User talk:Ytrottier/Archives/2007

*tip of the hat*
Thanks for the help. Is it just me, or is DreamGuy plain rude? InfernoXV 16:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Hey. I responded to your question on Animum's talk page. *Cremepuff 222*  14:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Do
Howdy. Just wondering about this edit, and how it relates to Disambiguation which specifies that "there should be just one disambiguation page for all cases (upper- or lower-case) and variant punctuation". Perhaps you know of a more recent/relevant discussion which overrides this? Thanks :) (reply here) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Quiddity, and thanks for raising the issue. No, I don't know of another discussion overiding that page naming convention, I just interpreted that guideline differently, possibly incorrectly. I thought it was just talking about situations like mm/Mm/mM/MM, (milli/mega metre/mole or people's initials or other things listed at MM,) but not where the acronym is also a word, like SAP/sap or RAID/raid. My basic logic was that the do disambiguation page was already so long as to make it hard to find what you're looking for, and someone looking for the acronym would be more likely to type it in uppercase letters. But perhaps wiser minds than mine have already considered this idea and rejected it. What do you think?--Yannick (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, am still a beginner with dab pages. I'd say we need to ask at the guideline/wikiproject's talkpage. If you'd like to, please do, I'm busy elsewhere this week.. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

C. J. Phipps
Hi, too late now, but I do wonder why this page was disamb'd. C. J. Phipps was a notable theatre architect - known as C. J. Phipps - whereas the good baron was known as Constantine, or Baron Mulgrave - I would have thought a simple WP:HAT was all that was required. I have changed the many links to C. J. now to refer to Charles ... but that is not how he is referred to in any literature! I think that disamb should only be resorted to when there is a risk of confusion of a number of different objects, not to discriminate between two - your mileage may differ. It would however be appreciated that you don't leave 30-odd links pointing to a disambig page, it creates work for others. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Answered on User talk:Kbthompson

Talk page
Why not discuss it on the article talk page? Include a link, add the information, add a reference to tha article. Why is this a personal issue between us on my talk page rather than about the article? I'm unfamiliar with this application of scroll pumps and the article on vacuum pumps is overloaded with information about blowing and sucking water. Still, why are we discussing this anywhere but on the article's discussion page where other editors could contribute and help improve the article? I am new to Wikipedia and don't understand why the discussion page there is not being used if you disagree with my edits
 * --The preceding unsigned comment was made by User:Amaltheus and answered on his talk page.--Yannick (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will leave the vacuum pump alone. (Amaltheus (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC))