User talk:Card Zero

Re: [1]. Can you explain why you intentionally edit while logged out?—Kww(talk) 18:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's for psychological reasons. I answer questions on the ref desks a lot. It seems that under a user name, I desire to defend my point of view and enter into arguments, rather than maintaining a proper WP:DGAF state of mind.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just seen your pixel-y note which looks way to advanced and complicated for me but very promising. Thanks so much for your help with this! ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 11:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's finished now (or so I think), I just have to upload it. Ugh, putting images on Commons is almost as much work as making them in the first place. Update: done, see graphic lab page.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, wonderful. Well done! I'm hoping to give the whole Dindigul page an overhaul over the next week or so. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 15:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me vectorise this file [2]? --Vinie007 20:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a go, why not.  Card Zero  (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really thanks, I can't wait to see the result :D --Vinie007 16:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still working... gold border is looking nice.

• 
  Done! (Have I made it fat? Does it have big feet? Probably been staring at it for too long.)
• JPG version for you
  JPG version for you

 Card Zero  (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm not bad if you can fix the eagle and the stars it would be great. Also found something on the net what isn't 2x2mm picture (see File:Stema keshilli ministrave.jpg), hope it is usefull --Vinie007 10:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is going to be a useful guide, yes. Doing a total overhaul of the eagle at the moment.  Card Zero  (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but don't forget the stars :D. I realy like the outside part, that's just perfect. --Vinie007 15:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Card, can you help me with this File:Kategoria Superiore.jpg file by vectorising it? --Vinie007 10:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is done ;D --Vinie007 06:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Albanian Barnstar of National Merit
	Thanks for the great quality logo you created! Vinie007 15:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	this WikiAward was given to Card Zero by Vinie007 on 15:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, fantastic. I feel re-motivated.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your list of Boggle failures had me in absolute stitches, CardZero. Thank you for giving me the best uncontrollable belly laugh I've had in months. I didn't realise how overdue I was. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. For context, for the benefit of any future passer-by, here is that list: pantismo, randigo, canalet, togasm, rantasy, rhubats, nudistic, starehen, dreme, moronet, erratica, hatories, ectopath, screwist, roqueteer, outpee, erminal, nautimen, tardrace.  Card Zero  (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a "dreme" might be a kind of artificial dream, like artificial cream.  Card Zero  (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see Greek symbols among the various squiggles, take a look at the research paper itself [3]. The say the symbols include "some Greek letters" on page3. They transcribed the symbols using short abbreviations for the letters which are on page 4 of the paper. It looks like del is Greek delta, gam is gamma, lam is lambda, there is pi of course. What confuses things is they used "nu" and "mu" for "n underlined" and "m underlined" rather than the Greek letters of those names. The equilateral triangle, base down could have been encoded as uppercase delta, but they didn't. They one they transcribed as "sqi" looks like uppercase gamma, but they didn't call it that. Their "iot" may be Greek iota, lower case. Regards. Edison (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. I was mistaken, and am not very good at recognising Greek glyphs. However, the plain Roman characters (unlike the Greek ones) all code for spaces, and so long as the article says that part, I'm happy.  Card Zero  (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. No, there is no systematic policy against use of 'English'. It seems very appropriate to have 'English', 'Welsh' etc. in contexts where that categorisation seems the essential identifier, rather than Britain or British. My misgivings about them were purely re-active, as it looked as if it was becoming Wikipedia policy always to prefer the regional terms, 'English', 'Scottish' &c. rather than the national one. I wondered whether such a policy might be taken to have a political edge, out of keeping with an encyclopedia. It would also be inconsistent in that Wikipedia doesn't seem to adopt such a policy in the case of any other country - e.g. Germans are referred to as Germans rather than Hanoverians, Prussians, Bavarians &c.; Italians as Italians rather than Piedmontese, Marchese, Apulians &c. (even in cases where 'German' and 'Italian' might strictly speaking be regarded as anachronistic). Similarly terms such as Chinese, Indian, Russian are used rather than regional identities. (And naturally it is displeasing to Welshmen, Scots and Irish if movements into and out of Britain are habitually described as movements into and out of England.) Would it be appropriate to begin articles with the broad nationality term and allow the unfolding of the article to indicate to the reader any further categorisation? Of course if a person was known to be a passionate local nationalist, it will seem appropriate and courteous to use as a main descriptor such a term as Welsh, Cornish, Karelian, Basque, Catalan &c. &c. Category terms can be focussed legitimately in many different ways. So it may be courteous to allow in the Category terms at the end of articles - say - both 'Spanish politician' and 'Catalan politician', or 'British novelist' and 'Irish novelist', in order to allow searches from legitimately different starting-points. (Even though some editors would want to regard one term as a sub-term of the other.) Another possibility (which I see has happened in some articles) is to drop the habit of adding a nationality term at the beginning of every article. More often than not it is not relevant to the person's achievement. I think somebody questioned long ago whether there could be a German mathematics distinct from a French mathematics. Please accept my apologies if my misgivings about habitually defining British people as English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish &c. seemed unfounded.Swansnic (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I might have a look through some of them later to see if they fit the description "passionate local nationalist", or even vaguely fit it. In those cases I think you needn't have changed anything.  Card Zero  (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me more about your experience trying to use Inform and why you rated it 'interesting rather than good' in your post at the reference desk? RJFJR (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I should maybe have mentioned that I was referring to Inform 7, which is radically different from Inform 6. It seems that 6 is a sensible and mundane language tailored for writing text adventures, similar to some others such as ADRIFT - so I gather from browsing Interactive Fiction Competition results. I haven't ever used 6 (except as one or two little inclusions within code written in 7).

