User talk:Timwi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Timwi/Archive

Contents 1 Actually 2 Y Griffiny 3 Liverpool Edge Hill (UK Parliament constituency) 4 Thorpe Park 5 Protection? 6 Inuktitut nng 7 featured topic box 8 Wiktionary edits 9 Planet Hope 10 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Super Mario Land (2).png) 11 Willy on Wheels 12 References and punctuation 13 "XML" 14 My user page 15 > why are you adding categories to a redirect

[edit] Actually

Speedy deletion criteria A2 actually covers articles not in English. I didn't just make this up. :) There actually is a Speedy criteria on it if the article exists on other Wikimedia projects. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you have checked that the article exists in the Thai Wikipedia? — Timwi 10:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thought I had but apparently I hadn't. Article isn't on the Thai wiki. So. My bad. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Y Griffiny

Why did you delete my Y Griffiny page? Your reasoning for deletion was wrong.

Please read: Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages — Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion — Wikipedia:Notability. Thanks! Despite this setback, I hope you will enjoy your stay at Wikipedia. — Timwi 11:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liverpool Edge Hill (UK Parliament constituency)

I have just reverted your move of Liverpool Edge Hill (UK Parliament constituency).

The practice of adding the "(UK Parliament constituency)" to all constituency articles has been agreed after a lot of discussion at WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies, and it's not just for disambiguation.

See the disciussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Article_names.2C_guidelines_needed.3F. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia naming conventions mandate that you must not add the parenthesis to articles that do not have ambiguous titles. No amount of discussion within your own little WikiProject can change or override this. You will need to bring the issue up at a higher level, and you will likely lose the discussion then because Wikipedia wants to be consistent. — Timwi 11:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Timwi, that's not my "own little wikiproject": it's a collaborative exercise which has produced a massive historical and contemporary collection of articles on Brtish politics. There are very good reasons for applying a consistent naming pattern to the 2000 or so articles on parliamentary constituencies in the UK, so I am confident that if we ever had to discuss the issue as a policy matter, other editors would appreciate the reasons for consistency, which I will summarise here:

• the suffix is not solely a disambiguator, it is part of the name: "Liverpool Edge Hill" id formally the "Liverpool Edge Hill borough constituency", and it is misleading to simply call it "Liverpool Edge Hill". However, distinguishing between borough and county constituencies in the name is counter-intuitive and unnecessary for most purposes, so we omit that bit.
• the disambiguation function of the suffix is essential to maintain the integrity of a large collection of articles which are widely referenced. There are about 100,000 links in wikipedia to constituency articles, and by definition the names used refer to geographical entities whose names are often used for other articles. ("Borsetshire South" may refer to a Westminster constituency, a European Parliament constituency, a district council, a railway station, a primary care trust, or any number of other entities). Creating a unique and consistent naming format for inherently ambiguous article names has allowed us to maintain the links in very good shape. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The policy stresses as a basic principle that naming should "make linking to those articles easy and second nature". Consistency of naming across the collection of constituency articles is essential to ensure that. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Timwi, I have moved it back again. Rather than edit warring, why not discuss your concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Article_names.2C_guidelines_needed.3F with the editors whose experience has show this naming format to be necessary? -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has "shown this naming format to be necessary". Quite to the contrary, all of Wikipedia has shown it to be unnecessary. If I had genuinely wanted to find out about this constituency, I would not have found the article because it has such an unexpected and unguessable name, even if I knew the actual name of the actual constituency. Therefore, I strongly suggest that if you are going to carry on with your preferred format, you really should at least create redirects (or disambiguation pages where the name is actually ambiguous). — Your "100,000 links" argument is a red herring. — Now, I can't be bothered to pursue this to a formal level because it's a rather minor issue anyway, but you should be aware that if I find another article six months from now that has an apparently unnecessary disambiguating parenthesis, I'll remove it again, because that is what Wikipedia's naming convention says. — Timwi 13:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If there wasn't a redirect or disambiguation page at Liverpool Edge Hill, there should have been (most such articles do have a link, sorry if that one was overlooked) ... but you would of course have found the article easily by searching.

It's a pity, Timwi, that you appear not to have not read the discussion before saying that nobody has shown this to be necessary.

