machine guns', by the way, is just meant to be a placeholder. Whenever possible, the exact brand name, and preferrably model, should be specified:

• Guns: 13× Browning M2 machine guns

Or something like that. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't realize that ; was treated as a bastard stepchild by the Classic skin. I'll keep that in mind in the future. I agree that we need to bring up the gun/cannon discussion with the rest of the project - it's a bit weird, imo, to have (as we would in some cases) a line that simply says Guns: 4× 20mm Hispano cannon. What you've got in place now seems to work, but I'm wary of the structural <br /> markup that's required - it's easy to miss and easier to screw up for non-html-savvy editors. It could simply be that including |armament= in the subst templates is not the best choice. ericg ✈ 16:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the more restrictive parametres from the subst templates. I think it's best if we let new editors add to |armament=, and we can come along and clean up as we need to. Also, rememember that you often have to include <nowiki></nowiki> for the stuff enclosed by <code></code> to show up. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 19:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, and oh yeah ;). ericg ✈ 19:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox consensus

I started a consensus thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft for the infobox. Please chime in. I also re-nom'ed myself for RfA. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of a phrase

You ask if there is a reasonable Latin translation for "People are dumb, persons are smart." Well, that is a terribly subtle turn of phrase, and no immediate equivalent springs to mind. I'm sure something equally clever could be hammered out if I thought about it, but these days I'm not sure I can put enough energy into the task to help you. I will let you know if I come up with anything, and if someone else gives you a translation let me know. --Iustinus 17:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox missile

The output is really messy if you use alt units unless you enforce specific column widths or a very large image. Writing main units (alt units) is a much simpler solution. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missile infobox

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Obviously we need consensus, but I'd like to see it rewritten to the same "look" as the aircraft infobox. It's pretty crowded with text too, perhaps inline specs with a summary infobox is a better solution for that project as well? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unless anyone has any objections to making WP:LV a subproject of WP:Air, I'm going to be starting a discussion on WT:Air and WT:LV about bringing LV standards more in line with our own. Ingoolemo ^talk 14:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standards for WikiProject Launch Vehicles

I've been thinking about the basically nonexistent response to the standards discussion at WT:LV. We've done everything we can to get users involved the process, but no one's piped up. Of the three original members of WP:LV, one has disappeared and the others didn't reply to the links I left on their talkpages. The new member should also be aware of it, but he's not.

My feeling is that the proposed standards are entirely within the realm of common sense, and the naming conventions are closer to WP:MOS than the current conventions are. Because we've done all we can to get others involved in the process, we should just go ahead and take action.

In two weeks (May 19), I propose that we change the WP:LV standards description and begin updating relevant articles.

In the mean time, I'll do what I can do get other editors to voice their opinions. Ingoolemo ^talk 00:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. I'd even bump it up by a week and start on the 12th since this has already been going on for a week. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 07:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft specification(s)

AzaToth's bot has been renaming "airtemp" to "aircraft specification" (singular) in the articles. I asked him to hold... is "aircraft specifications" (plural) ready? Can we make the singular a redirect to the plural? You might want to drop him a note on his user talk page. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Aircraft infobox

I've reverted your redirect from Aircraft infobox to Infobox aircraft. Please note that the Aircraft infobox template is used as part of the Crash infobox, as seen in Aeromexico Flight 498 and others. There may be multiple aircraft involved in a crash, hence the need for multiple incarnations of the aircraft infobox, rather than just filling in the blanks for one aircraft in the crash template. The emphasis here is on identifying the particular aircraft, including tail number, model, airline etc.

When you made a redirect, it screwed up all the aircraft crash articles. Luckily this was easily fixed. You may wish to check your work if you have done anything similar recently.

