Talk, talk, talk... Mwtoews 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing registered and trademark symbols from the EnterpriseDB entry. I tried to adhere to Wikipedia goals and rules careful in redoing an old/outdated entry in June. To that end, I used almost all secondary, tertiary sources in the new entry yet no one has come along to evaluate the new entry against the new sourcing and remove the template. I cannot do it because I am with EDB and again, I respect the rules of Wikipedia. I think I have met the standard. Will you please take a look? And, my sincere apologies if my request is inappropriate. RenDag — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenDag (talk • contribs) 17:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I am going to de-list your ESRI shapefile → Shapefile move request. The steps for requesting a page move were not followed so no one else had a chance to see or vote on the request. Those steps put the article in a category and make a convenient place to vote. Feel free to re-list the request. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just cleaning out Category:Articles that need to be wikified at the time. I have never heard of subject of the article before, so the article must have been titled with the II at the time and I just went with it. Good that you caught this. HollyAm 22:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to take a look at some recent edits there. the new formula incorporating viscosity i know is incorrect, but right now i don't have time to sort through it and the other changes.  :( maybe if you get a chance you can. tia, Lunch 02:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a strange and foreign perspective, and it looks like there are mistakes (since it mixes ΔP and μ — this (last formula), however, is correct, since it uses ΔH with μ). I think that this article should be presented both from [the more intuitive] Hydraulic conductivity and [more abstract, but general] Permeability (fluid) perspectives (rather than one or the other). Sadly, I too lack time for anything but my Thesis stuff at the moment, so I'll take a closer look on a lighter day. +mwtoews 22:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, Thurber Engineering Ltd., has been tagged for speedy deletion because its content is clearly written to promote a company, product, or service. This article may have been deleted by the time you see this message. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. Thank you. KenWalker | Talk 07:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got your note on my talk page about the deletion of the Thurber Engineering Ltd. article. I intended no offence by marking the article, but it did appear to me that it did not meet the Notability policy for companies. The general understanding that I have is that Wikipedia is not a directory or a place to advertise a company, see SOAP where the advertising requirement is spelled out and the notable company exception is referred to. Although the article was neutral, it really only named the company said what it was and provided a link to the company web site. It appears that the admin that deleted the article agreed that it met the requirements for speedy deletion (see item 11). I think AMEC, listed on the London stock exchange meets the notability test although I have not had a close look at it. I am not an admin I only marked the article as appearing to be advertising so I do not have any way of undeleting it. You may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. There is a link there to Wikipedia:Deletion review which might be useful for you. You can find the Admin who deleted the article in the deletion log by clicking on the red link above to the article and then on Deletion Log. The note G11 there is a reference to General - 11 in the Speedy Deletion article above. I do understand that this process can be annoying. It has happened to me too. Anyway, I hope that helps. Cheers, KenWalker | Talk 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll look to re-adding it at some point. I thought I had cleared the SOAP policy (which I fully support), and I was going to work on the article some more (more particularly the founders, which are legendary figures for engineering geology in British Columbia). Also, take note that there are many other engineering companies that have legitimate articles, see Category:Engineering companies. +mwtoews 03:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, Wikipedia:Deletion review is the process for having an article un-deleted. The article, in my opinion, did not assert meeting any of the criteria specificed in WP:CORP. It was nominated for deletion as spam and I considered that as a reasonable request. It also could have been deleted as a group lacking notability. The article needs to assert meeting the criteria for any article. You are free to re-create the article once you have enought material to meet one of the criteria in WP:CORP. It is up to the editor of an article to have the article assert that it meets one of the listed criteria. Since I know nothing about the company, I can not suggest what that might be, however simply having interesing founders is probably not sufficent. Also, comparing this article to others that are present and using that as a reason to keep is not valid. It is very possible that those articles would also be deleted if someone looked at them. You should also tag an article that is very short as a {{stub}}. That does not prevent deletion, but is convention for really short articles that have asserted notability for the article. I hope this helps. Vegaswikian 06:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. +mwtoews 07:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to the Autocorrelation article with a picture. Unfortunately I cannot display it with my version of Firefox (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1): the picture is simply blank. Do you have an idea why is this happening? Nova77 21:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a very curious question, and I've submitted a bug report about it to WikiMedia. I saved it using Adobe Illustrator in SVG, however it doesn't look right. Perhaps I'll re-render it, and save it through Inkscape instead... +mwtoews 23:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...OK, I re-did the graphic using an SVG driver. The native Firefox SVG rendition is still not good (it doesn't dash the lines in the bottom figure), but the WikiMedia PNG rendition shown for most people is okay, and so is the Adobe SVG plugin version.+mwtoews 23:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't going to make constructive comments, I suggest you don't make any comments at all. This one borders on being uncivil. Roguegeek (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's just too funny how the tiniest redirect/disambig has spun into a massive discussion about a product that isn't even out, and no-one knows for sure any thing about yet. Everyone seems to think they know what is going on, and hold their ground, even though it is all still very rumor-esq, and not encyclopedia-type material yet. There is loads of other great stuff to be done out there. I apologize if you took offense to that remark — it wasn't directed at you at all — your post just happened to be next to where I posted my remark on the discussion.+mwtoews 15:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I didn't take it personally so don't worry about it. Take care. Roguegeek (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently broke the {{test4im}} template when you removed an extra "<". Fixed it for ya. :) -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 13:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, it happens, thankx for the fix.+mwtoews 20:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 10:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Do you have permission from the copyright holders of images including Image:UofC Coat.jpg and Image:Mcgill-logo.png to replace with SVGs?

