User talk:Timwi/Archive/Nov 05 - Oct 06

Notice:

• I will reply here. If you ask a question here, please check back regularly to see if I have replied (or add this page to your watchlist). I want my threads to be in the same place, because otherwise the comments will be scattered around and out of context.
• Please feel free to leave messages in languages other than English, although I cannot guarantee that I will understand it unless it's in English, German, French, or Esperanto.
• All my "User talk" pages on other Wikimedia projects redirect to here. This is to ensure that all the messages you people send me are collected in a central place where I can manage and archive them. Also I will receive a "You have new messages" notification on the English Wikipedia this way; I use all the other projects rather rarely. So, please leave your message here.
• If you find any comments of mine insulting or hostile, then you are imagining it. Read the comment again and you will see that I am not being hostile, I am merely stating either logical conclusions or my own opinions openly and directly. If you find that insulting, then I'm sorry, but you need to work on that, not me.

User talk:Timwi/Archive

Konrad Zuse

"Bedenkt man, dass unsere moderne und computerisierte Welt heute ohne seine Erfindungen nicht mehr bestehen könnte, würdigt seine geringe Bekanntheit in keinem Maße den überaus großen Verdienst, den er der Menschheit bis in unsere heutige Zeit gebracht hat."

Der Streichung dieses Satzes stimme ich zu. Das gehört als Meinungsäußerung nicht in eine Enzyklopädie. Als "Blödsinn" würde ich es nicht bezeichnen. Das hielte ich nicht nur für unhöflich und diskriminierend für den Autor, sondern auch für falsch.

"Wenn er nicht gewesen wäre, hätte früher oder später jemand anderes diese Leistungen vollbracht"

Das schmälert nicht Zuses Verdienste. Wie wir wissen, haben andere später auch ähnliche Leistungen erbracht. Dennoch gilt, dass unsere heutige Welt ohne seine Erfindung - ohne den Computer - so, wie sie jetzt ist, nicht bestehen könnte. --128.176.234.152 09:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Toll. — Timwi 13:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Computability theory

Hi. I am somewhat confused about what happened to computability theory. Why did you delete it and where is its content now? The log just says that "00:11, 26 October 2005 Timwi deleted "Computability theory" (Deleted to make way for move)." What moved where? The question was raised on the talk page of said article, so maybe you can comment there. Thanks. --Markus Krötzsch 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the history of Computability theory, you'll find enlightenment. The article was at Computability Theory (capitalised) and I moved it to the proper spelling. The only page I deleted in the process was a redirect. — Timwi 11:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

On copyright

-- "I don't understand copyright. I don't get the entire concept of "intellectual property". Are we a species trying to help each other improve each other's lives or not? If copyrights or patents prevent someone's work or discovery from improving someone else's life, then how did the work or discovery serve humanity? I guess it didn't." --

My understanding is that it's fairly simple. "Copyright" is more or less the same thing as "patent".

-- "Are we a species trying to help each other improve each other's lives or not?" --

For many -- perhaps most -- people, no.

Most people are just trying to make a buck. Nevertheless, if we can set things up so that people will benefit others WHILE making a buck, then they'll be inclined to do so. I've read that one of the major reasons why the ancient Greeks, Romans, etc, weren't very interested in advancing technology was that there was no system of patents -- no guarantee that if you invented X, you could make a buck from it.

Copyright isn't *exactly* the same as patent, but I know that in the early days of the printing press, authors had a lot of trouble with people "pirating" their works. (I've just been re-reading Voltaire, and he complains that people have come out with some terribly edited pirated editions of his works that make him look like an idiot.)

"No linking to User namespace from articles" rule

Could you point me to where this is located in Wikipedia's help pages/documentation? I'm not objecting to the "rule", but I can't find it, either. A search on that phrase didn't seem to locate it. - Zotmeister 20:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be able to find it either, but then again, I haven't looked for it. I go by common sense: the article namespace is supposed to be re-usable as a self-contained encyclopedia. Links to the user namespace kind of defy that. — Timwi 21:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

How would you suggest solutions to sample puzzles in articles be presented? Several solution links in other articles point to the Image namespace, but that also defies your point; putting the image of the solution itself into the article can of course spoil it for those actually reading the whole article before trying the puzzle. Is a "Sample puzzle answers" page in the article namespace preferred? I had just figured my user page wasn't being used for anything else anyway, but if a new page is a better answer, I'll set it up. - ZM