Of course, any changes to the crash and aircraft templates to make them better would be appreciated. I whipped them up by copy and paste and bang them into shape, and I'm quite sure that they could be worked on! --Jumbo 04:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3

[edit] edits to A-6 Intruder

I'm not sure about some of the logic behind your edits to this article. The infobox already contains a retirement date (1996) making |status = Retired completely redundant. Adding placeholders to loaded weight, an #ifed field, also doesn't make sense, as loaded weight isn't available for many if not most aircraft. Likewise, if you're going to add the units for wing loading, and you think it's important, then calculate the figures. There's no sense in #ifing fields if we're going to fill them with placeholders.

Anyway, that's how I feel the templates are logically used. If you've got decent reasons, though, I'm open to hearing them! ericg ✈ 04:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've emended the retirement dates. It might be worthwhile to mention that there are surving models in museums, though I was only able to do that for one article. If you ever feel magnanimous enough to babysit me, you can see which pages I've edited at User:Ingoolemo/Aircraft specifications (the ones I've done are struck out).

I often include loaded weight even when values aren't available, though you've persuaded me to cease this practice. My reasons for adding of wing loading units are to indicate to new editors how to calculate them. (Perhaps I should comment the units out instead?) Ingoolemo ^talk 21:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Commenting the units makes a bit more sense. A status of retired still doesn't mean that there are examples in museums, and anyway, that applies to most aircraft, including some currently active ones. There's even an F-22 in the U.S. Air Force Museum. ericg ✈ 00:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I meant that we should nix specifying the 'retired' status, and include those in museums if applicable. Ingoolemo ^talk 03:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] template cite web

Hi Ingolemoo. I fear there is a problem with [1]: you added date linking to parameter "date". I fear there could be calls out there in articles that do it like this:

• {{cite web | author=Doe, John | title=My Favorite Things Part II | publisher=Open Publishing | date=[[2005-04-30]] | work=Encyclopedia of Things | url=http://www.example.com/ | accessdate=July 6 | accessyear=2005 }}
  → Doe, John (2005-04-30). My Favorite Things Part II. Encyclopedia of Things. Open Publishing. Retrieved on July 6, 2005.

If we add the link to date in the template, then this interferes with calls that do the date linking in the call of the template. --Ligulem 22:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Ingoolemo, could you please give me a hint about the "arrows above quote" problem in the Napolitano article? --Gennaro Prota^•Talk 17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the article, and it seems fine to me. Would you mind uploading a screenshot for me? (I'd upload one to show you, but the pathetic box I'm working at right now can't convert bitmaps to gifs.) Ingoolemo ^talk 19:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry for the noise. Once you said me that it looked fine on your side I went back to the code, as I couldn't believe my Firefox was doing something wrong :) So, it turned out that I put the quote entities around the whole [url title] tag, rather than just around title. Therefore the double arrow image appeared before the last quote, and with particularly small fonts it sometimes seemed on top of it, as I said. Sorry again. I fixed it, as you can see from the edit history. BTW, do you really use quotes within quotes in English? It looks quite ugly to me, but I won't object, of course, if it is the usual typographical convention. --Gennaro Prota^•Talk 19:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do sometimes say something like, "As I was leaving for the market today, my mother said, 'Don't forget your socks.'" However, the issue here is more one of citation convention. I certainly don't pretend to be an expert, but I'm fairly confident in my understanding of the system: in citing a newspaper/magazine article or webpage, the proper format is "House Republicans Say "No New Taxes"". Ingoolemo ^talk 19:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good news to me :) --Gennaro Prota^•Talk 00:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thank You!

Thanks Ingoolemo,

I am honored by your support in my recent successful request for adminship. As an administrator, I am your servant, ready to help however I can. (In your case, since you've had the tools longer than I, my best use might be menial labor!) My talk page is always open; should you need anything, or should you see me making a mistake -- probably a common occurrence -- please do let me know. I will depend on the good sense of the community to keep me from making a complete fool of myself! :) In gratitude, Xoloz 16:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox width

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Are you sure you want to permit specifying infobox width? As soon as some enthusiastic editor with a high screen resolution discovers this, we will get 400-px-wide infoboxes. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

By replacing my code with {{#ifexpr:23<{{{infoboxwidth|23}}}|23|{{{infoboxwidth|23}}}}}em, we should be able to set the width to no more than 23em. There are probably some other options as well. Fortunately, there's not much rush, so we should be too worried just yet.

