As you seem to be interested in templates, I invite you to comment on this page. I'm concerned that this particular template was changed into something very distinct from related templates, such as Template:World Heritage Sites in Poland, Template:World Heritage Sites in Russia, etc. Should there be some sort of consistency? --Ghirla -трёп- 16:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
je t'ai écrit sur ta page wiki utilisateur française.
12:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)(alias Mr lord)
I've no idea, I'm afraid. I didn't know her from a hole in the ground prior to running across the article on Special:Newpages. It just seemed to be a fairly decent article, so I put forward the nomination. You'd have to talk to the article's creator, Mind Meal for more background information. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 08:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Jean-Sebastien: Je suis désolé. J'ai mal interprété vos actions et les conséquences qu'elles auraient sur des sous-catégorisations. HOT L Baltimore 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your edits to the article. It definitly looks better now, and i have learnt how to cite propperly.
Thanks
:-)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knights who say ni (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 November 2006
The ((fact)) link was place in the article when the text was copied over not because it isn't true, but it was supposed to be a reminder to another user who was going to place the reference into the article. Thanks for your help in inproving the article. --evrik (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I am going to delete the clean up tag that you placed on the Lyman Run State Park article. This article is part of the Pennsylvania Wikipedia project. Most of the other articles on the State Parks in PA are written in much the same style. I disagree with the assertion that it reads like an advertisement for the park. It gives the facts about the Recreational Opportunites at Lyman Run State Park. Dincher 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you be interested in giving this your attention? We're ramping up for FA. Hesperian 07:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Circeus. In response to the message you left me, I think that this page should have been deleted a long time ago. --Meno25 22:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Deleting these pages is not an urgent task anyway. --Meno25 01:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting the list mark-up to work: for some reason it didn't seem to work for me which is ahy I changed to the other format. Looks fine now. If you have any comments on the guidelines/policy please leave them on the talk page! Physchim62 (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
sorry to bother you, but your name was one of the few in the "adept template coder" listing linked from the help page. Could you have a look at the question I asked here?
Cheers, TeraBlight 19:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you take another look at the edit you made to ((Cite book)) today? Yesterday, a citation which included single quotes "'" in the title worked fine adding a new reference to Augusta, Maine diff, but today it is putting way too much in bold when I copy/paste the same reference and change only the page numbers to Cony High School diff. Flipping the single quotes to double quotes solved the issue in this case, but the copyright page uses single quotes so I'm misrepresenting the title. GRBerry 20:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Circeus - can I query why you added all that {cite} stuff? I think it makes the page look a lot worse, particularly with all those awful quote marks round titles. Mind if I change it back to how it was? - MPF 00:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI, a couple of us are not seeing the copyvio in Challenge X. You might want to see for yourself and consider re-adding it to T:DYK. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm following up on a merge you performed. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style#Wikipedia:How_to_break_up_a_page_-_redirects_here for details. I'd appreciate any input. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
(cross post) I see you've put a lot of work into this article, but I think quite some amount of content could use transfer to the subarticles (especially the almost inexistent rib vault), who are that developed, if only to check that the entire this consistent with itself (see also WP:SUMMARY). Circeus 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
on the fact that you seem to have removed the resources from the title of the section Sources and resources at the Mayan Revival architecture article. I feel that it's important to reference significant resources [especially books] in articles, that the section need not refer to just those used in the creation of the article. Any more thoughts on the topic? Carptrash 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted your change to a redirect page. It isn't identical as it desn't add a full stop to the end. This is particularly useful for pages that already end in a full stop. SenorKristobbal 10:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've expanded the Japanese Maple article. I also made a few more Acer species articles. Give 'em a proof read when you are in the mood. ◄HouseOfScandal►16:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I see you've carefully deleted the links to the German Wikipedia I had carefully and deliberately included in the article on Jostaberry. Why? Is there some policy on this of which I am unaware? RomanSpa 22:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
A. griseum and several others have compound leaves, as well as a large number of hybrids that were developed at the Scott Arboretum. I'm not sure exactly how many, but more than a few that I've seen in my travels :). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, could you join the the above talk? Thanks. (→Netscott) 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Circeus - I changed it because when you split the photos apart, the paragraph between them was not long enough to separate them completely, so the following paragraph below the image is forced down to the same level as the top of the image (see screenshot, right). The way I had the pics arranged doesn't do this, and shows correctly without problems. Is it not like this for you? - MPF 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
In Russian media the cemetery is regularly referenced in connection with the purported plans of the municipal authorities to close it down. Numerous Russian websites (including the ones linked from the article) deplore its fate, as they do that of Turgenev's estate in Bougival. The Rossiyskaya Gazeta mentions that the cemetery enjoys only minimal legal protection, i.e., like every other municipal cemetery it may be destroyed if the grounds are required for public needs. Perhaps they refer to the pre-2001 situation.
