User talk:Three-quarter-ten

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

¾-10

Contents


[edit] Discussion № 1

Blue skies. — ¾-10 23:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help

Image:WikiThanks.png Thanks for your edit to Larrys Creek on October 19. I appreciate your help keeping the article presentable while it was Today's Featured Article very much, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Delaware and Hudson Canal

Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing. Daniel Case 22:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't personal toward anyone. But I'm sorry. It's true that that was snarkier than 99.9% of my edit summaries. I'm generally noncontroversial on WP. Happy editing. — ¾-10 03:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review of Ralph Flanders

Dear Three-quarter-ten, I invite you and anyone that you feel would be a constructive reviewer in a peer review of Ralph Flanders at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ralph Flanders. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review for instructions. Sincerely, HopsonRoad 14:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On November 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Midvale Steel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interregnum

Hi Ooperhoofd. Looks like you changed your mind about posting a comment here. (I was composing a reply, but looks like you removed the thread [intentionally, I think?].) I don't think that I understood it entirely. I gather that there is a controversy among people who are knowledgeable about Japanese history as to what periods can properly be called interregna. I gather that you want to shape WP's interregnum article in such a way as to reflect that debate. If you want to say essentially "OED says X, some people think Y," etc., you could do that. I think that's about the only 2¢ that I can add in response. The only reason why I edited the article is that the article had 3 different lede drafts that had not been integrated, and that it did not include the Latin etymology, so I fixed those aspects; but beyond that, I may not have much to add to the article. Anyway, hope that helps. Happy editing. — ¾-10 21:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speech Recognition

I would agree that the task of most ASR is to take an input of human vocal utterances and to deduce from them, by means of phonemes, syllables or word shapes, a series or "words" conforming to an expected syntax or natural lanuage. But the visible (or audible) output is going to be a system design decision, e.g. the output might be - where to route a bag in an airport baggage handling depot, might be a grade on a pupil progress chart, or might be a string of words spoken in a different language i.e. not necessarily "written text" at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I revised my edit accordingly, and I'm about to transfer this discussion to the article's talk page. Thanks! — ¾-10 00:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your contributions to James Hartness

Dear Three-quarter-ten,

Thank you for your diligence and interest in editing James Hartness. I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, so imagine my delight in seeing your hard work. I've tagged many pages in Roe that I plan to use to further augment the article. I don't have a specific timeline, however. In the meantime, keep up the good work!

Cheers, --User:HopsonRoad 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I read Roe 1937 recently and found it very interesting. I'm sure any additions you make will be excellent as always. See you around! — ¾-10 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holbein

I won't change it, but I didn't feel a hatnote was necessary to this - the only other Holbeins, both very obscure, are his father and brother, who are both linked within the first lines of the article. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of decimal-fraction equivalents: 0 to 1 by 64ths

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of decimal-fraction equivalents: 0 to 1 by 64ths, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of decimal-fraction equivalents: 0 to 1 by 64ths. GameKeeper (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medical abbreviations

Hi could you create a navigation box or categorize them to connect them all. Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing—I have the navbox sandboxed already—will go live soon. Thx. — ¾-10 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Belated update: Finished on 17 April. Looks good, IMO. — ¾-10 20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Provider Duality...

It means that in providing a link, a site like Google Books isn't favoured over another. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Printing run

Good work! But also, do we need: Edition (books)#Print run? Can you get rid of that un-necessary redirect? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! My bad. Somehow I managed not to notice the "(books)" vs "(book)" detail. Let me go back and straighten that out. Thanks! — ¾-10 16:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Aha! Now I see. Page move occurred. No prob, I updated all links to "Edition (book)" not "Edition (books)" (sg vs pl). Thanks! — ¾-10 17:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The Invisible Barnstar
Awarded to you for your probably unrecognized technical I can fix it contributions. Ludvikus (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Very kind! — ¾-10 17:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)