User talk:Droll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 WP:ROBO 2 Shortcut Britmax 3 Shortcut template 4 Subpage shortcuts 5 CAT:SHORTFIX 6 Shortcut template help (thanks) 7 ummm, what? 8 Independent Women's Forum

[edit] WP:ROBO

Thanks for your work on fixing WikiProject Robotics shortcuts! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut Britmax

Thanks for the help with this. I think I have altered my user page properly but will check later. Britmax (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut template

Thanks for that. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subpage shortcuts

That's absolutely ok with me. Infact I don't own them and I'm of the belief that everyone should be free to edit everyone else's subpages so long as they are improving them. Thanks for the notification, James086^{Talk | Email} 03:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CAT:SHORTFIX

I've cleared the majority. The rest that are there I cannot seem to do for some reason. Cheers -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bundle, both of you, for helping to clear out CAT:SHORTFIX !!! Now I'll wait a day or so to see that no more delayed category updates show up and then I'll add the new anchor dropping functionality to the shortcut boxes.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut template help (thanks)

Thanks for clearing that up about the shortcut template on User:Anon126/How-to. Also, to be technical (sorry), it's not a private page. It's public information.

03:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ummm, what?

I just noticed this and was wondering what it means.--Pewwer42  Talk  20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't have to, I didn't add that part anyway, was just wondering, thanks--Pewwer42  Talk  08:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Independent Women's Forum

Okay, I understand the preference of some for different footnote formats, but I am afraid I do not understand going to an article with forty-four footnotes that are all of uniform format and then changing three of them to another format. Uniformity aids the reader in parsing material, especially densely packed information like that in footnotes. I do not favor the footnote format that you seem to prefer, but I won't contest it if you want to use your time to convert all of the references. It makes the article less useful, however, to change only a few of the footnotes and thus confuse the reader who may be trying to quickly check a couple of references. I'm reverting your edits, but if you or someone else wants to go in and covert all the footnotes, you can easily retrieve the three changes you made. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

First, you can take up your problems with the English language, including the word "disuniform" (which has been in American English dictionaries since at least 1913 1828), with the whole of the English-speaking peoples. Second, if you had "watched" the article, you would see that while you were throwing linguistic jabs I was fixing the mess of citation formatting problems introduced by people who tried to throw an overused, messy template into an article that doesn't need it. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)