Jump to content

User talk:Timwi/Archive/Feb 04

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Optim (talk | contribs) at 21:22, 12 December 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk:Timwi/Archive


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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)