User talk:Timwi/Archive/Jul 03 - Jan 04

Commas and semicolons

Why are you so opposed to commas and semicolons? Pizza Puzzle

That is quite a generalisation. I remove commas that I think are unnecessary, i.e. where the sentence is clear (and often easier to read) without them. Semicolons are a different issue: semicolons should only separate complete sentences. A sentence beginning with "Therefore;" immediately calls for an edit. P.S. it's not like I've never added a comma too ;-) -- Timwi 21:03 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Scrabble tournament page

Timwi, thanks again for replacing the tables with diagrams in the Scrabble tournament game. Would you be willing to also fix the Scrabble/Scoring Examples page? (I guess it also needs a new title to replace the osbolete convention.) TIA --Fritzlein 00:47 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Might do that tomorrow. Thanks. -- Timwi 01:59 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Done :-) -- Timwi 23:24 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! If I ever get serious about writing a Scrabble strategy article I may ask you to teach me how to do diagrams for myself. You rock. --Fritzlein 05:29 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I can certainly create them for you if you wish. Or I can hack up a quick program to do it interactively. -- Timwi 17:11 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Playing cards

Hi. please look at Talk:Anglo-American playing card I'm tempted to move the article to French playing card. Mintguy 00:53 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Replied. -- Timwi 00:58 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Search function

Thanks for your answer on the mailing list about Wikipedia's search function (Ann-Margret). I'd never have thought that you have to use capitals in order to get to the article you're looking for. --KF 23:25, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Computer science topics

Hi Timwi, you had redirected List of basic computer science topics to Wikipedia:Computer science basic topics on 27 Jun 2003. Why has a list of encyclopedic value been moved to the Wikipedia space ? Can you move it back to List of basic computer science topics. Jay 06:53, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have? ... Sorry, I can't remember, that's ages ago. :) -- Timwi 13:30, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You're quite right, the page shouldn't be in the Wikipedia space. Feel free to move it back. -- Timwi 13:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Next time, please, use the "Move" command on the left-hand pane of the screen. I moved it for you. And about the "New York image", not everyone has a monitor as small as yours. I have an 18 inch flat screen. WhisperToMe 04:28, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't really care how large your screen is, nor do all the other visitors who have a screen as small as mine. Better cater for those with limited technology than assume that everyone is as advanced as you. -- Timwi 13:54, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Here, on Wikipedia, we reach consensus on disputed issues. I will revert your edit and I will open discussion about the placement of that image. Please don't touch it until we reach agreement on how the image should be placed. WhisperToMe

I'll comply so as to not start a war, but you should know that you are disputing an issue on which consensus has already been reached a long time ago. The pages should always cater for the lowest common denominator. Which is definitely not 1600x1200. -- Timwi 01:11, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

External Links vs. See Also

Hello Timwi. What do you think about the External links section? Should we place it as a header ( ==External links== ) or as a subheader under See also ( ===External links=== )? Is there a formal policy about that? I ask because usually I use External links as a subheader under See also. But on one of the articles I started (Derrick Henry Lehmer) you edited it and changed External links to look like a header. Then, I changed it back to subheader, but without realizing that the edit was from you, maybe I thought it was a "mistake" of mine or we were editing the article at the same time. So now I wonder whether I did something wrong. For me it doesn't matter whether it is header or subheader, although I find the subheader as more logical. I wonder what the other users think. Which way looks better? header or subheader? feel free to change it back to subheader if there is a formal policy about that or if this is what the most wikipedians like. best wishes, Optim 21:20, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your input. I always thought they were supposed to be separate sections, but now that you mention it, I think I agree with you that external links are a special case of "See Also". Then again, having External Links be a lone sub-section under "See Also" violates what Germans know as "Wer A sagt, muß auch B sagen" -- essentially saying that there should be at least two sub-sections, or else it doesn't make sense for it to be a sub-section. I don't know of a policy regarding this, perhaps you should ask on the mailing list. -- Timwi 00:35, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for answering! the Germans' point about the two subsections seems logical too. Peace, Optim 15:25, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Since Optim referred me here, I'll let you know that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style says it's ==External links==. Thanks Dysprosia 05:27, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. -- Timwi 16:41, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Robert Leckie

