User talk:Serenity: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:02, 16 September 2007

Archives: 1 2

Troy --> Troy (1980) conversion

The next time you do such a conversion, it would be nice if you marked the edits as minor and specified [[Troy]] --> [[Troy (1980]] in the edit summary. That may seem like a lot of work, but if you have any browser at all you'll only have to type it out in full once. This little addition makes these trivial changes much easier to spot in Special:Recentchanges. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 15:55, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

See, above. I'm just lazy :(

But to be honest, once you checked one edit with "diff", you know what the others are all about, because they all have the same changed characters. So I don't see that it's a big mystery. You are right on the major/minor thing though. --Serenity 16:09, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

And you're right about the summary thing, although most users are just as lazy as you are ;) --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 16:15, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

language confusion

aussi is without the "e", but thanks, I'll keep it in mind ;) --Aerelon 10:22, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Merde! I was just kidding, by the way. There is nothing wrong with talking/typing in another language on one's talk page :) --Serenity 10:27, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

As long as the adressee (i.e. the owner of the talk page) understands what's written, it's fine by me. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 12:44, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Season 1 / Season 2

Look at where they are already. Seven weeks and nobody noticed xD. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 16:25, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Not even the US airdate gets updated regularly (just noticed that earlier). No one cares about re-runs :) --Serenity 16:27, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Archive...

I just noticed that those pages are not being archive. I am trying to figure it out. :) Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 19:34, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

No problem. For now I can deal with it :)

Btw, while you are at it, there is also an error on Talk:The Twelve Colonies (RDM) with some very old stuff still there. --Serenity 05:22, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

English English

Not typos, just not American English :P. I wont revert the changes back however. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:24, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

I didn't think about then, but just noticed it in my Firefox spell checker and "corrected" it :) Thinking about it, I know that it's not wrong, but we still prefer AE here. And I knew about "recognize/recognise", but didn't realize that "sceptical" is BE. That really looked wrong to me. --Serenity 06:39, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, somehow 'sceptical' looks more logical to me than 'skeptical', but I guess that's because I'm Dutch and Serenity's German (many Dutch k's were changed to c's in the 1995 spelling revision). --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 08:47, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Probably. It's written with 'k' here. Mhhh...I can actually see both, but languages don't make that much sense sometimes. German, English and Dutch all have common roots, but a lot of the details changed over the centuries. Anyways, this was just a result of me having an AE spell checker installed. I didn't edit the article because I noticed the "typos", but because of the series titles and while doing that I noticed the spell checker marking two words. Then I just wrote "typos" in the edit summary. --Serenity 08:59, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

We all know what you mean. Sometimes I get a little patriotic about British English thats all hehe. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 09:42, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

I know all about languages not making sense sometimes: try German declinations ;) --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 12:41, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Das ist richtig. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 15:24, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, German grammar is weird sometimes. But so is French. French seems to have more irregular than regular verbs. --Serenity 16:16, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

True. German is one of the few languages that has rules for irregular verbs, makes life a little easier xD --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 16:44, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 }}
 {{ArchiveTOC}}
-== Wikipedian ==
-Um, why am I no longer a wikipedian? [[User:Durandal|Durandal]] 08:33, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
-:Because we decided that we are [[Category talk:Wikipedians|not really Wikipedians]] and so the category was changed to "Galactipedian". That happened in June already. I just got around to changing the users who added the category by hand and so weren't affected by the automatic change. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:35, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
-::Duly noted. Meanwhile, as I happen to be (at least in theory) a wikipedian and a galactipedian, I will be re-adding the former. As a side note, it might be a good idea to acutally use the summary field in such cases, as it cuts down on the "HUH?" moments...  TheEverRampant [[User:Durandal|Durandal]] 08:40, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
-:::Yeah, but it wasn't just you I changed as [[Special:Recentchanges]] shows. So not making an edit summary for all was just laziness :(
-:::I understand that you might see yourself as a Wikipedian in the sense as being on the actual Wikipedia, but that's not really what the category was about. It was just users of this wiki and merely used the Wikipedia name. I deleted the category, but I can restore without all the sub categories, so people who think they are true Wikipedians can use it. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:45, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
-:::: Laziness gets the best of all of us at times.... meh. Meanwhile, the whole reason I ever added that tag was because I thought that was what that catagory was about. Considering my lack of activity recently, amongst other factors, I'm not going to ask/demand that a catagory be created solely on my whim. [[User:Durandal|Durandal]] 08:56, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
-:::::Well, there was at least one other person who likes the idea of all wikis falling under the "Wikipedia" header. I won't restore all the sub categories, so it's no hassle. That there is some confusion about its meaning just shows that doing something about it was a good idea. And while some people are also Wikipedia editors, not all who added the category are. The intended meaning was more "Battlestar Wiki users". --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 09:03, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
 == [[Troy]] --> [[Troy (1980)]] conversion ==
@@ Line 41: / Line 31: @@
 :Btw, while you are at it, there is also an error on [[Talk:The Twelve Colonies (RDM)]] with some very old stuff still there. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 05:22, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
-==English English==
+== English English ==
 Not typos, just not American English :P. I wont revert the changes back however. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]])</sup> 03:24, 10 September 2007 (CDT)
 :I didn't think about then, but just noticed it in my Firefox spell checker and "corrected" it :) Thinking about it, I know that it's not wrong, but we still prefer AE here. And I knew about "recognize/recognise", but didn't realize that "sceptical" is BE. That really looked wrong to me. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:39, 10 September 2007 (CDT)