The reason why I made the addition was because of articles like the Abrial A-3 Oricou, where little information is available to add into the infobox, and thus a lot of whitespace is present. Ingoolemo ^talk 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. So long as we don't get 400px infoboxes it's fine by me. :) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now successfully written an #ifexpr that will prevent the width from ever being greater than 23em. Ingoolemo ^talk 18:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted Infobox Aircraft to the <table> tag because {| creates an extra linebreak in conjunction with the WP:Air header comment (just one of those inexplicable Wiki quirks). Our options are either to keep the table tag which will not tolerate expr within it or to edit all pages using the infobox so the box code starts on the same like as the WP:Air header comment (boring but very easy with AWB). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Since it's just a matter of an extra linebreak, I don't think it's too much of an issue. Since I'm busy with my 'updates and tweaks' to all articles using {{aircraft specifications}}, I should be able to fix the linebreak issue in most of the articles in question.

As a side note, can you remind me what template you're using to insert the WP:Air header? Ingoolemo ^talk 17:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I copy and paste from a file on my computer. :) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 19:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox problem

I reverted Infobox Aircraft to the <table> tag because {| creates an extra linebreak in conjunction with the WP:Air header comment (just one of those inexplicable Wiki quirks). Our options are either to keep the table tag which will not tolerate expr within it or to edit all pages using the infobox so the box code starts on the same like as the WP:Air header comment (boring but very easy with AWB). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watch it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
• Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
• Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific nations or periods.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 00:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 00:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monobook tool

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

You asked if the monobook tool would work with the classic skin and I said it would not. Would you considered going to the 'Monobook default' skin just to test it? Regards bobblewik 17:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the tool well enough, but for some reason or another I've never made much use of automation—even when I liked the idea. If you could figure out a way, it'd be great if you could develop a way to do it in Classic. (Or maybe I'll try—I resolved to learn JavaScript this summer.) Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 22:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I got your suggestion for Jang Yeongsil article for editing the dates? Thanks for the suggestion, and this is what I did: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikimachine/monobook.css". What does it do and how do I make it work? Thanks.

(Wikimachine 21:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] MediaWiki:Standard.js

(please do not use your threads system on my talk page)

You do know that editing that file does nothing, right? Only monobook-derived skins have these editable JavaScript files (see Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes for the list). --cesarb 03:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I find your comments rather surprising. Do you mean to say that those pages exist for no real purpose? Ingoolemo ^talk 04:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That page exists only because someone else who also thought it would work created it. It is kept because, when (and if) the developers decide to add support for it, it'll work as expected. --cesarb 05:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki:Edittools

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

As you may have noticed, some wikimarkup shortcuts were recently added there, some of which are redundant with existing buttons and some of which are redundant with your buttons. Because I like the editbuttons better than the edittools, I have written some scripts for those edittools that don't have equivalent editbuttons. If you would like to add them to your own Extra editbuttons script, visit User:Ingoolemo/extraextraeditbuttons.js.

Thanks for the good work with the extra buttons by the way. I absolutely love them.

If you have any better ideas for the GIFs I've created for my scripts, feel free to revise them. The files are: , , , and .

By the way, if you don't want to see the wikimarkup section of edittools, add

#edittools_wikimarkup {display:none;}

to User:MarkS/monobook.css. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The new shortcuts they have added at the bottom makes the editing interface a little inconsistent. It was okay having just characters at the bottom. However, now they have added markup to the bottom the result is some markup at the top and some markup at the bottom. Just feels confusing to me.

I like your new buttons and have added them into the development version of User:MarkS/Extra edit buttons.