Timwi - I removed your changes from Robert Leckie article. You had the dates for Robert Leckie (aviator) - see the other article. P.S. If you can find a date for the author, let me know. I did finaaly find an E-mail address, and I've asked him what his brithdate is, but no answer yet. -- LouI

Thanks for spotting this mistake and correcting it. Sorry I wasn't being very careful. I didn't expect there to be two Robert Leckies. (In future, please sign your messages with ~~~~. Thanks.) -- Timwi 00:35, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

List of Disney Characters

Woah! While it is evident that you put a lot of effort into rearranging the List of Disney Characters, I think it is overkill! Character lists for particular films or shows belong on the pages for those films where users are more likely to find them. In addition, Anastasia is not a Disney film. -- StAkkAr Karnak 12 Dec 2003

Ah. I was sceptical about Anastasia too. I already removed characters from Who Framed Roger Rabbit which is also not Disney. As for the lists, well, if you want you can copy them to the individual film articles, but not all of those articles exist, so a central place for them makes sense. Besides, even overkill doesn't hurt in this case. -- Timwi 13:07, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Roger Rabbit characters are debateable, because Disney used to make Roger Rabbit comicbooks. -- StAkAr Karnak 21:43, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Message from anonymous IP

Timwi: I would like to kindly bring to your attention a comment I made about one of your modifications.

Please leave messages on the talk page of a User, not the User page. Also, please register for a username, log in, and sign your messages. Thank you. -- Timwi 04:04, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Adminship

You're now an administrator. -- Tim Starling 08:19, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) -- Timwi 21:23, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:About

It's a work in progress. It's only been on the new software less than two days, so of course not all the documentation is written yet. I don't think removing links to it is a good idea. Who is going to know to re-add it once the page is finished? Part of the point of having the links is to encourage people onto other language Wikipedias to help with writing those pages. You can't just remove links because you feel a page is not useful enough. Sorry for sounding so pissed off but I spent 24 hours working on Simple after it was converted and I'm not happy about things relating to it being reverted with edit summaries suggesting it isn't useful enough! Angela . 07:01, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I apologise if anything I said caused any hard feelings. I certainly never meant to even imply that your work was "not useful enough", and in fact, I found your work on the Simple Wikipedia pretty impressive.

However, the reason I removed the link is because the page it linked to simply linked directly back. You will certainly agree with me that such a link is not useful. Someone following the link in the hopes of finding something specific will be disappointed when it's not there. Thus: Add the link when something useful exists on that page. Not sooner. -- Timwi 00:10, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Will they be disappointed or will it inspire them to write something? I was hoping the latter might be the case. Anyway, there's no need to apologise. I was just being grumpy. :) Angela . 00:43, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Reply to posting on mailing list

[1]. No problem. Glad I could help. :) Angela . 02:44, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Movie Articles

Timwi writes on user talk page of Rfc1394:

Hi. I've noticed that you have added a particular bar of links to the bottom of a lot of movie articles. Is this part of a WikiProject? Have you discussed this with anyone anywhere? It would be nice is we could discuss the form of it first before you start mass-changing zillions of articles. In particular, I object to the hr, and to the use of "See also" as a non-heading. -- Timwi 06:56, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Response from Rfc1394 (Paul): [Note: for those unsure of what is being spoken about, go to the bottom of the page for the movie Airport and see the 'see also' item].

I just thought it would be a nice idea to provide a link back to the list of movies so if someone is looking for a movie they can also look at others.

I felt the list of links should be separated from the movie by a line to indicate it's extra, not directly related to the article.

Also some of the other items in that list of see also might be useful for someone looking for movies.

If you don't like it, what would you suggest?

I think something of that type needs to be there in order to provide additional navigation features. This isn't a printed encyclopedia, we can do things like that and we should take advantage of the capability to do so.