As for the second part of your query, I would like to point out that the original author of the article alluded to an unspecified "English benefectress" who purchased the plot for Princess Vera Kirillovna. I filled in the name, based on the following text:
I was wondering if it was possible to separate the stem placement terms (whorled, alternate, opposite, rosette, possibly perfoliate [maybe add decussate too?]) from leaf shape, because any shape of leave can be alternate, or whorled... "Disposition" would make a good header for that. Circeus 13:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've left a response to your question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review. Debivort 17:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
My partial metamorphosis from wikipedian to wikibookian was in large part brought about because of the "how-to" issue... I'm a horticulturist (only a botanist in relation to horticulture), so how-to is kinda my "thing". I've been copying (importing, actually) a lot of WP articles over and making garden book pages out of them lately. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 15:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
b:User:Circeus had only a few edits to the conworld books, but with the transwikis that account has a lot of contribs. Is that you? (It will all be sorted out when SUL is enabled, but I'm just curious). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 19:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Circeus - thanks; I'll take a look at it later tonight. I've got some books that cover it. - MPF 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I just transwikied Corn gluten meal from wikibooks (wrote the how-to first, then copied it to here). Mind having a look and perhaps tweaking? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 13:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Circeus. I just noticed that you have tagged several Georgia (country)-related categories for renaming. While I find this to be reasonable in some cases, I think there is no need to disambiguate Georgia in Category:Catholicoses and Patriarchs of Georgia, Category:Monarchs of Georgia, Category:Kings of Georgia and Category:Presidents of Georgia. The US state of Georgia never had either kings or patriarchs, I guess. What do you think about it? Thanks, --Kober 05:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you please answer my one question? If there are total 100 people around and 80 out of them want to see the naked sisters of remaining 20. Will you show them? Where does this voting issue come about showing cartoons of Jyllands Posten? You are doing that same thing for which Jyllands Posten is being convicted by Muslims. Are you really fair? and why are you linking the cartoons to their huge hight resolution size? VirtualEye 18:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, i've found you on the Category:User template coder listing, and since i have a question concerning this subject i hope i could clear it with you :)
I'm testing a template A which uses a parameter M to specify a value Z. Inside this template A, I also use a parameter N through which I call repeatedly a template B. Inside this second template, I specify other parameters but also the same parameter M from the parent template. But I don't know how or if it's possible to "pass" the parameter M's value Z, in the parent template (A), to this nested template (B). Basically what i want is:
((Template A | parameter M = value Z | parameter N = ((Template B|...|...|parameter M)) ))
I'd want the parameter M, defined as Z in template A, to also carry the value Z inside template B. I'll also be calling template B oftenly and i can't have it becoming part of template's A content. Have i made myself clear? I hope I won't be a burden with this. Thanks in advance!Parutakupiu talk || contribs 19:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Bonjour mon ami. I notice that when one looks at "Category:Sapindaceae" we still have some maples under A and some under M (about evenly divided). If it is too much work to change all the maples still listed by common name to scientific name, would it be a good idea to at least list them to "Category:Sapindaceae" category under their scientific name? Best wishes. - ◄HouseOfScandal►18:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey!
Can you [lease help me to make a template similar to my example below. Your help would be greatly appreciated
This template will categorize tagged articles into Category:Government of Western Australia Departments and Category:Government of Australia Departments.
Your help would be greatly appreciated. Please help
Thanx
symode09 14:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Circeus, you did some magic with the note system on Dísablót. I have no clue what I have done wrong on Haakon the Red, so if you have the time to look into it, I would be very grateful. Best,--Berig 09:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you changed a commons link in the article about Pevchesky Bridge to an external link. Is that a new procedure? best, Camptown 00:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm ... I'd have to recreate and edit it again, since I overwrote my own existing image in my "Images for Wikipedia" file.
I don't have that original with the cobalt blue sky, but I do have one with only one column. Daniel Case 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure then ... I didn't know we kept the old ones. How could I do that? Or is it something only an admin can do?
I'm glad someone has been keeping up with the article enough to make that suggestion. There is a lot more to add and I think it could be an FA someday. Daniel Case 02:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, for the past few days this anon: User:82.47.217.44 and a registered user: User:Jazzbacks (who claiim to be the same person) have been adding a few unsourced things into the Larry Van Kriedt article. When challenged on his talk page, User:82.47.217.44 claimed he was actually Larry Van Kriedt and that part of the article on him wasn't true. After this, User:Jazzbacks showed up claiming to be the anon, User:82.47.217.44. I and User:Bretonbanquet asked Jazzbacks, on his talk page, to provide proof that he was Van Kriedt, we decided it would be best if Jazzbacks could upload an image of himself which we could then compare to the pictures on Larry Van Kriedt's MySpace: http://MySpace.com/LarryVanKriedt.
