Thanks and persistent LQT replies problem
Thanks for cleaning up the 5 characters with structure problems. I still don't get the logic of their structure. How can we have formatting rules that work for them? How can the bots treat them in accordance with their special features?
BTW, I started a new thread because I could not look at the replies at the existing threads. The number of replies would appear, I click on what was clickable, an icon momentarily appears, and the screer remains except no replies are shown to exist. Does LQT have the effect of dividing the community into those who opt in and those who do not? I will not be able to see your replies if there are solely on this page. Thus you can't conform to the notice on the top of the page and maintain contact with non LQT users who leave a message with you here, AFAICT.
It was really my fault. Some of the POSes had a distinct pronunciation associated with them, so I mistakenly put the POS at L4 under an L3 pronunciation. Instead, I've left the Pronunciation and POS as both L3.
I'm troubled also by the fact that the "Show X replies" link did not work for you. I assume this is the same problem as you stated in User_talk:Bequw#Show_replies_not_working_for_me_193. Could you try two things to make the replies visible?
- Go to Special:Preferences and increasing both numbers to something huge (eg 100).
- If you click on "More" in the initial post of a thread and then right-click on "Link to" and choose "Open in a new window/tab" (if you just left-click it, you'll see a window with the link).
Do either of those work-around the problem? Another way is to just make a post at the top using Edit. If none of these are convenient, I can of course switch to normal talk pages, but I'd like to follow LQT's (hopeful) advancement.
Apparently, when the LQT reply depths are set for 0, the replies bottom behaves as I mentioned. Setting it at zero gives the maximum number of visible threads, though not the most possible, which would have just the subject line showing.
About symbols and characters: don't they also have something like etymologies? I liked what is displayed at &, for example. I was wondering about quotation and ditto marks, but all punctuation and other symbols would merit such attention. Do you know of any good references that cover any subset of symbols and characters thoroughly ? DCDuring TALK 15:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)