Inform 7 is an extraordinary effort to allow the writing of adventure games in natural language, for the benefit of writers of fiction rather who aren't programmers. It's simultaneously brilliant, absurd, rational, and awkward, like a conlang. Some problems:

• Turning English phrases into aliases for 6's keywords and symbols isn't a royal road to high-level abstraction. You can't say "computer, create an adventure game with the following characteristics ..." and continue as if having a conversation or writing a novel. It just means that now you have to memorise an arcane set of English phrases instead of the usual keywords and symbols.
• Some of the English words which are now magically endowed with the power to control the workings of the game may in fact be words you want to use as part of the game, particularly as the names of objects, causing conflicts and confusion.
• Some of the English words which you naturally try to use to control the workings of the game may in fact be slightly incorrect, and so are interpretted differently (perhaps interpretted as the names of objects), causing conflicts and confusion. Beware trying to write in a natural style!
• Though the compiler tries to understand natural language, it isn't, of course, an actual AI, so it constantly fails to understand what you mean. One example of this which features in the manual is the problem with saying "The Airport is west of the Airport Road" . If an "Airport Road" already exists, then "The Airport" will be understood as an abbreviated reference to it (in the same way that you might create a "School of Dance and Occult Sciences" and then refer to it later as just "The School"). The outcome is that there will be no airport, and the airport road will be west of itself. The way out of the problem is to use the keyword called ... so now there is the situation where saying "east of the Airport Road is a room called the Airport" means something significantly different from "east of the Airport Road is the Airport". More subtle syntax, waiting to trip you up. Note also the absurdity of using the keyword room to describe every location, such as an airport or a road.
• The task of writing a game - or the nature of the things I attempt to achieve - pulls against using natural language. For instance, I began writing a game set on an ocean liner. Many of the rooms would be cabins, which would all have certain characteristics in common. Inform 7 allows you to associate adjectives with object types, so that you can say, for instance, "a window can be triangular", and create some rules about triangular things, and thereafter declare that certain windows are triangular. This is fine for common adjectives, but how do you say "like a cabin"? I ended up writing "A room can be cabinoid." My code tends to fill up with strange semi-nonsense words in this way.
• Something similar to the inner platform effect can occur. There are a lot of special-purpose pieces of syntax for entities such as transparent containers. This is fine if you work with what's supplied. If on the other hand you want to create fundamental, low-level effects that the language designers hadn't thought of, you can get into terrible kludgy knots. I had a lot of trouble with a game where I tried to start the player in darkness, and I found myself constantly fighting against the built-in rules for the scope of vision.
• You can write libraries to achieve effects and make those effects portable from one game to another - for instance, there's a much-used library for dealing with opening and closing objects that have locks on. My workflow seemed often to follow this pattern:

1. Begin writing a game.
2. Realise a special effect is needed.
3. Begin writing a library to deal with it.
4. Several days pass. Continue trying to debug the library so it works in every imaginable situation.
5. Give up. Begin a new game.

