User talk:62.31.55.223

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RIPE WHOIS database information → Cable Internet Ltd (UK); IP address block 62.30.0.0 - 62.31.255.255

Contents

[edit] Please Consider Creating An Account

I've noticed you around. You've done some very useful edits. Perhaps you'd like to consider creating a user account? Having an account is not a requirement for editing Wikipedia, but it has many benefits, let me tell you about them.

The Benefits of creating an account.

  • You can choose any username (provided it isn't offensive and doesn't go against policy).
  • Your own userpage and user talk page.
  • All edits you make will be assigned to your username, so you will get full credit for all of your contributions.
  • You can build a reputation with your username, so others can recognize it.
  • You can mark edits as 'minor'. This is for spelling corrections, minor re-paragraphing, and other mostly grammatical corrections.
  • You will be able to upload images.
  • You will be able to rename pages.
  • You will be able to make a watchlist, to keep track of edits on favorite pages.
  • Every account can set their own preferences like skinning, the recent changes display, and more.
  • Accounts can be nominated to become administrators after an amount of time.
  • Users with accounts can vote in some polls and surveys that anonymous users can not, or they may occasionally be given more weight.
  • Users that are logged in to their accounts can edit Semi Protected pages after a few days.

For more details on all of these, you can read this.

Creating an account is free! If you are interested, go here. Leave me a note on my talk page afterwards if you want. —Ilyanep (Talk) 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:AFL

Hi mate, I suggest you take a look at WikiProject AFL if you love your footy, and also Category:VFL/AFL players. Drop us a line with any questions mate. Cheers, Rogerthat Talk 06:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC) BUT - FIRST OF ALL Click here to create an account

[edit] Woops, sorry about that,

It seems I accidentally reverted some of your category sorting when removing some vandalism in the Gerald Ford article. Sorry about that! I am attempting to get the category additions put back in, though there are lots of edits going on at the moment making it a tad difficult. Cowman109Talk 00:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Geography of Hawaii

Hi. Please try to be more careful when you edit. Your edit to Category:Geography of Hawaii deleted four categories, effectively removing it from all categories for seven days. —Viriditas | Talk 22:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I made on slip. Are you claiming you never have? 62.31.55.223 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
No. I just wanted to draw your attention to it. It was somewhat disconcerting not being able to find the correct category. I'm glad I caught the error. I apologize for disturbing your otherwise good edits. —Viriditas | Talk 22:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Categories are generally listed in alphabetical order. I noticed that you changed the sorting of the categories in the Jessica Alba article from alphabetical to semi-random. Just letting you know. --Yamla 19:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop changing category lists to random orders. --Yamla 20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I put them into a sensible order of relevance. Alphabetical order is stupid and annoying. There is a lot of support for sensible ordering on the relevant talk page. 21:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now over 2,000 edits!

Plus a lot more under my old ISP address. 62.31.55.223 03:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Remember, though, that edit count doesnt mean everything. Why haven't you made an account? --Alphachimp talk 03:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Noble" peers

Hi, I noticed your throwaway comment in the edit summary on Helene Hayman, Baroness Hayman. Most importantly, the stub template might be called uk-noble-stub, but it actually says "this article about a peer or noble..." Perhaps "uk-peer-stub" would be more appropriate.

But anyway, life peers are every bit as noble as any other sort of peer. They have exactly the same privileges, and are considered equal to any other barons in the order of precidence. JRawle (Talk) 19:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mixing up medieval barons and modern party hacks makes little sense. Why not separate out the life peers altogether? 62.31.55.223 19:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that most of the people who sit in the House of Lords aren't what we could think of as "noblemen". However, this is nothing to do with them being life peers. The largest number of hereditary peerages were created in the twentieth century (or certainly, 19th and 20th) and they are the same "party hacks" that would nowadays have been given life peerages. By "Baron", I meant the people who are hereditary "Lords", not feudal barons. Only a handful of titles from medieval times survive. JRawle (Talk) 21:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)