Zotmeister 21:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

A link to the image namespace is fine. I forgot about it when I said that the article namespace should be self-contained. Obviously, articles need images. — Timwi 11:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review for the correct procedure on overturning a closed AfDs. From that page: "Deletion Review is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion..." --maclean25 09:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. — Timwi 12:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Jokebook - misqote - fixing wrongs

I see reasoning in the vote on Jokebook, if that was beacause what I've said quoting Jimbo "it is an order", I just saw his comment, and now I see that he said precisely opposite, it was It isn't an order, but I was scanning quickly and for a second it read that, so I decided to repent for that misquote. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 02:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ilona Mitrecey

Kurzer Hinweis zu Deiner Änderung: wenn die Single in Frankreich 14 Wochen auf 1 war, kann das nicht der gesamten Verweildauer in den Charts entsprechen. -- 141.40.169.148 19:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ich hab doch keine Ahnung -- ich hab das nur von dem englischen Artikel übernommen. — Timwi 20:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

World of Colliers add-on and World of 2001: ASO add-on

Please, please, please refrain from redirecting the articles from <article> (World of 2001: ASO add-on) to <article>. The suffices (World of 2001: ASO add-on) and (World of Colliers) have been added on purpose as those articles refer to particular spaceport/spacecraft in a particular add-on to a particular simulation software (i.e. Orbiter (sim)). The <article> in my opinion should refer to a particular concept that is general like Von Braun Lunar Lader ... that can be implemented in many add-ons to multiple software packages... The particular implementation should be distinguishable ... If the simple search query can't find it then this is a problem of wikipedia ... google will do better! FYI: I am planning a major re-arrangement of some of the pages created around Orbiter (sim). The idea is:

• spacecraft, bases, stations from Orbiter (sim) standard distribution should have a suffix (Orbiter sim)
• spacecraft, bases, stations available as separate Orbiter (sim) add-ons should have a suffix (<Add-on name> add-on)
• Orbiter (sim) add-ons should have their own articles discussing their scope and conents with name <Add-on name> add-on

BTW: By the similar token we should not rename Dragonfly (Orbiter sim) to Dragonfly - here the naming conflict is even more visible... I will fix your redirects ASAP...

Don't go and undo all my changes. My changes are in line with Wikipedia's global naming convention. Your suggestions are not. You shouldn't have the name of the add-on in parentheses because "(Orbiter sim)" is more general and still specific enough to disambiguate the title. You must not have parentheses where the title is enough to designate an add-on and there is no ambiguity. Also, if the name of an add-on is X, it should be at "X" or "X (Orbiter sim)", but not "X add-on". — Timwi 16:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Do you know how many addons with Apollo or Soyuz there are on the net? You can't distinguish them with simple (Orbiter sim). Sticking to your idea (however well in line with the guidelines) will inevitably create multitude of disabig pages making the specific pieces of content related to Orbiter (sim) hard to link and follow. 0.39 19:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of the articles I moved had titles that sounded like fictitious things and therefore unlikely to have several incarnations. If for any thing several incarnations exist, then you can't expect me to know; you should therefore create an article about each of them in that case. (Although I would contend that they can all be presented in a single article, e.g. Orbiter (sim) representations of Apollo 11 or something, as otherwise they would all be stubs.) — Timwi 11:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What I can not comprehend is that you anyway insist on changing the names although you admit that you do not know how many incarnations of the given idea there can be :-( I can assure you that there are many: e.g. von Braun Ferry Rocket has been modded at least in X-plane and Orbiter (sim). There have been at least two incarnations of Apollo in the Orbiter (sim) alone, not counting Celestia and whatever...) What makes me really sad is that you embarked on the task of changing all those names without asking first what was the reason to get those pages such the akward naming convention in the first palace. The answer has been there somewhere all the time, it just required a little of the effort... 0.39 14:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Think about it. Assume good faith for a moment. There is no way for me to know something exists that I have never heard of and no interest in. It seemed obvious that you named them all the same way out of consistency. If you had created a disambiguation page that clarifies that so many of these things with the same name exist, then I would have seen it and not done the move. Instead, there was no article at all under the title without parentheses, so I removed the parentheses. — Timwi 18:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read my post above again. As you have written above "I have never heard of and no interest in" ... nonentheless you ask me to assume the good faith on your part? Please see Prime Base (which has nothing to do with Prime Base (World of 2001: ASO) apart from the common name) for an example of the article that has already been available and which in fact prompted me to invent this akward naming convention in the first place... I don't want to continue this discussion any longer. Just last comment: communication is the king!