You'll notice that {{logo}}, with which your SVGs, Image:UofC Coat.svg and Image:Mcgill-logo-w-moto.svg are tagged, is a fair use template. One of the restrictions placed by Wikipedia's Fair Use Policy is that images so used must be of low, or reduced resolution. I understand that you have traced these images using Inkscape: this does not vitiate the copyright-holders interest in them! — mholland 13:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not have permission for these, and they were certainly based on the original and copyright work, and I see your concern here. I'll either convert these to PNG or keep the original version, whose ever is better. Having copyrighted work in SVG format is dangerous to have, and unnecessary. These SVG versions be gone later today.+mwtoews 17:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also patched up Wikipedia:Logos to specify policies regarding SVG and vector art, since I looked here before, searched for vector (didn't read in detail), didn't find it, and proceeded with making SVGs.+mwtoews 21:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I'm sorry if that involved any wasted effort on your part. — mholland 22:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Canada wordmark.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot 00:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I requested it. +mwtoews 03:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the authors of the "soil inference system" paper. It has been reworded.

Hi Mwtoews! Before I changed the word abstraction in River, I checked with Merriam-Webster. That page doesn't indicate removal is a meaning. So I used the more familiar extract. But clicking on abstracting does indeed show that removal is the first meaning. Thanks for the education! Regards, —EncMstr 20:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rather abstract word – which also hints that I should add it to wikt:abstraction with a reference ... +mwtoews 20:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a fellow hydrogeologist, I humbly requet your assistance to the soil page, as well as some other pages intimately involved in professional practice such as borehole, drilling rig, water well, etc.. These very basic articles could really use improved description, for the benefit of both the lay public and our practice as a whole.

Thanks! Drillerguy 22:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly take a look someday, however I'm vastly busy these days, so it will have to wait a few months before I can do too much. Now-a-days, I just try not let crap/spam/vandalism on articles in my watchlist.+mwtoews 02:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) But I have a question regarding what you said: Why do you say you have a BSc but not a BS? is it not the same? dont they both mean "bachelor of science"?? -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 15:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the explanations. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

