User talk:HolyT
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User:Dure/Welcome Dure (T)X(E)X(C) 21:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] General Atomics
Please be careful when making corrections in wikilinks. While I understand the intent of what you were trying to do (Atomics rather than Atomic), by making changes inside the link, you caused the link to not work. I've reverted your changes then made the correction. If you need help, don't hesitate to ask. Akradecki 01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! How do I make a proper reply to something like this? Also, how do I correct an error like that and keep the link intact?
- The way the links work, you can do it in two parts, with total inside the brackets seperated by a vertical line, so that your link text will look like this: [[actual article name|what you want the link to read]]. For the UAV list, we want to have an abreviated manufacturer's name followed by the airframe name or designation. So, the full GA name is abreviated General Atomics, just like Lockheed Martin is abreviated Lockheed. Akradecki 18:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome and Suggestion
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!
|
Check out WP:RFPP for page protection issues. Also, don't forget to sign your comments by typing ~~~~. Let me know if you have any questions. alphachimp 21:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit sumary [sic]
[sic --Holy 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)] Hello, I hope you are doing well.
Perhaps I am taking this too seriously, but your edit summary on 2007 Navy vs. Notre Dame football game disturbed me. Please try to remember that someone wrote those sentences. Therefore, someone (In this case, me!) may get a little miffed when you say things like "Extremely awkward and misleading/confusing opening sentence. Many brain cells died when I read it, so my edit still may be a bit awkward."
Could you possibly, in the future, choice wording that is a little less disparaging the original editor and their work? Perhaps, "This seems a little clearer to me", or even just "Copyedit" or "Word choice"?
Your new wording looks fine to me, but it is no better than my original, in my opinion.
Happy editing, Johntex\talk 03:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, Johntex. Good point. And thank you for your civility in view of my inappropriateness!
- The sentence before I edited it was, "The 2007 Navy vs. Notre Dame football game broke the all-time college football record for most consecutive wins by one team over another." Well, the game itself did not break any records. The game ended the streak which was a record. (Even more precisely, people don't usually speak that way; instead they would say that the result of the game was that the streak ended, the game itself having "done" nothing. If anything, the loss by Notre Dame ended the streak.) If someone who has no knowledge of the event were to read that sentence, he would be very confused as to how the game broke any record. One might say that the 2006 game broke the record, but even that is very confusing. Normally when one speaks of breaking a record, it is someone else's record, or a record set at a different time. So the (result of the) 2006 game merely added onto the record associated with the very same streak. The 2007 game in no way set or extended or broke any record; on the contrary, it ended a streak which was a record. The rewording is significantly clearer.
- Nonetheless, I apologize for being indiscreet in public. But don't worry; it would take a lot of effort using the history page for anyone to figure out that you had last edited the sentence, so I was probably the only one who even had a chance to look silly in this for my comments! Holy 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Holly, I appreciate your sentiment and your explanation. Now that I read your explanation I see that what I wrote actually was confusing, after all. Perhaps you might want to archive this so as to minimize how silly we look! :-) Thanks again and have a great day! Johntex\talk 15:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, Johntex! Thanks for being gracious in pointing out my error and in responding. Holy 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Holly, I appreciate your sentiment and your explanation. Now that I read your explanation I see that what I wrote actually was confusing, after all. Perhaps you might want to archive this so as to minimize how silly we look! :-) Thanks again and have a great day! Johntex\talk 15:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
