User talk:Susvolans/Archive 1

Start a new discussion thread

Welcome to wikipedia Susvolans!

I saw that you made a edit under your new name and that you didn't have a talk page so I created one for you! Your talk page is easy to use and is a great way for other people to talk to you. If a new message is on your talk page a banner should notify you the next time you refresh wikipedia. Wikipedia's rules can be tricky so if you have any questions I will be happy to answer them or redirect you to someone who can. Remember to always be bold with your additions and edits as it is the quickest and most efficient way for our user driven encyclopedia to grow!

Thanks For Joining and Welcome!

--Windfinder 12:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note: Use the tilde key ~ to sign your name as I did above.

Is there any reason why you made my article on the Sook Ching Massacre so short?

"Whomever"

You seem to have gone through a few articles, removing the occurrences of the above accusitive case and replacing it with the nominative "whoever", wrongly - why?
James F. (talk) 16:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I find that very few people know how to use "whomever" correctly. Some of your changes are appropriate - they really should be "whoever." Others were perfectly correct as "whomever." Were you trying to eliminate "whomever" and "whom" altogether? I have some sympathy for this choice, but it shouldn't be imposed upon other peoples' writing. The most frequent source of confusion is when the pronoun seems to participate in two clauses. Ordinarily the pronoun's case is determined by its role in the subordinate clause: therefore "She talked to whomever she chose," but "She talked to whoever was there."
Reuben 07:11, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dashes

Hi, Susvolans.

I notice that you're in the process of replacing hyphens with dashes in sundry articles.

The dash policy on Wikipedia is still under construction, whatever preliminary judgement might appear to prevail on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) page.

The consensus is that — and – should appear in the rendered HTML. While a vocal minority of Wikipedians have lobbied for this policy to be extended to wikitext, the majority of Wikipedians continue to adopt spaced hyphens (sometimes double hyphens for mdash) in their edits either because that's the de facto web (and Wikipedia) standard, or because they eagerly anticipate the much-fabled update of MediaWiki that will allow hyphenators and dashers to live together in hair-braiding harmony by performing automatic conversions from the edit-friendly standard to the print-friendly stricture.

The print style guides that recommend ndash and mdash also recommend title case headings and "smart" quotes, neither of which are acceptable on Wikipedia.

Though the Dashes page has railroaded a wording that flouts the very nature (bottom-up not top-down) of Wikipedia, I hope I can persuade you to abide by this alternative suggestion from one of the many Dash-related Talk pages:

Evolving language and the decreased reliance on print world conventions have led to the hyphen becoming an acceptable replacement for other dashes. Where hyphens have been used in place of other dashes, you are discouraged from changing these, in the same way that changing spelling forms is discouraged. (See #Usage and spelling). [1]

Tori Amos

Hi, Susvolans.

Didn't we discuss this already? The Manual of Style contradicts itself on the subject of dashes. It preaches both wikilove:

In the interests of Wikipedia:Wikilove and pending the planned update of the Wikimedia software that will automatically convert strings of hyphens into the appropriate correct en- and em dashes, editors are encouraged to be accepting of others' dash preferences and not to modify a chosen style arbitrarily, in the same way as they would refrain from arbitrarily changing "artefact" to "artifact" (or vice-versa).

and intolerance:

A single spaced hyphen - actually, there's no real reason to flout the rules of good typesetting in this way.

This is hardly surprising as there is no consensus (dashes or hyphens) on the talk page of that article as I've already indicated. The only consensus is that hyphens should appear in the wikitext and be rendered as dashes:

However, editors making such changes should be aware that when MediaWiki is set to automatically convert -- in the source to a real dash, all HTML entities such as – will be deprecated and changed back to hyphens in the wikitext.

The article has slowly crept from the de facto current and de jure future Wikipedia standard favoured by the contributors who took the trouble to add the material in the first place (spaced hyphens) to your pet preference for unspaced mdashes, which is not popular even among most dashers. This kind of drive-by editing, which adds no new material to the article, but succeeds admirably in discouraging contributors like myself who have, contradicts the Manual of Style's wikilove counsel as well as common courtesy. For more discussion on this latter point, please see here and here.

chocolateboy 19:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Elton John

Hi again.

