User talk:Susvolans

Archives

August 2004 to September 2005

Thank you

Thank you for speaking up on the behalf of a user you did not even know. I appreciate your efforts for justice. Should you have any lingering concerns, I encourage you to come to my talk page and join the dialog there on what has occured. Discussion is the best way to calm stormy waters. TheChief (PowWow) 17:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

First, obviously, if rule 5 were deleted, it would become four pillars rather than five. I think that any change to the four/five pillars should be well discussed on its talk page first. Failure to do so would be to ignore all rules, which could be seen as WP:POINT.

I personally think that the five pillars document is fine, because it says that there are no rules other than those listed, and the writers' rules of engagement are one of the pillars. The real problem is that Ignore All Rules is the wrong summary of the guideline, and is sufficiently wrong as to be a destructive title, because it can easily be read as meaning that one can ignore civility. Robert McClenon 18:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Susvolans - I'm just taking baby steps for now Redkaty 14:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Louis Epstein case →Raul654 02:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Regarding the revert; the claim that all five pillars are unchangeable has no foundation in policy, why is it there then? Is the Wikipedia:Five pillars, wrong? -- Zondor 17:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Updated poll

I have completely changed the poll. Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (years in titles)/Poll --AllyUnion (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

curly quotes

May I ask why you moved "—All You Zombies—" to “—All You Zombies—”? — flamingspinach | (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

class="wikitable"

I wouldn't know how, but why would you want to anyway? Martin 14:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Aha, so you mean find occurances where it was expanded when it used this revision of the prettytable. In which case the only way I think you could find them would be to get someone to use an SQL query on the database dump, but I don't know how successful that would be. At the moment I am not capable of doing this, but plently of other people are. Martin 16:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Reorganized General topics

Thanks for spotting and flagging those reorganized pages. I thought that I had deleted them all. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleting a useless page

Hi. You left a message on my talkpage welcoming me and saying I could ask you if I had any questions. Well, I've found a page that seems total junk (Alan 447 Rifle (disambiguation)). What should I do in this instance?Jamse 18:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's OK, someone else seems to have done this now. I'd still appreciate knowing how to do this, in case it comes up again in the future. Perhaps you could post the answer here, or on my talk page when you get chance? Thanks, Jamse 23:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

AM thank you

I love it when someone goes to the source to complain and thereby spurs some action! :-) Tedernst | Talk 17:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Your input would be useful at Talk:AM where the wikilinks and other non-MoS:DP content is being added back by User:Tobias Conradi. Thanks/wangi 18:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding nesting .am under Armenia on AM. Please keep in mind the way the page is used. The reader may have clicked on ".am", with an unlinked dot, to get to the disambiguation page. He may not know that it means Armenia. Instead of associating items on the page using the complex category model that we have formulated when we compile that page, we should list them simply by the term or link, because the reader is just clicking a link, and is unlikely to have formulated this model in his head. —Michael Z. 2005-12-5 17:06 Z

Moving a Category

Hello again. Thanks for your answer to my previous question. I have another - is it possible to 'move' a Category? Normal pages all seem to have a 'move' tab, but I can't see this on Categories.

Specifically, there is Category:Lecturers of the University of Nottingham - I was about to populate it, but I thought it might be better as Category:Academics of the University of Nottingham (or 'University of Nottingham Academics'), which is a bit broader. I think it would be better to move / rename it before adding lots of people into the category!

Thanks. Jamse 18:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Tedernst RFA thanks!

Am I being provoked, do you think? I've had more conflict this week than ever before! :-) Oh well, thanks much for the support and let me know if I can be of assistance. peace, Tedernst | talk 23:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Babel

You modified the contents of my user page to remove the existing {{ps}} tag and replace it it with a {{photoshop}} tag. While I would have no issue with this if it did not change the appearance of the resulting graphic, it does. Could you please explain why this change was necessary. (I'm not upset or anything - I just like to know when things have been changed and why.) Denni ☯ 01:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Manual of style, "main article" section

Thanks! You see why it needed to be in the manual of style...:) Stevage 16:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on my nickname...

I didn't know that, but then of course it fits perfectly, for I am the one who's spent more than a year engaging in hundreds of revert wars to enforce my preferences.... Do you know what Susvolans means in my language ;) ? Sortan 17:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)