The 100,000 links argument is not a red herring at all: it's central to the problem. It allows editors monitoring articles on British politics to determine straight away whether a constituency link actually points to the constituency, or to a geographical (or other) entity with the name. Before we standardised on this format, there was a widespread problem of links to constituencies being misdirected, but that has now been greatly reduced. For example, there are lots of long lists of politicians which contain hundreds of constituency links: the standardised format (of which the suffix is only one component) makes it simple to check whether those are pointing to the constituency or to something else. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thorpe Park

Why did you revert my changes? The ones I removed where in total trueness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sebastianoutfin (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Simple. You've removed information without stating why, and you've replaced it with a short, ungrammatical sentence full of spelling mistakes. You have also not provided a source for the information you are trying to add. Finally, please read the page Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thank you. — Timwi 15:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And the other personis getting his info from where? Stop spouting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sebastianoutfin (talk • contribs) 15:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

You are not gaining credibility by continuing to disregard both English spelling/grammar and Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. — Timwi 15:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection?

Your page has been vandalized a lot lately. Maybe you should protect it. Constint 18:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks, I hadn't even noticed that. However, if you look at edits such as your own on 5th January [1] you will see why I don't want to protect it. Also, the vandalism has clearly been spotted and reverted, so I'm not fussed about it. — Timwi 00:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inuktitut nng

Is there any reason why you left out the nng syllables (ᙱ and company) from Image:Inuktitut.png? Thanks, Mats 10:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any Inuktitut. I took the information from Omniglot's Inuktitut page, which doesn't list ᙱ. Thanks for pointing it out though – if you think the image and Omniglot are both incomplete, and you can give me a complete table of Inuktitut syllables, I'd be happy to fix the image. However, please remember that Inuktitut is a language (not a writing system in itself) and that it uses only part of the Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics, which contains many more syllables which are used by other language (e.g. Cree). — Timwi 11:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any Inuktitut either, but you can see it in the motto of Nunavut, "Nunavut Sannginivut" (on Coat of arms of Nunavut, for example), so I'm pretty sure it's used in Inkutitut. It's also mentioned in the article: "A geminated ng is written nng", but it doesn't mention what the corresponding character looks like.

Other than that row, I think your table is complete. I can add it to the png if you like. Mats 13:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the PNG. Thanks again for your help. Very good linguistic detective work, too. :) — Timwi 13:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! Glad to help.

Just one more thing... The ng in my font doesn't look like the ng in the picture. In my font, you see that nng is like an ng (which in turn is like a g), but with two circles instead of one (ᖏ and ᙱ), whereas in the picture it looks like the hook thing is a complete circle... I don't know enough Inuktitut to judge this, but I think it looks a bit inconsistent. Mats 13:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this too, but your ᖏ character right here on this talk page displays the same to me as it does in the picture (the font is Code2000 in both cases). I, too, don't know enough Inuktitut to judge if this is wrong, but at least it means I've been using the correct Unicode codepoint :) — Timwi 14:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's leave it like that then. I'm using Pigiarniq, by the way. Mats 14:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Pigiarniq appears to be "officially sanctioned" (by Canada), I've changed the graphic again to use that font instead of Code2000. — Timwi 11:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] featured topic box

No worries about my userpage - it doesn't break most of the coding. I plan to rework it to use the FT sub-pages at some point soon, subject to Life not getting in the way. Tompw (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary edits

Redirects do not work across interwiki lines; they only work within a single wiki. --EncycloPetey 21:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're clever, you can follow them manually by clicking on the link. — Timwi 22:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Entry Layout Explained. In particular, note that the Etymology section should come before the various parts of speech, not after them. --EncycloPetey 21:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. — Timwi 22:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planet Hope

Thank you for working to improve the article, but I have to say that I'm a little taken aback that you felt the need to almost villainize me regarding the deletion. The article did not assert notability; it met the criteria for speedy deletion and the deleting admin agreed. The article in its current form looks better, but I'd appreciate it if you could understand my position as a new page patroller. My intent was that the author would improve the article; I'm not just out to look for articles to delete. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your position. Thank you for your interest in helping with patrolling New Pages. However, I still think you were being overenthusiastic in deleting this article. I am sorry you felt "villainised" by me, that was certainly not my intention - but I took the stance I took because I felt that you were being demanding and unwelcoming to the newcomer who posted the article. To the user it must have seemed like he was running up against a steep wall there. Your behaviour would likely have discouraged most other users from posting new articles again. This user fortunately tried again, but you can't expect a user to do that. — Timwi 15:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize that the guidelines are demanding, and that the warnings can seem blunt, but I don't find it likely that the creator will seek to establish notability with reliable sources now. The article is well-formatted and informative now, but I still don't think it's satisfactory. I would not have taken the time to notify the author and discuss it on the talk page if I had not wanted him or her to contribute more. On the talk page, I informed the author of what was needed, and made the assurance that rushing was not necessary. Perhaps "villainize" is not the correct word, but I didn't feel as though my handling of the situation needed to be apologized for. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess we merely disagree on how to encourage people to improve their own articles. I just don't really believe that threatening to delete everything is a good way of doing that. — Besides, if the user has no interest in finding reliable sources (most people don't even know what that means), shouldn't we at least give other people the opportunity to do so? Deleting the article removes that opportunity. — Timwi 15:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective on the matter. My only concern is that the organization still does not appear to be notable (i.e. I haven't seen how they are distinguished from other youth groups all over the world). I agree that the article needs attention from others, and keeping it is the only way others will find it, but the author should try to assert why it needs to be on Wikipedia in the first place. The other red flag was the conflict of interest; it's not really written from a neutral point of view. Leebo⁸⁶ 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the oportunity to start an article, it allready started to have effects in other seventh day adventist editors, in fact, I have become part of a wikiproyect on seventh day adventists church. Thanks again!Morales Badui 00:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Super Mario Land (2).png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Super Mario Land (2).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I've deleted the image. — Timwi 19:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Willy on Wheels