I found Inform 7 delightful, but was almost entirely unproductive with it - I never got a game written to a standard where I'd let it out in public. This was alright because writing in Inform 7 is itself a lot like playing a text adventure, in the classic guess-the-verb idiom. It was five years ago that I did most of my dabbling with Inform; if I began again (as I suddenly feel the urge to) I could probably supply you with a longer and more detailed rant about it.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the description. I looked at it a while back, thought it was interesting, wondered how the debugging would be...and never got anywhere. My problem was I didn't have any good puzzles for a game and didn't see any point in trying to write anything until I did. I like your description of writing in Inform7 being like playing a text game, it makes me want to try to design a game again. RJFJR (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop your disruptive editing at Trilby hat? You clearly have good to contribute... so contribute, and quit this edit warring. I recommend you rewrite the lead to suit your vision and see how that stands. Your edits[4], [5], [6] are unacceptable. Already one edit has been reverted[7] and more will follow unless you justify your editing patterns and comment at the talk page.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 06:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to remove that citation. Not sure how that happened. Maybe I inadvertently based my edits on an old version? I'll be happy to comment on the talk page.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add this to sign see first page? Vinie007 16:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. (Rushed job, but looks OK at the sizes it appears in articles.)  Card Zero  (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking the unusual step of starting a thread on my own talk page, because I saw user:Count_Iblis mention this problem on the ref desk talk page:

"Arguably there exists a large number of universes where you exist and where you don't exist and whatever you choose do to doesn't matter at all, except for which World you end up in. The World where people died because [of something you did] simply exists, even if you decide not to ..."

(The context was actually a discussion about a deleted ref desk question about the best method to commit suicide, so I don't really want to interrupt it with philosophical nonsense.)

So I have a couple of things to say about that. First of all, the problem gets worse. Not only is it apparently irrelevant whether you kill people or not, since the multiverse as a whole remains unchanged, it's also irrelevant whether you do anything at all, good or bad. The awareness of living in a multiverse, on the face it, ought to undermine all motivation. What's more, the exception "except for which World you end up in" doesn't apply either; a multiverse is a deterministic thing, since it plots out all probabilities and is completely static, so all the many worlds in which you end up are predetermined.

Except, of course, the prefix "pre-" doesn't really apply, since the multiverse exists outside of time; time is a function of the multiverse. I think this is a clue to the solution. "Change" doesn't have meaning in the context of the multiverse either. However, change does have a meaning from a human perspective. Though all our hopes, dreams, successes, failures, and ideas may be predetermined, they still exist, and the concept of change is among those ideas. It would be a mistake to see humans as mechanistic simply because one has an idea of a mechanism for time, within which everything functions.

There's a related idea which I can't think of a better article for at the moment than WP:duck. If a simulated duck is identical in every way to a duck, then it is a duck. (This is the answer to people who say "what if life is just dream" - the answer is "so what if it is?", and "if that means nothing, it isn't true".) Well, the reality of change, and a sense of purpose, and morality, isn't diminished by a deterministic structure for time; and a non-deterministic structure is something I can't imagine, since it would entail randomness without even underlying probabilities. If a decision quacks like it matters, so to speak, then it actually does matter.  Card Zero  (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It would seem to me that each possible "universe" is individually predestined, and the morality dilemma you cite is the usual conundrum of predestination. The large number of universes in which it occurs is irrelevant. However, I would make a different suggestion, namely, that the choice of universe is the moral factor, which is made in response to decisions and subjective experience gained by passing through a succession of universes; the linear dimension created when some set of universes is strung together according to some set of laws, which are not usual physical laws, becomes a dimension of spiritual time, in which development truly occurs. In the physical time dimension events are predestined according to one's character; but one's character has been chosen through decisions made in spiritual time according to a different set of laws, and can change in future versions of the universe. Motion in physical time would resemble progress through spiritual time by a rule of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"; the subjective experience of consciousness would occur within this two-dimensional time. Further postulated, though not required for the previous - that the creation of the universe in the spiritual sense occurs within the same dimension of spiritual time in which consciousness evolves. If so, the succession of universes need not be within the narrow confines of alternate random events; there could be one with a physical Garden of Eden, one with a flat Earth, one with an actual ark floating on an endless ocean, who knows? It would be impossible to determine except by the most seemingly subjective processes of reflection and inspiration. Wnt (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Eviolite. I noticed that you recently removed content from Cup and ring mark without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. eviolite (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, put the explanation on the talk page, then forgot to write an edit summary. The explanation is quite involved, but basically what I deleted (despite being in the opening paragraph for years) has nothing at all to do with the subject of the article - or if it does, some extensive additional writing about the connection is needed, along with more references to back it up.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For the image of that cat with a bunch of packing peanuts sticking to it at the misc ref desk. Seeing that image made me a laugh as the cat just seems to be saying, "Help me." I originally gave this to Jayron32 thinking they were the one who posted the image but they corrected me and told me it was you. So good job! ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sits nicely alongside the The Albanian Barnstar of National Merit, the whimsical balancing the solemnly dignified.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little House on the Prairie - Documentary