If an editor makes a nontrivial contribution to an article, I'm compelled to respect their stylistic preferences [2]. You've added nothing to Elton John. If you want to challenge me on my policy proclivities, why don't you (attempt to) remove the ambiguity from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes), or remove the clarity from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), rather than disrupting an article I've slaved over to make a point?

chocolateboy 09:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Which"

I see that you've removed the word "which" from many pages. Do you have a reason for disliking it? If you continue doing this, please (a) don't make grammar less correct to accommodate it (many people prefer not to end sentences with prepositions) and (b) use a more descriptive name for these changes than "rephrase for readability." I find the word "which" perfectly readable. Thanks for looking out for the state of English on the Wikipedia, though. -- Rbellin 14:33, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Attacks

Who started the attacks was that idiot. Not me. He have "esquisofrenia" (I dont know how to write this in English, Schizofrennya?!?!?). I'm not a doctor. We need another Brazilian and another Portuguese that understands about this (that dumb doesnt even know what's a dialect and what's a Standard) and name archaic a word that return almost 3 million google hits in Brazil. He even says that I'm responsible for all edits on the article, thing that where written by other Portuguese and Brazilians. He speaks Portuguese from Slum Quarters (favelas) thinks that is Brazilian Portuguese. That is similar to African-American English. -Pedro 16:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry If I seem rude, but I'm not, I havent read most of the stupidity that he wrote, and I wont read it. It is useless. I'll talk with other people. -Pedro 16:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/IZAK

Please see Complaint against IZAK and add your signature under Users certifying the basis for this dispute if you agree with the complaint. Thanks. HistoryBuffEr 08:23, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

I doubt if I am qualified to co-sponsor this. Have you tried Alberuni, Gadykozma, Jfdwolff, or Jayjg? Susvolans 13:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC).

Any user can certify the basis for dispute. The reason I asked you is because you were also unjustly smeared by IZAK. HistoryBuffEr 17:45, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

br clear

<br clear=all> (use <nowiki></nowiki> to make it show up) forces the text to line up with the picture, if you have several other pictures on an article, otherwise they will overlap and look messy. See the difference between [3] and [4]. This won't look the same in all browsers, but using clear=all ensures that layout. Dysprosia 12:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Use of quotation mark for glottal stops, etc.

I have reverted your policy revisions on this matter in the Wikipedia Manual of style. The matter is more complex than indicated. I moved your suggestion to the talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Use_of_quotation_mark_for_glottal_stops.2C_etc. with my comments on the matter. The policy as stated affected far more than Hawaiian (and even for Hawaiian probably should have more consensus). I fully agree that something along the lines of your suggestion should replace the current rules. Jallan 15:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tony Blair

Why did you change dashes to hyphens in the Tony Blair article? Susvolans 11:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the — is deprecated in Wikipedia and has been for some time. I will check the style manual for you. Sjc 12:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually a reading of the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dashes) is as convoluted as I remember earlier manifestations of it as being. My apologies, and if you want me to revert the to mdash format please let me know. Sjc 12:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"regime" is not that POV in english, check with a native speaker

"regime" is not that POV, some people think it is associated with a negative conclusion because it is most often used in association with non-democratic rulers, but if one referred to the the "Bush regime" or the "Clinton regime" in conversation it would not result in any significant offense. Please put all your gratuitious changes back.--Silverback 15:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FYI: Temp injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily

1) Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with German or Polish subjects whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorised to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

2) Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, and VeryVerily are banned from reverting any article more than twice in one 24 hour period whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops are hereby authorised to enact 24 blocks for violations of this.

3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

--mav 21:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bat & Ball railway station

I really cannot understand why such an unimportant railway station (and there is another more important in Sevenoaks) should warrant having its own article. I have already included info about it under the town, including the full date.
Nor can I really see why the information regarding the whole of the SE Trains (SET) are included here , when there is a full article on SET already. I've copied it there, anyway.
And I cannot see why anyone uses Wikipedia to find train times as of this minute, like the other External link does!!!

All in all I think this article needs deleting altogether ... do you agree? Peter Shearan 14:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deletion in List of interesting or unusual place names

Would you care to explain why you deleted the perfectly existent America, Cambridgeshire, England? -- Smjg 16:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discussion continuing on Talk:List of interesting or unusual place names#America, Cambs.