referring to your recent edit to the "Poor" disambiguation page

I'd not realized that Template:Distinguish could take multiple parameters. I will use that feature going forward. Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem … there are many "ins" and mysteries to wikiland that are shared exactly like this.+mwtoews 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From: R.J.Oosterbaan 19:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote:
Hi, I've noticed your edits in the groundwater related articles. However, they infringe on Wikipedia's no original research policy (especially since you tagged on the talk pages "This article was made by ..."). These articles include Watertable control, Groundwater model, Salinity control, and Cumulative frequency; as well as certain sections of other articles. I don't want to be a jerk and list you articles for deletion (some people here would do that .. but not me), as they could be used and merged among other wiki authors. Your contributions to the small niche of groundwater-related articles are certainly welcome, however you should first consider the policies of Wikipedia before investing too much time and effort.+mwtoews 18:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My reply:
I am new to Wikipedia (a few days) and already in trouble. I have tried to do merging but was hitherto unable to do so (with 2 exceptions) because I felt there would be too much interruption of the train of thought in the pages visited. Yet, I will not rest, but continue to do streamlining.
I fear some misunderstanding might have been roused by the phrase "This article was made by R.J.Oosterbaan". Herewith I only refer to the entry in Wikipedia (a new page), not to new or original research articles. All information I give comes from old research and existing sources and I am just reporting, referring, citing and pouring available knowledge into a new format, hoping to provide useful information. I guess I am not expected to make contributions merely by "copy and paste" from existing material, omitting any writing and "glueing" on my part. In fact, I could not detect much difference between the approach to the subjects in the pages I viewed and my approach, although there may be a lot of difference in style and emphasis everywhere.
To avoid any more misunderstandings, I will remove the phrase, which was meant to assume some kind of responsibility for what I did and be open for comments. I might also adopt a fancy name (something like yours) to "depersonify" my contributions.
By the way, do you have some authority in Wikipedia and what do you mean with "here" in (some people here would do that ...)"?
Regards, Roland.
From: mwtoews

Hey, everyone was once new here, so no worries if you feel your are "already in trouble", so don't be discouraged about contributing. It can take a few months to get a good idea of how Wikipedia works from the inside (especially if you also want to learn the technical aspects, like including LaTeX math formulas). I can see the work you added is not exactly original research, but it is in paper format, rather than in more of a encyclopedia reference format. I have no more authority here than you; I just contribute whenever I have spare time and resources (I'm working on my Masters at the moment—so my spare time is presently limited). My username really isn't that fancy, since it is must my first two initials and last name, and is the exact same used at my past two universities. (Using any part of a real name in a username is actually quite bold, and I certainly encourage it.) In any case, your work is always credited through the additions in the history—but due to the licensing, it is free and public domain for anyone use to use and modify, so this distinction gets blurred or lost with each edit from someone else. There are about a dozen or so regular contributers on wikipedia that are specialists with groundwater—non of which I know personally, and only discuss things here and there. By "here", I meant the larger wikipedia community—some of which don't tolerate deviation from policies and delete or remove material that doesn't meet it. Feel free to ask me any questions you might have.+mwtoews 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From: R.J.Oosterbaan 22:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I find the encyclopedia reference format?
Is it important to use it because otherwise the articles are seen as original/not verified?

