User talk:Sam Pointon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] <tt>

Holloa!

<tt> is nice for typesetting, but did you know that HTML actually has a tag for source code? It's <code> — and it's very tasty! --bmills 22:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi, thanks for lightening the text on my userpage. It's so hard to know sometimes how different colors will look on different monitors. And I'm glad that someone was interested enough to read the quotation. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies.

My apologies - I noticed that the article linked to was actually spelled in an American form, and the article "Crap" (I really don't know how I got there) listed in so there was a redirect. I usually attempt to fix redirects, and I'm sorry for the irritation caused.

Personally, I wish I grew up learning U.K. English - I was born in Malaysia, which you probably know was a former British colony. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 05:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WHUFC

The person was not so sneaky at all. He must be jealous, maybe a Wigan fan who is hurt that their early success has stopped. John wesley 18:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kana articles

Thanks for your contribution. Please feel free to contribute to these articles — I can't maintain them alone! - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ Rock on, dude! 02:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] José Mourinho

Yes, i'm happy, you've found the best solution caprivi 01:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O_O

Good God, those were horrible. Thanks for showing them to me, because they blow away the previous version :P Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 01:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the heck

Why did you send me a message about American spelling and edit wars?PiccoloNamek 22:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Ah, I see what happened. While I was out at Wal-Mart, my dad took it upon himself to edit the article under my name because he thought the spelling was incorrect. I want to apologize for his actions. Please accept my apologies for letting that happen.PiccoloNamek 22:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] i guess youre right

Jose Mourinho is a gibbon.

well thats a good thing, im an Arsenal fan =D. maybe you arent so bad after all haha 71.114.129.111

[edit] Glen Chapple

I noticed you reverted on Glen Chapple, rolling back 195.93.21.36 (talk · contribs)'s edits, and then left a warning on their talk page and blocked them (but they were in violation of NPA, so fair enough). However, as far as I can tell, the information reverted at [1] was accurate ([2] confirms at least part of it), reasonably balanced, and not obvious vandalism. I'm just curious as to why rollback was used, when it comes down to it. --Sam Pointon 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was puzzled when I saw this, as I don't remember that article at all... On digging I see I saw this edit (as part my usual pattern of checking recent edits with 'rollback' showing next to them after I've blocked someone), which resulted in a red link. The block had nothing to do with those edits (it was for the personal attacks). I think I then assumed (wrongly) that the only edits the IP had done to the article was that sort of change. I see I was totally wrong, and of course should have checked. Feel free to revert me/add whatever information is relevant, I had no indention of substantially changing that article. Petros471 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Moore

nice move on the info box. i couldn't find the issue to save my life. Stuph 19:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the clarification

NTK 01:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid redirect

Can't say I agree with you there. Might be a good idea for you to check the difference between a policy and a guideline. Fixing redirects is not 'forbidden' anywhere. Mrsteviec 22:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re IRC...

User:Lupin/watchlistfilter.js Lupin|talk|popups 21:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing redirects....

Hi Sam, Thanks for your comments about not changing redirection for the sake of fixing redirections. In the case of IMDB, my feeling is that it is actually a misspelling of the acronym IMDb. And since I changed the spelling, I decided to "fix" the redirection. I actually have a fondness for IMDb and so I am always looking for uses of the wikilink as well as the external link to IMDb. And when I find one of these references I actually spell check the article or section while I am editing it. I tried chasing down vandalism, but decided this minor editing work was better-suited for me. A thankless job... Schmiteye 21:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I'm unsure why you feel it necessary to pursue this. You have not provided any valid reasons to not fix redirects. Sometimes they should be left as they are, sometimes they shouldn't. It is a matter of discretion. Furthermore, server load is not the concern of editors. Mrsteviec 15:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for you reply. Clearly we have a difference of opinion and I'm happy to leave it there. Mrsteviec 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I had written a long message, but Mrsteviec said it better. Adios. Schmiteye 17:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect bypassation

Hi, I noticed that you made an edit to bypass a redirect at English language. However, WP:REDIRECT specifically forbids editing solely to avoid redirects - it introduces needsless verbiage. Processing a redirect is not expensive either - every edit is far more expensive, so no performance can be gained by removing redirects. There is nothing inherently wrong with redirects, and can be beneficial because there's less unnecessary piping, making the wikimarkup easier to read — they're not broken, so don't need to be 'fixed'. Please bear this in mind when you are pondering circumventing redirects. --Sam Pointon 20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:REDIRECT does not “forbid” bypassing redirects (nor could it, not being Wikipedia policy). Rather it presents two reasons and one unsupported assertion why doing so may not be advisable:
  • Redirects to possible future articles should be maintained. This is absolutely correct, but inapplicable to my edit. For “Anglo-Saxon” is just an old-fashioned name for Old English.
  • One should not bypass redirects merely to reduce server load because the server hit for an edit is hundreds of times greater than that of a redirect. Well yes, but the server load of both an edit and a redirect are miniscule. If you are concerned about server efficiency, you should note that posting to a talk page causes the same server hit as straightening a redirect. You may infer my lack of concern over the server load of an edit from the fact that I post this reply both on my talk page and on yours. I don't worry about performance.
  • One should never replace [[redirect]] with [[direct|redirect]]. This is nonsense (except as the two reasons above may apply). It is also inapplicable to my edit.
In short: Thank you for your opinion, but I will continue to bypass redirects as I see fit. --teb728 22:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) I see from the section above that I am not the only one who thinks you should get a life. If you want to keep posting nonsense on people's talk pages, you might at least fix your template: The downside bypassing redirects has nothing to do with “needsless verbiage” or “unnecessary piping.” --teb728 23:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Sam, I want to apologize for the tone of my reply; that was not called for. I notice that you have not posted much since the reply; I hope I was not responsible for that. --teb728 02:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change to Common.css

Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. --ShakingSpirittalk on behalf of Kaldari 01:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)