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Stephen King (paedophile)

As a general rule a VfD vote needs to be at least a two thirds majority in favour of deletion for an article to be removed. In this case the votes were 9 to 7 in favour of deletion, a majority but not a consensus. - SimonP 18:04, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

User:Chocolateboy

Hi there, I saw your note on WP:VIP. Note that reverting more than 3 times is disallowed in this rule. Also, he explained his edits in his summaries, so there's nothing wrong with the edit. If there's further problems you can go to WP:RFC or WP:RFM or notify an admin at WP:AN. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:19, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Main namespace cleanup

Heya, good to see you joining in on the main to user link cleanup fest. ! Also, my condolances on your not living in Surrey, it really is a wonderful place.

Oh, by the way, you can also use {{del}} instead of {{delete}}. And with any luck, soon: {{d}} (but not yet). --fvw * 15:33, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Question

Why did you remove my correction of a misquote in the summary of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Everyking? I dislike being misquoted, moreso when I am misquoted as being vulgar when I said nothing of the sort, as was apparent with my insertion of the actual quote in brackets after the misquote itself (with a cite to the actual entry in question). So could you explain yourself? →Reene ^✎ 05:34, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, alright. Just a misunderstanding then. I just got back after a bit of an absence so I'm still adjusting to the problems abounding lately. That and the situation has me a bit sensitive. Not an excuse of course, but I hope you'll accept my apology. →Reene ^✎ 23:47, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

"revert, please learn how to be selective if you have problems"

Look who is talking, you revived the old "regime" issue that the community had settled long ago, and you mixed it in with some html fixes, and your derogatory portrayal of the insurgents as "guerillas". Please learn to be selective if you want to really make a contribution.--Silverback 12:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VfD of user subpage

Users are allowed to make comments in their user space and on talk pages, except personal attacks, that other users find highly offensive. If a user has been accusing you of something you believe you have not done, make a few good-faith attempts to discuss your objection (be prepared to admit fault if appropriate). If that doesn't work, use the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Gazpacho 23:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vfd - Vaughn (Band)

Please justify vfd'ing Vaughn (Band). Did you actually do any research or just assume the article was vanity? Djbrianuk 01:37 GMT, 19 Jan 2005

superscripts

I noticed you've fixed some of the superscript issues (at least in some Japanese location stubs, e.g. Yoshida, Shizuoka) by using a superscript character rather than the html token "& s u p 2 ;" (many instances are missing the trailing ";"). I'm not entirely sure, but I think the html token is actually more platform neutral and should be preferred. I believe the superscript character likely displays as a single <= character on some (presumably older) Macs. In any event, if you know (for sure) different please let me know and if not can you in the future fix these by adding the trailing ";"? Thanks. -- Rick Block 14:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The edit window superscript characters are puzzling given Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Character_formatting and Meta:Help:Special characters#Unsafe characters. I'm actually using a relatively new Mac (OS X) and there isn't a problem, but I think OS 9 and earlier use Mac-Roman which I strongly suspect means a literal ² would display as ≤. -- Rick Block 18:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia truncating articles

You may have noticed the server problems with Wikipedia recently. One of the consequences is that sometimes an article will be truncated during an edit. This happened to your editing of Article One of the United States Constitution yesterday, which I have just fixed. Since I discovered this, I have taken to checking the diff after every edit I make. — PhilHibbs | talk 15:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Poland-stub

Hi Suslovans - I notice you've moved one or two geo-stub articles to {{Poland-stub}} (e.g., Autonomous Silesian Voivodship). I was actually considering making a separate {{Poland-geo-stub}}, since there are about 70 Polish location stubs in Category:Geography stubs. Grutness|^hello? 04:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey. What have you got say about listing me on ViP? Everyking 08:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

North London Line

Good Evening. Looks like I had the same idea as you but on the other end of the line: West Ham station & Canning Town station. I like having the insert "National Rail Lines" you might want to copy that. All the best. Steve

List of metro systems

Yes I think that's the best thing, to remove the Oceanian systems. Keep some sort of a disclaimer, though, or they'll reappear in no time. - Randwicked 04:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's about right. - Randwicked 23:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your help with the latest Willy on Wheels episode. It certainly halved the workload! -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 16:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

R101

Why ist this redirect no candidate for speedy deletion? i want to move the article Airship R101 to this name, because there is a similar article about the R100. Hadhuey 17:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Advice you need