Just because Prime Base exists doesn't mean all the other ones exist. — And yes, communication is the king. You didn't communicate that other items with the same name exist. You should have done so via a disambiguation page. — And you're not supposed to invent a naming convention. Wikipedia already has one. — Timwi 00:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Columbia Encyclopedia

Do you still have this list? It appears to have been completely wiped from the database. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-10 04:51

Yes, I've posted it to User:Brian0918/Columbia. Sorry about the unstructuredness! — Timwi 11:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Bike-stub protection

Hi Timwi - at some point you seem to have unprotected bike-stub from re-creation. There was a very good reason for that protection, which a very quick glance at Special:Undelete/Template:Bike-stub should confirm. User:SPUI is engaged in an at times bitter war with the WP:SFD process page, in which he seems to think that a unanimous vote for the deletion of bike-stub can be instantly overruled if he later decides that he wants to start using the stub. He's re-created this nine times so far. He's also re-creating other deleted stub types. Grutness...wha? 04:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

LoPbN templates

You added attractive box code that substantially improves legibility & quick access to the inter-page indexes when you introduced templates to LoPbN. Once it was clear the problem that made me un-box the indexes no longer applied, i eventually carried that code forward in centralized templates including Template:List of people-Top that support boxes around the indexes. But a crucial tag has been removed per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#ID=TOC. I guess i could finally go study the documentation on box-formatting code, but if you know how to achieve the same formatting without using that tag, it would be a real help.
--Jerzy•t 03:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've replied there. :) — Timwi 13:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List of interesting_or_unusual place_names

Hi, you might be interested in a/m undeletion. -- User:Docu

The page was relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination). -- User:Docu

Thanks :) — Timwi 17:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Despite the overwhelming support for keeping the list in article namespace, the above relisting was closed early. At Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of interesting or unusual place_names, the deletion is being reviewed once more (to restore the list from Wikipedia to article namespace (it's currently at Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names). -- User:Docu

Preposition stranding

In Preposition stranding#Possible preposition stranding in German, I don't suppose you could provide translation and/or gloss for the examples you added, for the benefit of those of us who don't understand German?

Thanks! :-) Ruakh 20:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. :) — Timwi 21:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Proof of Cook's theorem

Hello :) I notice you've added a proof of Cook's theorem to the Boolean satisfiability problem article. But there is already a proof in the Cook's theorem article! (it's linked to on the the former article too, in the beginning of the Complexity section). I haven't yet checked the proofs in order to see which one's better, but you might want to think about that and do something :) Regards, Rbarreira 18:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The one in Cook's theorem is better ;-) — Timwi 18:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Move of Guantanamo Bay

Please explain at Talk:Guantánamo Bay why you moved the page when there was an ongoing discussion, before the customary five days was up. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Because I didn't notice it. — Timwi 12:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please always check the talk page before moving any page. This particular page has been moved before, and there is much discussion of that in the history. Jonathunder 18:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Checking something before moving any page would be a serious waste of time. This move was completely obvious and uncontroversial. Looking at the "discussion", you're discussing a completely different issue. No-one contests that Guantánamo is spelt with an acute accent. — Timwi 23:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all too much to ask for checking that talk page (one page!) before moving the page. If you would have, you would see that your unilateral move certainly was controversial, and several editors have complained about it. Moreover, Guantanamo is not usually spelled with an accent in English, especially in references to this base. This is discussed in the talk history, and your move ignored the consensus. If you move again a page without even checking talk, let alone participating, I will list the incident on AN/I. Please do not let it come to that. Jonathunder 02:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't care if you did that. If you want to prevent me from helping Wikipedia, then you're the one being destructive and uncooperative, not me. It would encourage me to spend my time doing other things; things possibly more beneficial to myself and less beneficial to Wikipedia. — Timwi 15:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Page moves which involve checking the talk page and following consensus do help the encyclopedia. Page moves which don't follow procedure on WP:RM and move things in the middle of a discussion, contrary to the consensus there, are disruptive. I'm simply asking you to please check the discussion page first in the future and I really don't think that is so unreasonable. Jonathunder 19:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Confirm