However, the images look a little different to the main buttons. My intention is edit the images to make them look consistent and then upload these new version as a separate version from your originals (they will probably be PNG anyway to ensure consistency with the existing buttons). Once that's done (and tested on IE/FireFox and Opera) I will move it to live. --MarkS (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Id tag.. brillant.

Re: [2]. Why not put a tag around the entire text so people who don't want to see it can hide the whole thing? No need to sync threads. :) --Gmaxwell 03:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, such an id tag already exists. MediaWiki:Newarticletext begins with <div class="plainlinks" id="newarticletext">, so if you really feel the need not to see it, you can add #newarticletext {display: none;} to your personal CSS to make it invisible.

Learning suppressing all the warning notices has been a nice trick to learn, because by now I know the policies well enough that they just take up space.

Thanks for the suggestion anyway. Ingoolemo ^talk 22:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For your work on scripts, especially the very useful extra edit buttons script, I, Piotrus, present you with the da Vinci Barnstar.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am honoured, of course, at receiving this recognition, but I must be completely honest about my programming skills. I have never learned JavaScript in even the most rudimentary fashion; my additions to Mark's buttons were a fine example of the 'cut, paste, and pray' school of programming. But nevertheless, thank you for your recognition. I'm sure I will earn it as time goes on. Ingoolemo ^talk 00:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My extra buttons suggestions

1. Can the order be changed, especially the order of 'standard' buttons?
2. can you add 'hide button' option, allowing people to easily customize which buttons they want to have visible? I'd guess what would be easier would be if people could have a personalized script in their monobook, with easy 'how-to' on/off for buttons, and changing order option.
3. New button ideas:
   1. for tl templates: {{tl|Template name}}
   2. for subst templates: {{subst:Template name}}
   3. for advanced references: <ref name="Insert ref name">Insert reference material</ref>
   4. for advanced images: [[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|left/right|100px|Caption]]
   5. for one-click insertion of specific templates. This I'd suggest be exportable to individual user monobook, because it would most certainly clutter the toolbar for other users with useless templates. I, for example, would like to have buttons for {{disambig}} and {{User:Piotrus/w}}.

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily the person to approach with these suggestions; I would suggest talking to MarkS, but you probably have already.

With regards to your first question, I really have no idea. A possibility for the second one: if there was a way to insert CSS id tags into the images, then a user could hide the buttons with their personal CSS.

And now, some brief comments about your suggestions:

1. Easy to add using cut, paste, and pray (CPP)
2. use CPP
3. I've considered this one as well, but I'm not sure how to do it. MarkS might know.
4. CPP may work
5. CPP may work

Thank you for your kind words and for your involvement in userscripts. Good luck! Ingoolemo ^talk 00:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank for the barnstar. Turning to your questions:

1. The order of the extra edit buttons could be changed by actually copying the code into your monobook.js and then just changing the order it builds the buttons. I am not aware of any way to change the order of the standard buttons - at the moment any onload events the user creates for manipulating pages (which allows you to move elements around) are called before the toolbar is built (this is a problem I had with the old version of extra edit buttons). It might be possible to hide inidividual buttons on the standard toolbar (using some sort of CSS) and then expand extra edit buttons to recreate the standard buttons in the middle of the extra edit buttons.
2. Good idea. I will look into this. Not sure the CSS ID option will work because the code that builds the actual toolbar (which is provided by wikimedia not the extra edit buttons) doesn't seem to allow you to add a ID.
3. New button ideas
   1. Cut and paste would allow you to do this.
   2. Cut and paste would allow you to do this.
   3. Not sure - I will have a look when I get a chance (see below)
   4. Cut and paste would allow you to do this. Having said this I am willing to look at expanding the standard toolbar and then allowing the user to turn individual buttons on/off so it doesn't get too big.
   5. We could look at having some customize buttons with very simple settings in your monobook to turn them on and off.

I'm probably not around for the next week or so, so I can't look immediately. I will look back here as soon as I can, and will then look at the code. Would you be willing to comment on a test version? --MarkS (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)