User talk:Mjroots/Archive/Me

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Re:Cowl (oast)

You can expand the article as you wish. If the templates remain there, it do not suggest that the article is nonnotable or something like that. After completing your work, you can certainly remove the templates. It would be a good idea if you place a template Article Under Construction unless the work is finished. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Haworth cat rescue

When I saw the reference I nearly kept it except it was a link to the Cat Rescue website itself. If you can find another third party reference - try www.keighleynews.co.uk or archive.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk - then it would possibly be notable as a national award winner. Peanut4 (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi, I noticed that you mark the vast majority of your edits as minor. This is a misuse of the minor edit function; most of your edits change the content of articles. Please see Help:Minor edit. The edit that caught my eye: [1]. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Darkspots (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Changing your preferences should do it. Thanks for being so responsive. Darkspots 07:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know! Was trying to sort out an edit conflict and managed to lose my siggy! Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Signing posts on talk pages

Hi, when you leave a comment on a talk page (e.g. [2] [3]), please remember to sign it, using --~~~~ or clicking on the "signature" button (above the edit box). That way your contributions to discussions can be identified as yours! Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to self:- try to remember!

RE:ATTACK PAGE

Hi there! Thanks for telling me about that... much appreciated... know I just have to figure out why the user would want to create an attack page on me. Could you provide any information to enlighten my mind? Please reply on my talk page Thanks! The Helpful One (Review) 19:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

try

I will have a try, but can you include the fact that it is in the hook... I think you shouldn't need a calculator if the fact is notable ... then note (and ref) it. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Various...

Hi Mj,

  1. Are you interested in Train Spotting World, Plane Spotting World, or Worldwide Trams Wikia? They all seem withing your remit, so I would presume you would be interested!
  2. Finally, Train Spotting World is good for articles about specific trams etc, such as So'ton 45 and a few others (3 London ones and a Leeds one so far!).

Thanks,

BG7 11:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My Talk Page

I Would appreciate it if you would not cause vandalism to my talk page. Thank You AnnaJGrant (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Note Posting user warnings for vandalism on other editors talk pages is not vandalism! Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle

you left a message on my talk page saying you were unsure of how to revert multiple vandalism edits... you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:TW, it's the piece of software I use.. greets, -- Boris Barowski (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted articles

hel im little dan 9999 and karl is sitting next to me and is very upset that you deleted the article he wrote on my user can you please un-delete it or replace it thankyou Littledan9999 talk 17 April 2008

Hi this is Aaron Taylor
i would like to inform you that the article on gerard mooney was not a personal attack and was infact completely factual!!!
its was only slightly derogitory after littledan9999 edited it
gerrard mooney was sat next to me as i was writing the article and did not find it in any way offensive!
thankyou for reading.Aarontaylor1990 talk 17 April 2008

Speedy question

Hi. :) You seem to be actively editing at the moment. I'm evaluating speedy deletions and came upon your tag of مكتبة الاسكندرية. I've tried to locate the other language Wikimedia project on which it exists, but I haven't been able to find it through the usual google copy & search. Can you point it out to me so that I can address the request? Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's not on another Wikimedia project, it is not currently speediable because of language concerns. I can't find any sign that it exists on another Wikimedia project. I take it from your note that you haven't seen it elsewhere, either. At the moment, I'm removing the speedy tag to allow the translation process to continue. If I've misunderstood you and you do know that it exists on another Wikimedia project, please let me know and I'll restore the speedy request. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I know. :/ I've put a note on the pages for translation requesting that they expedite it, and I'm actively looking for an available translator to ask specific overview. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

2003 entry regarding Chillenden Windmill collapse

I've reverted your addition to 2003, "* October 13 - Chillenden Windmill collapses in a gale. The mill was rebuilt in 2005." It appears the dates in the Chillenden Windmill article are reversed. Please correct, then re-add a correct entry to 2003 and/or 2005. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Scrolling refs

It's not just me, it's the entire community. The template that was originally created for these was deleted several times, and the provision against this style was finally added directly into Wikipedia:Citing sources (emphasis mine): "Scrolling lists should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers." Circeus (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I never understood why we should worry about screenspace any more than we worry about server space. Screenspace ought to be used carefully in some situation (e.g. big templates or large article-length tables), but hiding away te element that is supposed to legitimize the articles? That seems entirely contradictory. Circeus (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Kind regards. Epbr123 (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your advice recently; it’s food for thought. On a different subject, see here for a reply. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,

BG7 17:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think there is. I always manually check, and i'm sure I remvoed it, but my computer is being so crap tonight that it must have not deleted it!
Thanks again for the heads up!
BG7 17:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Precision of measurements

Hi Mjroots, I was probably a bit rash in some of the revisions to the precision of the conversions on New Mill, Cross in Hand, although I would stand by some of them. One way of looking at it is that the imperial measurements, if you assume the precision of 1 inch (although not stated), are really just in inches not feet and inches. Then consider the number of significant digits in each measurement, being very wary about providing more significant digits in the conversion than are provided in the original measurement. For example 9 feet is 108 inches. Assuming precision of 1 inch there are 3 significant digits and it is plausible to provide at most three significant digits in the conversion. The conversions in the article that would concern me are 4 feet (48 inches - only 2 sig digits so the conversion should not usually have more than 2 sig digits -> 1.2 m) and 45 feet (540 inches - 3 sig digits -> 13.7 m). You say that using only one decimal place is insufficient. Consider that using 2 decimal places in this case is too much. You are implying precision that is not available. I like consistency too, though internal consistency within Wikipedia is probably the place to start rather than worrying about external sites. I think you are still able to compare measurements if there is different (unstated) precision in the measurements given by an external website. I don't think neatness is a valid reason to imply precision.Bleakcomb (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)