Hi, this is FYI; on the page m:Meta:Administrators/confirm the confirmation procedure for you is currently active. Please also note the recent created page m:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. You can find it on the RC. Please put this page on your watch list. Greetings, Walter 10:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh... okay... — Timwi 22:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

your account in Wikoelsch

The ripuarian Test-Wikipedia WiKoelsch is now being transferred to ksh.wikipedia.org. Since you have contributed to the testwiki (Image:Screenshot.png) it would be great if you created an account on ksh.wikipedia.org under your wikoelsch-username. Thus, the version history will be correct after transferring the complete database. Thank you! 84.74.135.182 16:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Words

Just so you know, the verb is "sever". "Severe" is an adjective. DS 01:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This edit summary of yours is....  :-)

Don't worry about it. Your efforts are appreciated. --64.229.7.94 02:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I know I know. I looked it up and found out. I'm sorry (and embarrassed) about it. — Timwi 12:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

catsattop()

This contribution seems to have originated with you.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:User_style&diff=41183&oldid=41125

Your example doesn't make clear what hook causes JS to actually call catsattop() although the above example has some cryptic if/else that might be there for this purpose.

I found this which seems to be a robust technique:

• http://www.tek-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=4862

MaxEnt 04:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Meta e-mail

Hi! I'm leaving a message for all the meta admins who (like me until last week) have not updated/verified an e-mail address. If you have an opportunity, could you please update your preferences there? - Amgine 00:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. — Timwi 12:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar I award you this Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for your valor in the struggle against those who attempt to forge consensus through bullying. —Guanaco 00:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I'm kind of flattered :-) — Timwi 09:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternate (not Alternative) Reality Gaming

Timwi,

Can you please reverse the changes you made to the Wikipedia page on Alternate Reality Gaming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_reality_game)? The genre has been called Alternate Reality Gaming since 2002, and the term has gained mainstream recognition. Therefore, your changing of the name of an entire genre of gaming does not seem appropriate, in my humble opinion.

If you have any questions, or need links to the dozens of media articles which use the term 'Alternate Reality Gaming' or links to the web resources dedicated to "Alternate Reality Gaming", please email me at jwaite@argn.com.

Jonathan Waite Alternate Reality Gaming Network --argjamesi

Seconded. The genre is, and has always been called "Alternate Reality Gaming". --Skenmy 14:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Gotta agree here, very strongly. The game developers themselves, the press, academia, and the International Game Developers Association (http://www.igda.org/) refer to this genre as Alternate Reality Gaming. Renaming it Alternative Reality Gaming is highly, highly inaccurate. --Steve Peters vpisteve

I'm not stopping you :-) — Timwi 21:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I will change them back right now. There is also a redirect issue, as the page will still redirect to Alternative Reality Gaming, regardless of the changes I am about to make, I think. Or am I wrong?

Help:Moving a page — Timwi 16:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Hello,

I saw your questions/concerns on the pipermail archives of wikitech-l, regarding the new Wiktionary redirect functions. Since I'm the one who-done-it, I feel I ought to reply to you, but I'm too chicken to join the mailing list (my spamblocker of choice does not react well to mailing lists, even in digest mode.)

The Wiktionary redirects for case sensitivity apply only to external links. Internal redlinks do not auto-redirect, but do indicate that the other entry exists. External links get wikt:MediaWiki:Noarticletext while internal links get wikt:MediaWiki:Newarticletext.

On en.wikt:, when more than one capitalization entry exists, they must/should cross reference each other with wikt:Template:see on the first line of the entry (before the first heading, before images, before Wikipedia links, before TOC, etc.)

So, on en.wikt:, to enter wikt:buenos Aires, you'd need to first add {{see|buenos Aires}} to wikt:Buenos Aires. Or follow any of the redlinks on any of the dozens of "Requests" pages. Or edit an existing redirect.

The driving force for this, was the unknown number of external links (mainly from sister projects such as Wikipedia, but also from places like www.onelook.com.) Now we finally have a somewhat reliable way of getting people to the right page from external links that have been either auto-lowercase-first-character, or auto-uppercase-first-character, or auto-lowercase-all by external software.