People pile onto MY talk page to tell me to space after punctuation marks...I don't agree and won't do it,but they seem to think it worth the effort.So in the similar spirit:NEVER USE A HTML COMMAND FOR A DASH WHEN THERE ARE PERFECTLY GOOD HYPHENS ON YOUR KEYBOARD!!--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Commas and periods go inside the quotation marks in American English, and History of Russia is written in American English. I don't care if you have an ax to grind against me; I'm willing to go all the way back to arbitration to keep the grammar correct in that article. 172 21:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spui

Hah, no, I hadn't seen that. Too bad there's no station name in the photo. By the way, my name comes from Single Point Urban Interchange, not the river/whatever in nl. --SPUI (talk) 09:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan or RoC?

Hi Susvolans - I've added a couple more external links to your list - including the BBC. I also stumbled across the Inaugural Speech of you-know-where's president, in which he uses the two terms Republic of China and Taiwan interchangably throughout - [5]. Grutness|^hello? 00:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk vote enforcement

Thanks for the heads up on that vote. I had seen the long list of options and decided I didn't care enough (or know enough) to vote on them, but I hadn't noticed that little enforcement clause. I have voted against. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan and Republic of China

Thanks very much for researching on sources that the two groups of islands are listed as part of Taiwan. All the 16 sources on the list uses "Taiwan" in the place of "Republic of China", as the way it is now known most of the world. None of the sources has addressed the issue on whether the two groups of islands are geographically related to the island of Taiwan, like Pescadores, Orchid Island and Green Island do, or politically part of a political entity called Taiwan Province.

I understand "Taiwan" is much better known in many parts of the world. It is, however, a consensus on Wikipedia after long debates to have placed the article about the government at Republic of China but not Taiwan. According to the naming conventions on China-related topics, Taiwan (the island or the province) should be mentioned as part of the ROC, but not as a country on its own. This way of treatment is an NPOV and accurate description of the status quo. I hope this helps understanding the issue. — Insta ntnood 17:36 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

RfC

The sharing at RfC seems to be over. I have made a response there. Please take a look. I do hope that with everyone's effort Wikipedia will soon be the best encyclopedia ever. :-D — Insta ntnood 21:14 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

Tally boxes poll

Hi there! You've stated that this poll is based on adversarial principles. I'm not sure what you're referring to, but for the sake of improving possible future polls, would you please explain it to me? Thanks. Yours, Radiant! 14:36, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome template

Many thanks! In fact I'd realised that I should have been using 'subst', so perhaps I'd have been safe, but at least now I know what was going wrong (though I'm still not sure why). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

My adminship

Thank you for voting for me for adminship. I appreciate the confidence you showed in me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Developers not removing sysop capabilities

Over on the proposed arbcom changes you mentioned a developer removing administrator capabilities. That's not actually what happened. Hopefully this will clarify:

Adding and removing sysop capability used to be done via direct server access and those who did it used to be called developers.
Later, a flag with text value "developer" was added and those who did the adding and removing got that flag on their accounts and lost server access, ceasing to be developers in any meaning of that word.
Later still, the adding and removing capabilities were split and bureaucrats now get a flag with value "bureaucrat" while the value "developer" is used for stewards.
One bureaucrat didn't have the flag with value "developer" removed when the software was changed and retained the remove capability (but not the authorisation to use it to remove). During the dispute, that bureaucrat used the capability to remove the sysop flag from several sysops. This is probably the developer you're referring to, though it wasn't actually a developer. No direct server access was involved.
Once a developer (me) found out that the old flag was still present on a bureaucrat account, I double checked with a steward to confirm that the person wasn't a steward, then completed the software update, removing the flag with value "developer" which gave steward remove capability to that particular bureaucrat account. This was the only actual developer action in that incident and it was limited to doing what the original software change should have done. A developer rather than a steward did it because it was a software update issue and it was better for a developer to do that to make it clear that that is what it was.
I (and others) then told the bureaucrat that the capability wasn't supposed to be there. As the neatest way to undo it, I asked the bureaucrat to add back the sysop flags which had been removed. The bureaucrat promptly did so, returning things to the state they should have been in if the flag had been removed by the software update process.
Developers created the bureaucrat and steward flags so developers wouldn't normally need to be involved in this sort of thing. Since we know that, it's unlikely we'll act except to deal with software issues like that one or in a real emergency when there's no steward around. *In the future, the use of the flag with the confusing value "developer" for a steward is going to be changed, to the obvious "steward". Jamesday 16:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

maps

You have a strange view about what constitutes high quality. See talk:Panama Jooler 17:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Leeds Railways