Any other documentaries? 86.129.82.10 (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the double negative! Pauloroboto (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not get a response to this question. Did you find the answer anywhere else? I don't know how to answer but I saw the question.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm going to assume from the silence that it just doesn't matter. Intrusive adverts are a fact of internet life, I suppose, even if they're the stealthy pop-under variety, so it's still a usable source I guess. Thank you for your kind attention. :)  Card Zero  (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using internet and Youtube on smart TV

So I cannot use the Internet on smart tv? And I can't use Youtube either? 86.131.21.36 (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see somebody has answered this now. We can reassure you that using the smart TV doesn't cost money, but we can't tell you what you're supposed to do, because that's none of our business and we don't know.  Card Zero  (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago, I submitted a question to the reference desk about not being able to see characters in articles that use ancient Egyptian script. You asked if I could see every symbol in the Egyptian Hieroglyphics Unicode Block. I can. The characters I cannot see aren’t the hieroglyphics, but the characters used for transliteration. Primal Groudon (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the page Transliteration of Ancient Egyptian there are a couple of glyphs that don't render on my devices: the lowercase and capital Egyptological yod. There is some discussion on the page of the slow adoption of these symbols into Unicode. It says the sign was added in 2019 (presumably meaning both upper and lower), but codepoints.net denies that either sign exists: [8] [9]. They are listed in this official table, but codepoints.net is unaware of the glyphs from A7B8 to A7F6, inclusive. I'm not sure yet what this means. Perhaps codepoints.net has not been updated in recent years? Perhaps also there are no fonts typically installed on our systems which include these glyphs? Do you have trouble with these specific glyphs too, or did you have some other page in mind with other glyphs on it?  Card Zero  (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you committing a fraud huh?!?! yeah i prefer hers over her while i writing determiner

You made a table

Possessive Hers his

Accusative Her Him

Determiner Her His

Aaaaaqaaqaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa The word her is the most annoying thing i ever witness why there is female qhy there is male. And our world female population fewer than male currently? UrutoramanGuy66 (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UrutoramanGuy66/sandbox please look at me i had modify the word her to hers by adding letters UrutoramanGuy66 (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I've blocked this editor as a likely sockpuppet. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never got a chance to respond to your comment, but goddamn it, that cartoon is funny as all hell and I LOL in a very big way that scared every cat in the neighborhood and sent them running in all directions. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Card Zero Thanks for detailed insight at WP:RD/H. While looking for sources, during ongoing discourse many people incl. Wikipedians might not have taken into account that Tamil script word for Sengol is transliterated with multiple spellings in English and Sanskrit word for the sceptre is 'Danda' so for accessing more sources one may need to google with more words and spellings there of. I am working on User:Bookku/Indian sceptre in sandbox where I have collected more refs, some of which may interest you, but sandbox article is still under development. Thanks. Bookku (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you would need to cite a source, but in this case you should not add the example anyway per the hidden text that you ignored: "This section is RESTRICTED to the nine examples given by Lederer. Additions will be removed". It's not a list article. Sundayclose (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Well, I didn't ignore that, I refrained from looking at it, slightly different. Actually I think you're incorrect on both points.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I asked on the help desk about this type of reference, and I take it back, because of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. So you're correct on that point. You're incorrect on the point about the hidden text, which does not apply to the section I was editing.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I was not careful enough. Apologies. Feel free to restore your edit, BUT you do need to cite with more detail than what you provide in the text. Read WP:CITE. Be sure to include a page number. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this,[10] I think your hunch is correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent help on my questions at the reference desk! I'm giving you the personal award the "hand wash only" badge for your handy assistance. Temerarius (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's definitely not a zimmer frame. What's the D261 that won't render? Is that even a valid hieroglyph number?  Card Zero  (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should download Jsesh! It's this one. https://i.postimg.cc/2jsXbtmY/image.png