Jazzbacks uploaded this image Image:GrLa0238.JPG which, to me, confirms he is Van Kriedt. So, I was wondering, how do we approach this? On one hand, we have sources which state certain things to be true, and on the other, we have a user claiming to be the subject of the article and claiming certain things are not true. A situation like this is new to me, so any help you can provide to me and Bretonbanquet would be very much appreciated. Thanks very much. ĤĶ51→Łalk 14:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure if the article is poorly sourced or not, the sources appear to be a book and a magazine, neither of which I have, I'll do my best to contact the user who originally added stuff from those sources. The anaon and the user have edited seperately numerous times, I'll warn him if he continues to do this. I'll refer him to WP:BLP on his talk page now. Thanks for your help. Merry Christmas. ĤĶ51→Łalk 15:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought sock puppets at least tried to look different, that was really something, adding back her own difficult prose and statements, her italics, everything. KP Botany 16:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. --ShakingSpirittalk on behalf of Kaldari 00:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
In the article Etiquette in Canada and the United States you added:
"Fuck" is not considered a profanity by Quebec French speakers, who use specific profanities. Trying to use these profanities can lead to inappropriateness and risks greatly offending French speakers.
Although there are plenty of things in the article that lack citations, I think this statement needs it. The article you link to totally lacks references as well, and that concerns me. Think maybe you can find referenecs to back this up? House of Scandal 08:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm responding here rather than at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization because I don't want to drag that conversation so far off-topic. Anyway, I was involved in the "non-notability debacle", and that's partly where I learned why I believe what I do about how to react to such things as Fresh's polling suggestion. In fact, I think the way I reacted there was a part of how it was eventually defused. I'm only interested in results, not in what "spirit" we might figure someone's acting in. Telling people to shut up and go away sometimes gets results, but... that's not the wiki I'm trying to create. There's a difference, it turns out, between being right and getting things done with a minimum of friction. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
If you have an opportunity, please give Lake Chaubunagungamaug a proof read. Its included in the next DYK bunch and I just expanded it greatly. Thanks. House of Scandal 04:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The best I can do is the following: User_talk:Marine_69-71#Jerry_Rivera. TonyTheTiger 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
About your comment on my own talk page: This site and this site claim it is "Now Apocalymon". TV.com lists both titles. Would it be a good idea to list both titles on the list of Digimon Adventure episodes? Thanks.Ultraflame 18:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The article Verbascum thapsus you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Verbascum thapsus for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Shimeru 19:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
When I was here earlier I noticed that you were a self proclaimed userbox expert. Can you tell me how to make my ((Chicago neighborhoods)) template show on Chicago. TonyTheTiger 23:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally I quite firmly agree with the principles behind Wikipedia:Overcategorization. While I thus disagree with Fresheneesz's view on this matter, that does not mean his concerns are invalid. This is quite a major policy, that has just recently been introduced. and it does need scrutiny. I do not see any evidence that Fresheneesz has been disruptive. I would suggest you both step back from this issue for a bit, and hopefully mediation will be helpful. - SimonP 04:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Editors have worked to address your objection in the FAC ("Too much one-paragraph sections that need either expansion or merging"). As of now, the "Works" section has not been merged as "Hippocratic Oath" and "Hippocratic Corpus" were thought to deserve separate sections. Could you please have a look, and comment? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Can you tell me please why you reverted TOCleft twice in the article in DYK right now? There are guidelines for doing this, for example: "In general, it is probably better to insert ((TOCleft)) after the lead section, or at least the first paragraph." Please reply here and not on my talk page unless necessary. Thank you. -Susanlesch 03:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't protecting this defeat the purpose of deleting a category? As it stands, it seems that this category could be added to new articles. Ral315 (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
You've left note about suffix in Etymology section of the article, since I've made few misteakes and I'm not complitely sure what you ment with "collective suffix" (after quick google search, I suspect it might mean suffix that doesn't have meaning - suffix in question doesn't) I left comment on your note on Talk:Constitution of Latvia -- Xil/talk 13:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Recent edits to Hippocrates have removed the one paragraph sections to which you objected in its FAC. Would you please reconsider your vote now that the circumstances have so changed? Thanks. -- Rmrfstar 17:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the category currently only has about 210 entries (thus spanning only 2 pages), I don't know if it's important to split yet. But if we're going to be proactive, anticipating that it'll need to be split in the future anyway, I think the way to do it right is by "invasive flora" and "invasive fauna" first. I would shy away from "by continent" because one species could have five such tags. — coelacan talk — 00:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe I've already addressed your concerns about Wikipedia's fair use policy - the samples had already been given criticism in the article's main text. Could you take a look at the article again if you have the time? Thanks! CloudNine 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Wondering if you had gotten a chance to look at some of the responses from science editors to your suggestion on the the FAC nomination for proteasome. In particular, it would be helpful to know how and where you are searching for articles or journals that the use of abbreviations is an impediment to successfully locating a reference. If you really think this is something that's worth pursuing as a proposed style standard for scientific articles, I believe a larger venue than an obscure FAC nomination is needed, as this would affect a large number of editors and articles; I'd suggest starting a thread on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources or Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines for wider visibility. Since the suggestion of using full journal names does not currently have the consensus of editors in the sciences, I'm going to leave it alone for now, and will make the changes later if it's agreed that this is a useful proposal. Opabinia regalis 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Or they serve as a route to further information. For material that is open access, the link (which should always be given in a WP article if there is an OA version) gives the access directly. For online material that is not, the link (which should be given even though not OA) will normally lead to at least the abstract of the article, which can be sufficient information in many cases.