Hi Susvolans - you are the only one to have commented on my suggestion re this category; and I am unsure what the procedure is now. I find I cannot change it, so how does one go about it? Peter Shearan 13:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Divbox

— Xiongtalk 14:00, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Add

By the way, I've added {{add}} to the top of this page. This is a service for long Talk pages that helps to confine new comments and speed page load for editors. Please let me know if you find it helpful. — Xiongtalk 14:02, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Netoholic

Our buddy has rv {{divbox}} again. I do appreciate you showing your support; that counts for much more than anything else. Now, he's slapping {tfd}s on everything. I fear I've angered him. I don't know what we're going to do about him. I've reported him for vandalism, but of course the more threatened he feels, the more destructive he becomes. What has he to lose?

Please sign your comments on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2/Evidence. Thank You! — Xiongtalk 07:49, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zürich to Zurich

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 09:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Convention

Will you consider a Charter Convention? If so, email me. — Xiong 熊 talk 15:14, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

List of urban heavy rail systems

It was part of the merging of various articles into urban heavy rail. It's not important; you can move it back if you feel it's a good idea. I figured it's best to be consistent across article titles; the choice of urban heavy rail was to provide a neutral term and prevent another split like the recent one that created subway as a US version of metro. --SPUI (talk) 12:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Place redirects

What's with all the eccentric mass moving of place names? Brookie:A glow in the dark 16:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These moves are entirely pointless and I shall start reverting them Brookie:A glow in the dark 18:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thrapston

Hi Susvolans. I've requested a move back to Thrapston. It would help if you could go to Talk:Thrapston - Northamptonshire and vote. Thanks Chris Jefferies 21:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Middlesex

Hello. Can you give me one example of this? I don't think you are right there.

RE:Snowtown

I don't think an apology was due. An explanation, however, at the article's talk-page would have been nice (perhaps obligatory). I was just puzzled by the goings-on.--Cyberjunkie 10:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

What are you doing with all of those templates? And are you planning on cleaning up all of the redirects you've left in the article name space? Rick K 08:33, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Susvolans, it's good that you are moving the page fragments into Template space, however, there is a proposal in place to do this in a more organized way Template talk:Election box#Metadata proposal. It would have been nice if your moves could have been done in accordance with this proposal. Using the current naming convention Template:party name/meta/color it is possible for collisions with other template names and it is hard to locate them all. 80N 11:53, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

You have tagged Veritas (political party)/meta/color for speedy deletion but you have not corrected the 35 articles that use this page. Please correct links to a page before adding a delete tag. - Tεx τ urε 15:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Noimage

FYI: This template is being discussed on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Because you have edited it, I thought you might like to know. FreplySpang (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters FearÉIREANN^(talk) 20:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith...

Hi Susvolans,

I know that you're a tireless fighter of vandals, and that it can lead to a tendency to assume the worst when someone mucks up a page's formatting. Still, I would appreciate it if you could assume good faith when another competent, reliable, regular editor inadvertently makes an error. I don't make intentionally disruptive edits—ever—and it's a bit of a slap in the face to be accused of such. I quite understand your reversion of my edit given the effect it had, but in future perhaps you could drop me a note on my Talk page or at least leave a neutral edit summary in lieu of asserting I was deliberately damaging the proposal document. Even though I disagree with it, I wouldn't stoop to defacement.

Keep up the good work, TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Volans

Re the photo on your user page, I'll believe it's Volans ... well, when pigs fly...! Best, Bill 20:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, R adiant _>|< 08:09, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 15:09, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

bolded text redirects

Hi Susvolans,

I wouldn't use the bolded names in the first paragraph as input for link suggester, as these may not be valid. However, it could be a good idea to do something like this:

For each bit of bolded text in the first paragraph:
- If there is not already an article or redirect of the same name as the bolded text:
  - Suggest making a redirect from the bolded text name pointing to this article.

