How do you incorporate the bullet points into a Wiki post? I see that you've just done that on my post. I would have done that if I had known how.
Bullets points come from doing a '*' in the first char of a line. I had to put the * in front of the ''' bold markup to get it to work. Also the key for the number lines is to add an '#' in the first char of the line.
For more tips check out the cheatsheet in the Help section.
Thanks for the tip! After I posted the question to you, I went in and looked at the code that you had used, and it made sense.
On a related topic: how do you make the "edit" field "taller" on your computer screen? I can only see about 4 lines at a time. This makes edits in a large page very difficult. It makes me feel that I'm back in "pre-Windows" days!! Why does this Wiki interface have to be so archaic?? It's even more cumbersome than forums!
Thought you might like your name in the headlines. :-P
To change the editing window click on my preferences up in the top area. Go to the Editing tab, and change the Rows to say 30 and you should be good.
Also so you are not in pre-Windows days turn on the "Show edit toolbar" so you can be in windows 3.1 days.
Of course, what was I thinking! Yes, I do have the tool bar enabled, so of course I'm in Windows 3.1 !
Hey, this is not fair.....how did you get our names to appear on your discussion page??? Never mind, I just figured it out. Show off! :-)
You may want to discuss the following with Michel: I'm thinking that any references to INSTEON in the ISY-26 documentation should show the word in all "caps". That is how SmartHome formats it on their documentation, and for the sake of consistency (I love consistent formatting) we probably should do likewise.
I've made the changes to my "Troubleshooting" post, but nothing else yet. Probably the main page titles will need to be updated.
Yeah I am a huge consistent formatting guy too, the whole caps topic was hard to decide.
The main things are... The large bold font that is used for the heading was hard to read in caps. The wiki grammar and formatting documents recommend caps only on acronyms, initials, and avoid it in titles. And proper writing guides also suggest against it, so finally I decided to go title case only instead.
And now it's over 70 pages that would need to be moved and most likely over 200 links to fix now, and all the old orphan pages would have to be cleaned up by Michel. Which took me three days to move/rename them to the proper "Subject:Topic" title format.
For now we can start with making sure INSTEON is caps in the writings and maybe the links but I don't think the moving of the pages is such a good idea, unless Michel will clean up all the orphan pages after its done.
Frank, I am exicted that you are joining me in working on the Wiki. It is fun an rewarding to work on it for me and which I hope will be for you too. I was kind of a solo job for a while there and I was hoping to have some other active editors join me. I want you to know I respect everyones writings here and will only fix boo-boos unless otherwise I see ideas for major change suggestions then I will pop a note your way.
Thanks very much for the welcome, Mark! I do a lot of writing in my current position as a a nationwide technical specialist for a major scientific products company. I had told Michel in the past that I would be willing to review the User's Guide for him. However, it was hard to get started on it, because of my job responsibilities and the problem with finding personal time to do a complete review of the Guide.
I then saw that you had been working on the Wiki, and it seemed that this was a far better way to contribute to improving the UDI documentation: as soon as someone makes an edit or addition, it can be instantly reviewed by everyone. This really does seem to be a much more efficient method of creating and editing documentation. Sort of like a Lotus Notes database, but without the "local" replicas; instead, everyone has access to the master document. Very nice.
You just added to following to "Communication Troubleshooting":
There is a desire to compare performance the PLC with the PLM and say, "the PLC worked fine why does the PLM not perform the same". The PLC was designed more with the mentality and behaved like it was communicating between themselves. It would not provide feedback to the user that it struggled to communicate, effectively hiding issues that may now be seen with the PLM and ISY setup. Also the PLM is a different design and has a reduced signal strength, it has been discussed that it is somewhere in the near 50% less than the PLC
You may want to consider not leaving this comment in place. I had thought about going this route, but then decided against it. My reasoning is that I was trying to remain as objective as possible about this issue (which really is quite an aggravating one for a new user), and I wanted to stay away from any "inflammatory" remarks. Especially as this may make its way into the "official" documentation, Michel would probably not want any direct references to limitations of the PLM, or benefits of the PLC. He is always very diplomatic.