For material that is not available online, all users must go through a library. Experts will recognize the journal, will usually have access to a research library, and will get the aticle if owned or ask for it if not, and any university library ILL department can deal with standard abbreviations. For all other users, they must look for the material in an online catalog. It is unfortunately not the practice in standard cataloging to make added entries for abbreviations as a routine practice, although they are sometimes made if they appear on the cover of a journal. It is not possible in many cases to guess the right title, especially if one is unfamiliar with the sort of titles that exist. The less experienced user will be much more likely to find the material by full title. If the user must go through an ILL service in a school or public library, the librarian there will probably be much more comfortable with the full title as well.
I say this on the basis of my experience. First, as a biology librarian at a major university. I know the mistakes that get made. They depend on subject; in biology--there are many standards, especially with older material, especially ewith UK and other European material. After 20 years of doing this, I know how to figure out anything in a latin or cyrillic alphabet, from 1800 on, and I know the places to check for anything older; as a beginner, with only a MLS and a molecular biology doctorate, I relied on persistence and study of journal lists, especially for anything out of the way to a molecular biologist. Second, as a teacher of librarianship. The ability of present-day incoming librarians, even science specialists, to find printed material is deplorable. For newer material, they can acquire the patience to keep trying things on Google until they find something. For print material, it will soon be a specialty, like manuscrip[t librarianship is now. Third, I have been responsible for organizing lists of print and then online journals; the peak was a computer-assisted but manually input list of 10,000 print titles. I and others always did these lists by full title. Although it startled some of the catalog librarians, we did add some abbreviations to help those who did know them.
There are 3 ways of doing this. One is to always use the full title. WP is not paper, but it does make for longer reference lists. The other is to have an abbreviation matching database and do a link. The third is to use ISSN's, the 8 digit serial code. This isn't as simple as it was last year, because there are now two codes for each journal, one for print and one for online--all the vendors are still rewriting their systems--I've advised some of them about it. The ISSN works in all online catalogs, but only if the user knows enough to enter it, which they don't until you teach them.
The simplest way to start is with full titles. The matching database is also underway, as something call the Missing Journals Wikiproject, aiming at entering all 12 or so titles into a WP article, complete with all codes. I'm in touch with the people doing it . They estimate 10 years, but if everyone listened to my instructions I think it could be done in a shorter time (smile). Using the entrez database would help in biomedicine, but not elsewhere.
For a particular article with say 100 or so refs, i would do them by hand. Since in any one article the journal titles will repeat, I'd copy and paste. I suppose if I had to do more than one article I'd copy the lists into BBEdit and use a grep search and replace, and then paste them back, for all the common titles. I am a great believer in patient manual entry.
Other comments
I have a question. What clear:(({position))} is for? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know Haizum or you, but looking at the cicrumstances and your reaction to it, I'd say with a pretty fair amount of confidence that you're an asshole on a powertrip. To leave nothing to ambiguity, that was a personal attack, asshole. You epitomize the flaws of Wikipedia politics. 69.142.140.177 18:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the note. Sorry to have conflicted you twice. Your assistance is really appreciated -- I was wondering if anyone actually cared. Cheers! :-) /Blaxthos 05:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note at [4] . Is this a process I initiate, or something admins will follow-up on based on your input at the AN/I? Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 10:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see the outcome of checkuser at [5]. I'm having trouble understanding how it is possible that WP does not have Ptmccain records if WP intended to ban the user indefinately. Please enlighten me if you can. Thanks! Keesiewonder 10:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, i noticed you changed the header levels in the Agumon articles.