Willy on Wheels has moved your page to User:Timwi on wheels! and User:Timwi on Wheels. Your page has been moved two times. Is that strange? Constint 18:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's just a vandal who thinks that everyone on Wikipedia who has the admin bit is therefore evil and vile. — Timwi 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References and punctuation

I noticed that you recently added a period after a </ref> in the article Criticism of Windows Vista. According to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnotes come after punctuation, punctuation goes before references, not after. In the future, place the punctuation just before the <ref> tag. This will help keep references consistent across Wikipedia. —Remember the dot (t) 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK :) — Timwi 18:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "XML"

Hi,

I notice on your user page you write:

• Use valid XHTML - "<br>" should be "<br />"

You are mistaken; this is irrelevant. We are not editing HTML or XHTML here, we are editing wiki mark-up. In wiki mark-up, "<br>" is just as valid, if not even more valid (because wiki mark-up is supposed to be short and simple), and the parser turns it into perfectly well-formed XHTML when outputting the rendered page. — Timwi 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's true that the MediaWiki software transforms it into valid XHTML on the way out, but there are advantages to using valid XHTML in the source of pages as well. You see, because valid XHTML is very consistent, it is less confusing and easier to learn than HTML. Just as wiki markup is simpler than XHTML, XHTML is simpler than HTML. Thus, in order to help new users quickly get the hang of editing pages, it's generally best to use wiki markup when possible, and fall back on XHTML when use of wiki markup is not possible. That way, new users would not see inconsistent, confusing HTML and be discouraged from editing Wikipedia, thinking that learning such an inconsistent and confusing syntax is just too hard. —Remember the dot (t) 05:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken again. <br> is much easier and simpler than <br/> for everyone but computer geeks (and computer science students perhaps). Furthermore, a cryptic code like <br> is already confusing and discouraging to everyone but computer geeks. Your compaign is kind of pointless :-) — Timwi 09:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference between <br> and <br/> is one character. To a nontechnical person, they're both equally difficult. The advantage to <br/> is that it represents a consistent syntax, which is overall easier to learn. Those that learn a little XHTML by example at Wikipedia can take that knowledge and use it to help them learn XHTML or XML. So, using valid XHTML teaches aspiring web designers good skills by example. And again, because it is more consistent, it can help newbies understand the usage of and differences between the various tags more quickly and easily. —Remember the dot (t) 07:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously not going to change your opinion, so I'll stop discussing this with you. But I am disappointed to see that this attitude that Wikipedia editors should be "aspiring web designers" or anything of the sort is still around. :( — Timwi 09:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that Wikipedia editors should be web designers. I'm saying that those interested in understanding the small amount of (X)HTML we use inside pages will have an easier time of it if we use valid XHTML. —Remember the dot (t) 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My user page

Thanks for reverting and then improving my user page. That's actually the first positive edit anyone has made other than reversions. Thanks again, James086^Talk 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... it seems that most Wikipedians are "afraid" of editing other people's user pages because they are widely considered private space and one wouldn't want to be seen as trespassing... paranoids, tsk :) — Timwi 12:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I edit User:Timwi sometimes. Constint 10:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you :) Very much appreciated :) — Timwi 22:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] > why are you adding categories to a redirect

Because his categories should have their consequent headers as well. In the case of David Rubio he had in fact also another name before his sobriquet choice. This should be listed as well and I don't know any other method to get it. :) Florenus 23 March 2007

Hm. I've never come across such a case before. I don't know what Wikipedia practices usually prescribe, so I'll keep out of this. — Timwi 17:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)