These suggestions would then be listed in a format something like the redirect suggestions, for human review. If these redirects get added, then the link suggester will automatically use those redirects to suggest possible links.

Could work... I'll add this to my list of possible things to do. No promises though!

All the best, Nickj (t) 01:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thank you for supporting me! --Kbdank71 13:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:Qeqertarsuatsiaq

Um... I'm using Firefox, and have been for a while... Grutness...wha? 03:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what operating system are you using?

Mac OS X, with Mozilla 1.7. I think I may have fixed the problem though - something was set weirdly in the preferences. Grutness...wha? 13:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Impressive

Your efforts at stubsorting and locating vandals (not to mention 6k edits) lead to the intriguing question of why you aren't an admin. I'd be happy to nominate you if you want. R adiant _>|< 14:59, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Done. And good luck! Radiant_>|< 18:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Susvolans, that is. Don't mind the initial criticism, that happens on a lot of RFAs but you should talk to them and see if you can resolve the problems. R adiant _>|< 23:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

RFA Standard Questions

Hi! Would you mind answering the standard questions on Your RFA a little better?

I used to hate those *&#*@&#* questions, but nowadays with the project so large they're practically the only thing people have to go on :-/

It's especially handy to provide diffs to give people something to actually track down.

Thanks for your time!

--Kim Bruning 30 June 2005 06:18 (UTC)

cyrilic problems

Hey. I'm using Internet Explorer 5. I've already been told this is a problem (seeTalk:Blind Musicians; is this going to happen everytime I try to edit this article? NoahB 1 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

You may have a problem with your browser

Thanks for noticing, but the problem was not with a browser. I had made the changes in an editor that happened to be set to Latin-1 at the time. I have now reverted the remaining corruption [6], but it's probably still a bogus encoding. --Zigger «º» 1 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)

Gesca Redirects

Hi, with regards to your question about the broken Gesca redirects, I've created a Gesca Limitée article. Take care, Kurieeto July 4, 2005 16:54 (UTC)

Community Portal change

Whoa! Sorry about that. No idea what happened there. I'm using Safari 1.0.3, Mac OSX 10.2.8. I've been gone for several days, and that hasn't happened before. Maybe a 1.5 bug that should be reported? Thanks for fixing, any any tech input you have would be greatly appreciated. Sorry again. Soundguy99 5 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)

Thanks. Think I fixed it. FYI, should you run into any other problem users, Safari can be reset (under "Preferences") to use UTF-8, although the standard default is Latin-1. Soundguy99 5 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/05/07/05a

CSD proposal P1

Thank you for reverting the deletion of proposal P1. I was just about to revert this myself. DES 7 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)

Stop trolling. P1 is not even a finalized proposal (look at the page), and should not be added in half-way through the voting period. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)

Thank you for showing an interest in the proposals. The reworded version of Tony's good compromise is now in place, your opinion is welcome. R adiant _>|< July 7, 2005 18:53 (UTC)

tfd

Feel free to re-vote on Wiktionarypar2, and now on Wiktionarypar3 also. This is a new vote, with an explanation as to why I tagged them for deletion. The vote now covers both templates. You may want to read Template talk:Wiktionary for an explanation of the issue behind this. In short, Wiktionary is now case-sensitive, so the entire scheme of these linking templates needs to be updated. Creating these two new ones just adds confusion and is not going to be part of the final solution. -- Netoholic @ 15:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Throw that baby out so hard it bounces!

A lot of the stuff you keep reverting back into the Supercentenarian article is stuff the article is much better off without.From formatting conceits that make it look more like a collection of illustrations for an article than an article itself,to non-consensus validations included in material better covered elsewhere,to links that go nowhere on people not notable enough to merit articles,to lists too long for their own good.I continue to regard the version I keep restoring as better than the one you keep vandalzing it with.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Please stop using an unsafe browser, now

Dear Susvolans - you wrote: Please stop using the Macintosh version of Internet Explorer to edit pages. I am using Mozilla Firefox, and have been for some time. I use IE to read pages when I cannot use Firefox, but I no longer edit in it. Grutness...wha? 12:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found the problem. Yet again this damned Mozilla has re-set its preferences on me. Everyone says how great Firefox is, but it's intolerably slow (about 1/5 the speed of IE for Mac), keeps logging me out, and keeps re-setting its preferences so that it can't handle unicode properly. I'm thoroughly sick of it. Grutness...wha? 13:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback and godmode-light