The secondary motivating factor is that en.wikt: community never did agree that it wanted case sensitivity for headwords. There was nearly as much noise when the rest of the Wiktionaries were (8 or 9 months later) involuntarily converted to case-sensitive headwords.

If you have more questions, please ask them where I might see them, such as wikt:User talk:Connel MacKenzie, as I try not to visit Wikipedia very much. (But I have been doing exactly that, a lot lately.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-May/035550.html --Connel MacKenzie 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I completely don't see the connection. The posting you linked to is one in which I make a suggestion. Your comment here is explaining or justifying something that has no connection with my suggestion, nor does it conflict with my suggestion in any way. I am therefore completely puzzled as to what is the point you are trying to make. — Timwi 16:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You said: I cannot follow this line of reasoning. The purpose of "being caseful", as you call it, is to have (1) correct article titles, and (2) the potential capability of having separate entries differing only in their capitalisation. Neither of two have anything to do with redirects.

So, I was responding to your implicit question "I cannot follow this line of reasoning" and your misconception about Wiktionary's involuntary use of redirects. Apparently, my explanation was not sufficient. How about this then: it works the way we (Wiktionary) need it to, now. --Connel MacKenzie 17:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"I cannot follow this line of reasoning" wasn't an implicit question, it was a euphemism for "your reasoning is wrong". I don't think I have any misconceptions about Wiktionary's use of redirects, because I don't know, don't care, and didn't say anything about Wiktionary's use of redirects. As for your workaround (which, by the way, doesn't involve any redirects), it might "work" okay, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved (using redirects, for example). — I think you just misunderstood my entire suggestion. Judging from some of what you say here, I am inclined to suggest you don't even know what a redirect is. — Timwi 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly did I do, to merit your insults? Your reasoning is wrong, as redirects are not used on Wiktionary the same way they are on Wikipedia. The entire thread was about Wiktionary redirects and case-sensitivity, including your comments.

As you apparently have a inherent need to be hostile, I shall bid you good day. --Connel MacKenzie 15:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing hostile about the above comment. I also can't find any insults in it. — What reasoning of mine that you said is wrong are you referring to? — Timwi 16:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to a protected page

Hi, you inadvertently edited Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion while it was protected due to a content dispute. Could you please revert immediately. --Tony Sidaway 17:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh never mind. Someone reverted and then James F put a note on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 19:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

cheers

[In response to Magicalsaumy mass-spamming user talk pages with an invitation to contribute to the Hindi Wikipedia]

thanks for deleting that. i'm not sure who placed the 'speaks hindi' tag on my userpage, either, cuz i don't. people just assume 'oooh, indian... must speak hindi, right?' and then people fill my talk page with big chunks of spam. anyway, thanks. (lol... u seem to be on quite the crusade against him, though! take it easy :p) riana 13:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

?

[In response to User:Timwi mass-deleting Magaicalsaumi's invitation to contribute to the Hindi Wikipedia]

So how come you removed an invite posted on my talk page by Magicalsaumy ? Please have the courtesy of responding on my talk page, since you felt free to remove stuff from it without even a by your leave. Haphar 13:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It was spam. – Timwi 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You have decided it was spam, I do not think it was spam. It is relevant to my interests. You deleted stuff and did not even leave a byword, have the courtesy of responding on the page where you did the deleting. Haphar 16:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Timwi the response is to you deleting the invite, and not to Magicalsaumy sending the invite, please do not insert headings which do not convey the truth.

Your accusations

Dear Timwi,

What or who do you think you are? Deleting all my invitations and labelling them as SPAM? I am also an admin at another wiki. I know more English than you do, and I have clearly read Wiki policies against internal spamming. There is nothing in that invitation/info message that can be labelled as spam. I have not publicized my company's products, nor called for a Jehad. I had messaged only relevant users, about another WIKIPEDIA. I take your action of reverting my messages on OTHER PEOPLE's talk pages as a serious offense. Just like you considered my work as spam, I consider yours as vandalism. Mind you, I will not let you ruin my entire night-out (without the help of any bot whatsoever) with just your few clicks. I am going to rerevert all those messages on the talk page. And for your satisfaction, I assure you that this time I will do the rereverting only on native/advanced speakers of Hindi(you can check them in the relevant category). If they individually delete the post, fine. And I have got rational responses on my talk page of those wishing to contribute and those unable to do so. Even User:DragonflySixtyseven agreed to deblock me upon reading my message. It seems you have forgotten Wikiquettes and are bent on making me forget them too.