If you have a particular page to discuss this on, please send me a message here.

--Rfc1394 18:32, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

North American Birds

(replying to my question on User talk:David Stapleton)

Hi, the short reason is space. The complete list of NA Birds was 55K. The wikipedia software suggests splitting any page over 35K. A passerine in a bird in the Order Passeriformes, a "perching bird" or "song bird". Passerines make up about half the list, so I split the list into passerines and non-passerines.David Stapleton 18:50, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

I see. That makes sense. But I don't think List of North American birds should redirect to one of them. Perhaps it should just be a little article with just those two links. I'll do this. -- Timwi 18:59, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Computable and Surreal numbers

I noticed the link you added from Computable numbers to Surreal numbers. Is there really an interesting connection between the two? (I can't think of anything other than both being classes of numbers.) Cwitty 23:52, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Isn't that enough already? I would have added links to real number, complex number, irrational number, etc. as well, except I wasn't sure I could come up with an even remotely complete list. Also, for consistency, I would have to add the same to all other articles about numbers. :-) -- Timwi 02:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry christmas and best wishes for Peace Profound! Optim 06:48, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you! Same to you! :-) -- Timwi 19:59, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Eridani

What do you mean, 'they are the same star'?

40 Eridani: Also known as Keid, this triple star system is located less than 16.5 light-years (ly) away in the northernmost part (04:15:16.32-07:39:10.34, ICRS 2000.0) of Constellation Eridanus, the River -- northeast of Zaurak, Gamma Eridani. [2]

Epsilon Eridani: This star is located only about 10.5 light-years (ly) away in the northeastern part (03:32:55.84-09:27:29.74, ICRS 2000.0) of Constellation Eridanus, the River -- west of Rana (Delta Eridani) and northwest of Zaurak. [3].

Please check your facts. Thanks, Morwen 23:31, Dec 26, 2003 (UTC)

You're quite right. I did some research and came to the same conclusion. I made this edit because I thought it was the same star back when I wrote this page. I don't know what sources this assumption was based on. Sorry about this. -- Timwi 23:36, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No problem. Maybe -in star trek- they are the same star. After all this is the same tv show that has the Klingon Homeworld in the Oort belt ;) Morwen 23:40, Dec 26, 2003 (UTC)

"cloned"

Please see my reply in Talk:Pre-eclampsia -- Karada 20:25, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for explaining it. :-) -- Timwi 20:56, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Single sign on

Hi, on the mailing list you wrote that "The basic idea is to mark all accounts as old (and make them unloginnable), and require everybody to create a new account", which Snoyes suggested could lead to account stealing. You then said this would require actually hacking into an account, but I'm not sure it would. If I understand your scheme correctly, I could come along on the day of the switch and create the user account "Timwi". I wouldn't be able to steal your contributions list without your password, but your scheme would allow me to steal your name. I think this is what Snoyes might have meant with the account stealing issues. I don't really like writing to the mailing list, so I hope you don't mind me replying here instead. Angela . 20:54, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I understand, and yes, it seems a good point. I guess I was assuming good faith in people. I don't think too many account names would be stolen this way. And even if, I'm sure the few cases of stolen accounts can be taken care of manually? -- Timwi 17:33, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Delete request

Timwi,

Please delete Psittacidae and Psittaciformes for the same reason as your Greek letter deletes. - UtherSRG 17:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid my reason does not apply to those. It would if Psittacidae redirected to Psittacidae (family), but it doesn't. -- Timwi 17:33, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to be moving parrot (family) and parrot (order) to Psittacidae and Psittaciformes. - UtherSRG 17:37, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Never mind.... UtherSRG 18:03, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You shouldn't. People generally call them "parrots". Hardly anyone knows the scientific term "Psittaciformes". One of Wikipedia's policies is to use the most common term for an article title. -- Timwi 18:23, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yup. Hence the never mind. :) - UtherSRG 18:53, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)