Temerarius (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page indicates an interest in animals. Look closely at this image. There's some kind of animal at the lower part of the image buried beneath the drawing on top. It looks like a reptile of some kind? I can see a head, eyes, and feet, but not much else. Any ideas? It reminds me of a turtle, but there's no shell. What's weird, is that the artist reused the paper from a previous drawing even though they apparently had enough money to use new paper. Part of the literature on the subject says they were wealthy, but the other part says they didn't have any money after their father died, so maybe they were trying to conserve the paper that they had by reusing it. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I bet it's a fish of some kind. Finns like fish, and that's not even a pun, it's a land of lakes and rivers. Based on my intensive research into survival in the Finnish wilderness, it's probably one of Perch, Roach, Bream, Pike-perch, Pike, Burbot, Trout, Salmon, or Lavaret. I don't think there are any feet. Below it and to the right (along with writing, including a probable year, 95, and perhaps wikt:den#Swedish since Finland was formerly Swedish) there is a tiny human head, which may be a miniature of the main image. Probably what happened here is the artist was doodling, drew a tiny self-portrait, was seized by the desire to replicate it much larger, and had to keep going on the same paper due to accidentally creating something good. Spontaneity, you know.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For some reason, I only see a bearded dragon. I will consider switching to decaf. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the writing is (bigger) "nov-94" and (smaller) "den 4 okt-95", hence the uncertain date given.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The picture has an article: Self-Portrait (Ellen Thesleff). It mention "trance-like, automatic drawing", which could explain some peculiar marks, and that it "may have begun as a similar sketch along these same lines" - is that the tiny face? I'm confident that the tiny face is a face, but I begin to doubt whether there's any animal, fish or lizard. It is after all very easy to see any blob as being an eye. Certainly there are some lines in sepia, suggesting a distinct object there. If we look only at the sepia ink and ignore pencil marks, it loses coherence as an animal - the fish's forehead vanishes, being merely a difference in contrast between areas of pencil. I tried to make some sense of the marks as clothing, perhaps the knot of a headscarf, but I can't see anything in them. In the spirit of automatic drawing, it might be a jumble of experimental portions of another Ellen Thesleff.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt to contact the editor who wrote the article and see if they know what’s going on. Viriditas (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Card Zero, it turns out that art historian Leena Ahtola-Moorhouse argues that Thesleff includes hidden figures such as animals in a lot of her works, but this idea appears to be disputed by others. Just wanted to let you know. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trained to see them everywhere by Mitsumasa Anno, e.g. [11], [12].  Card Zero  (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that I think your original idea was correct. I think the image is of a fish. It turns out the artist was really into fishing. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer on the refdesk is one of the best answers I've ever received. Seriously, thanks. I hope you don't mind if I reach out to you for answers in the future. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I toned down "The game is best known in North America..." from the Rally-X article, because it cannot be supported. You're saying it's better known for that urban legend than for being a fun and popular game? That's pure opinion, possibly colored by nostalgia. Dgpop (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but the sentence needs a verb. I think you should always fix things carefully so they don't end up differently broken.

Tell you what, I'll just remove the word "best", are you cool with that?  Card Zero  (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed that the other edit of yours, where you removed a link, might have been because it was piped, which is against some guideline somewhere. Principle of least surprise, maybe. But in this case I think it's fine because the difference between what the link says and where it goes isn't very surprising or all that different. Since I made it link to a section now I should really add an anchor to the target in case it gets renamed one day. But anyway I thought it was a nice and interesting page to link to, and it was a shame to remove it.  Card Zero  (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]