And as for the humble mistake that I did of sending the message to you, it was because YOU had created a login page on Hindi wiki, wherein it was written in Hindi नमस्ते, मै यहाँ पर नया हूँ. And on the sidebar were your corresponding pages on the other wikis, clearly indicating that you wish to get messages on English wiki. Now get an excuse for that too. Maybe a few more such users suffered the same misunderstanding, for which I am sorry. But that does not mean you revert my entire hard work.

Cygnus_hansa 16:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You're justifying yourself again. :-) — I am not intending to go into a war with you, quite unlike you are with me. — Interesting that you point out my Hindi user page, as if I didn't know it exists. :) — Timwi 17:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

There is no need to delete the comment about Hindi WP from my talk page, but it's large and makes the page look ugly, so I'll be very grateful if you could put one of those nifty Hide/Show buttons there and make it default to hide. I hope this's not too much of bother. Thanks! Loom91 10:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing me with Magicalsaumy now. — Timwi 11:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. You deleted his message from my talk page, didn't you? Loom91 06:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Why should I go for such a trouble if I didn't even create the message and have no interest in having it on other user talk pages? — Timwi 08:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course you have no responsibility to. That was meant purely as a request as I have been unable to figure out how to implement that particular feature. I could have requested anyone, I just saw your name in the edit summary and decided to ask you. Feel free to ignore. Loom91 09:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Nice meeting you. I would like to know the reason for reverting the follwing edit:

• Invitation
• Revert by you

I believe that you innocently reverted the edits without understanding the contents. Please let me know your version. Thanks. --Bhadani 17:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A reply on my talk page shall be appreciated. Such reverts amounts to vandalizing my talk page. However, I am taking this as an innocent action. --Bhadani 17:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I considered it spam. If you don't, you can very easily just re-revert me. — Timwi 18:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, in my opinion they were requests to build the project in another language, and not spam as it is understood in the usual sense. As you appear to be very busy person to reply here inspiter of a proper link, I am copying the interaction on my talk page for future reference. Bye.. byeee. --Bhadani 11:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

BARNSTAR!

Despite the criticism, I love what you did to 2006 FIFA World Cup schedule. The table is by far the best look, and I appreciate your efforts. Here, take a barnstar!

The Original Barnstar For your efforts to 2006 FIFA World Cup schedule on changing it from a calendar to a table (changed here), I, IanManka, give you the Original Barnstar! Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :-) — Timwi 09:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Academy: Translation request

Hallo Timwi, über die Meta-Seite "Übersetzung" bin ich auf Dich gestoßen und habe eine große Bitte an Dich. Ich habe einen zweiseitigen Abschlußbericht für die Foundation über die weltweit erste Wikipedia Academy geschrieben, die am vergangenen Wochenende in Göttingen/Deutschland stattgefunden hat und suche nun nach einem engagierten Übersetzer ins Englische. Wärst Du bereit, mir zu helfen? Über eine positive Antwort würde ich mich sehr freuen. Herzliche Grüße aus Deutschland. --Frank Schulenburg 13:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You'll find some impressions on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Academy_2006

Du musst schon etwas genauer sein. Was genau soll ich übersetzen? — Timwi 18:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Den Text würde ich Dir gerne per Mail schicken. Könntest Du mir bitte Deine Adresse zukommen lassen? --Frank Schulenburg 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Nee, wenn es nicht für das Projekt ist, d.h. auf einem Wiki steht, dann habe ich kein Interesse. — Timwi 20:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Es ist für das Projekt Wikipedia, steht aber momentan noch in einem internen Wiki des deutschen Chapters. Trotzdem Danke für Deine prompten Antworten. Viel Erfolg weiterhin für Deine Arbeit hier --Frank Schulenburg 21:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wenn es für Wikipedia ist, dann hat es nirgendwo anders was zu suchen als auf einem Wiki. Wenn du Freiwillige zur Mitarbeit suchst, gibt es keinen sinnvolleren Ort für das Material als einen Wiki. — Timwi 16:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)