I've changed them back. The header levels where meant to be that way, it wasn't just a mistake.
To explain - what we need in the article is for Agumon's other forms (Botamon, Koromon...etc) to have headers that are one level lower than the other headers (appearance, description, notes...etc). So i suppose the standard would be to use == and === headers. But it makes the article seem much cleaner if all the different forms where seperated cleanly - so with the dividers.
However, when you add a divider below the "===" header, it creates a very obvious gap (to see what i mean, take a look at this version of Guilmon and scroll down a bit).
I know using "=" headers in the article isn't standard, but there was no other way to have the other forms one header level lower, but also have the divider (none that i know of anyway).
So for now, we're going to stick with the = and == headers. Of course, i'm very open to suggestions should anyone finds an alternative formatting method. --Saintmagician 12:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey. I'm looking at the article right now, and there's one thing I can't figure: What are the <includeonly> tags used for? This tag is activated by transclusion (e.g. typically for templates), but the page is not transcluded anywhere! This results in, I believe, a very confusing source code.
It's not really a change to the headers, but since the idea of the line is to help information separation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veemon&diff=101166795&oldid=101090744
It's just something I put together quickly. It needs some tweaking, but the basic idea is there: using light shading to help separate the sections. Tell me what you think. -- Ned Scott 20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
What i did achieves the same thing as simply adding a '----' after a === header. Using a ---- to manually insert a horizontal rule is perfectly acceptable, perfectly within the wikicode, but also shows up on all skins.
All i did was use a code that removes the gap between the ---- and the === that sometimes show up. Othwise, it views the same.
If having ---- + === doesn't cause such a fuss, i don't see why adding the horizontal rule straight into a header is causing you such drama. What's wrong with it showing up on all skins? A normal ---- forcefully shows up on every skin too. --`/aksha 01:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed that you didn't note the closure of the TfD at Template talk:CatDiffuse, so I did it for you. Hope that helps! Carcharoth 12:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I suppose the Type (botany) article is no longer POV in the sense that User:Brya has since been blocked from editing this or any other article, and other editors are now free to edit it. I've been meaning to get back to it, but every time I look at it I am unpleasantly reminded of previous attempts. Ultimately I believe that the whole concept of typification should be addressed in a single article that discusses and compares how zoological and botanical typification are similar and how they differ. Alas, I simply haven't had the time or the energy. MrDarwin 17:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
That is certainly fishy. I'm 99.9% certain that the copyright holder doesn't allow the image to be used for any purpose--the website the image description links to is that of a commercial vendor. I'm not really sure if it's fair use either; it's practically the equivalent of taking an image off Amazon (I can't remember off the top of my head if that was legal or not). Anyway, I hope this helps. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi!
Thanks for your comments; they've been very helpful. If you get a chance, could you put a strike-through through those that you think have been addressed? J. Spencer 05:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for temp. banning Bobfuji. I've been trying to keep an eye on his Edits and was about to Request a ban myself. WillSWC 18:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a request for comments on the Robert Latimer page; please see Talk:Robert Latimer#Request for comments. Rosemary Amey 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I've made some improvements in accordance with your last post in the FAC, could you please take a look? Thanks! Todor→Bozhinov 18:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Sir, I have replied to your comments on the FAC discussion page of above article. Please take a look.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 02:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added a "((prod))" template to the article Mystery meat navigation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Mathmo Talk 01:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I feel terrible for letting him have so many chances. It's just that I gave up on him, he was this close from sparking my anger, but I decided to just leave him be (which stopped me from being uncivil). Then again, whenever I report a user to AIV, after many warnings and after bad usernames, the admins just remove that user for no apparent reason. So, after getting used to that as well, I just gave up. Still, I owe you big time for indef blocking him. You did a good deed. Good day, ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 21:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If you look at your version, and the one before you'll see the only actual change is switching from "with m the slope" to "where m is the slope". While it does improve the phrasing some, it does nothing in the way of actually clarifying it. Circeus 13:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
. Circeus 15:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind the note. My last concern about these three equations is that I believe the mention that the rectangular-polar conversion is made using the formula given earlier comes too late to be clearly linked to the proper step. I added a mention of the conversion in the proper location. I'd be even tempted to go as far as putt in in the z = r\cos\theta+ri\sin\theta\ form too, but maybe that's too much.Circeus 16:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
i reverted further. Chensiyuan 17:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)