Hiya, Susvolans, I noticed you use the godmode-light script. As you use an emulation of the rollback feature I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on a proposal I have which would grant the rollback feature to those who request it, similar to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, except with a lower threshold. The proposal is at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback; your comments are welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback. Thanks! Talrias (t | e | c) 17:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American

Following your edits that an article titled American should be a disambiguation page, I moved the former American to Use of the word American, removed (or copied) the disambiguating elements and returned them to the new American, which is now a much more proper dab page. Your hidden text remains, but you may want to remove it and change your comments elsewhere. Thank you for clearly my thinking on this issue. -Acjelen 02:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I may have a problem with my browser"

Thanks. See reply on User talk:Ummit. Steve Summit 23:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/12.144.5.2

This is the guy who keeps screwing up the em dashes on the Revenge of the Sith article. Turns out he's been warned about this before but continues disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Thus the RfC. If you could endorse I'd appreciate it, thanks :) — Phil Welch 01:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Staying cool

Sus, thanks for the warning. Incidentally, I was quite cool, but I can see how my last message can be seen as proof of the opposite. English is my third language, so I can only guess that "for crying out loud" shouldn't have been there. I've removed it. Best (and I really appreciate the warning), Arbor 16:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes

Please don't changes all of these. The use of "-" is well-established in huindreds of article titles on Wikipedia and not wrong at all.--Pharos 11:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony?

That would be appreciated. Please see Theresa Knott's talk page; she attempted mediation, even though Tony isn't listening to a word she's saying. The problem is that he doesn't respond to comments - he either ignores them turns them into straw men, and then calls the commenter a liar. So best of luck here. R adiant _>|< 14:34, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer, but I don't think there's anything major at the bottom of this. I'm not angry at him but I've gotten a little impatient with his confrontational approach, and bored with the failure of communication resulting from my having to correct him on the facts upon which he has based his numerous complaints. As we don't tend to edit the same articles it's not a big deal; we aren't required to all like one another. Radiant! seems to have acquired some animosity in general towards those who advocate inclusion of school articles; it's par for the course and not a problem for me. There are plenty of other people with whom I can collaborate and am most happy to do so.

The VfD issue, initially some complaints raised by Ambi and some other chap, new fellow, was all thrashed out on RfC to my satisfaction, with overwhelming support for me on the facts and on the issues raised (something like 24 to 4). The remaining differences I think are down to gray areas of policy and as I announced on Theresa's talk page I've adapted my strategy for dealing with disputed speedies, about which the initial complaint was made. In short, it's a storm in a teacup. Several of my more recent rewrites have been put through VfD for one reason or another and the upshot is that they tend to sail through, (Warren Benbow, Monique DeMoan, Jive.exe) so no problem there. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 19:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, don't put words in my mouth. Every assumption you made about me above is false. R adiant _>|< 07:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion and undeletion

Take it easily until things blow over. If you think pages are being deleted out of course, it would be wiser for the moment to lodge a complaint rather than undelete them yourself, which could be seen as being motivated by an agenda. Susvolans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal. Of course, I do have an agenda, to stop Wikipedia losing short stubs and other articles that show potential. I'll just rewrite the disputed speedies and then I can backfill to comply with the license when everybody has forgotten what all the huffing and puffing was about. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying here you don't intend to at all listen to any input from others, but at best will pretend to listen?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed the entire brouhaha, but when it comes down to it, you're right, that's exactly what he's saying -- in the case where that "input from others" boils down to "we're so annoyed that the article on topic X was badly written that we want to delete it and never see another article on topic X again".

Suppose that, several months later "when everybody has forgotten what all the huffing and puffing was about", someone else came along and, all unknowing, created a brand-new, better-written article on topic X. Would that be a problem? If not, how different is it if Tony does it?

(Sus, sorry for encroaching on your talk page with this little third-party discussion...)

Steve Summit (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for helping to keep my user page clean! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Supergroup (bands)

I must say, it does look like another rather vague list masquerading as an article (and some of the supposedly renowned bands are pretty obscure). What did you have in mind for it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Louis Epstein has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Louis Epstein/Evidence. Fred Bauder 22:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]