Most of the main articles (such as the ones featured on the main page) are in an "encyclopedia reference format". The main reference is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and other subpages from that article, such as Wikipedia:Guide to layout. I think that all the articles you started are worthy of continuing/editing (and I was even planning to start a Groundwater model article someday). Generally speaking, a good encyclopedic format only describes the general concepts and provides links to other articles that are off-topic. They are also often broken into smaller subsections, which can be read and understood without reading the entire article. Specific examples and case studies should be avoided, since they make the article less-general.+mwtoews 22:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sounds very logic. I will do my best to follow the Wikipedia guide. It may take some time. In several sites I included examples (illustrations) hoping they might draw the interest of the reader. Yet I see your point and the number of examples will be reduced.
R.J.Oosterbaan 07:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(cur) (last) 22:51, 21 June 2007 Mwtoews (Talk | contribs) (25,645 bytes) (wikify)
Nice job.
R.J.Oosterbaan 13:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We want free. We have chosen not to accept material that may be okay under fair use in the hopes of generating more free items. It has been proven that by removing non-free content, free material has been generated, which, in the end, makes Wikipedia all the better. We don't care if they "release it promotionally" because it's still unfree and in cases where it's possible to generate/replace with a free item, we can not accept it. Many users have trouble understanding this concept so don't feel you are alone. I too struggled with it until I realized that a fair use image only enhances an article at Wikipedia, but a free image enhances every re-use of the article. And shouldn't that kid in Africa be able to see the image too when she loads the "Wikipedia DVD"? MECU≈talk 12:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh I would have waited until "moving" the article in mid-AfD. That happened the last time Lost Lake was up for AfD. Confused many. Canuckle 00:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I did realize that seconds after I moved it ... opps! an honest mistake to confuse a few, sorry. +mt 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

← Ping! --Quuxplusone 22:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Chain Barnstar of Recognition
		For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but who have not received a barnstar. Canuckle 20:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you move content around with <ref>-tags in it, be sure to check whether all references defined by name still resolve to the same reference at the new location. For example, in this diff the reference named "kandr" was broken. It's very easy to miss since the software doesn't give a clear error message. Take care, Shinobu 19:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EeeK! Thanks for clearing that up! Yup, I'll agree that the Wiki-software is a bit limited for references (I also have similar complaints, such as not being able to view references while editing sections—you must edit the entire article to view the References section to see if they format properly). I'll watch out for those blank reference in the future.+mt 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with your changes to the page which suggest hydraulic fracturing modifies permeability. The best way to look at HF is that it provides a conductive pathway or conduit for the reservoir fluids to move toward the well in and it exposes a large surface area to the lower producing pressure of the well. My point is that if you say HF modifies perm, or bulk perm or rock mass perm, then you can say drilling the well modifies the rock mass perm. Both of these statements are technically correct, but are not useful ways of looking at the technology or modeling the effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.194.55.74 (talk) 04:47, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

See → User talk:138.194.55.74#Re: Hydraulic fracturing +mt 05:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thank you for fixing that mishap. Interwiki bots currently cannot add interwiki links in the subpage of each template (not implemented). However they do add interwikis between a <noinclude> tags, Which is sub optimal. Due to that, Plus an other issue..I have stopped running the bot on the template namespace until these issues are sorted out. If you notice, These edits were a while back (no recent edits). HTH --Alnokta 19:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason behind my edits in putting the coats of arms into the logo line is in line with all other world universities wiki. For example, Harvard, MIT, Cambridge, Oxford, UA, UT and all BC public universities wiki displays their CoA.

Coat of Arms registered by either the College of Arms or the Canadian Heraldic Authority are public domain images.

UBC: I don't mean to be rude but what you do mean by "I doubt this is true"? The Coat of Arms came from a UBC University Counsel publications, it is a Coat of Arms registered in the College of Arms in UK and thus the image is copyright under the Queen. I had a link to the Coat of Arms information on the UBC wiki page which you overriden. NOW READ!

SFU: Again, it's the same rationale as above and it was released with a press release.

In case you couldn't see properly, the new crest consist of three books instead of the 2 crosses and 1 book prior to 2007. I kept both images because they are both in use while the newer one will gradually replace the old one. But until then, they both officially link to SFU.

I will not revert your edits to the main UBC/SFU wiki page but I've reverted your edits to the images I uploaded.

--Cahk 03:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→User talk:Cahk#Re:_UBC.2FSFU_Coats_of_Arms +mt 07:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CoA in Canada can be considered as trademarks under the Trade-marks Act[1]. Pursuant to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), the logos can be displayed on wiki articles (but maybe as you say, as a logo rather than PD).

The SFU new CoA was taken from the SFU Press Release. Because it's an image made and published by the CHA, it is considered as the work of the Governor General and copyright held by the Queen:[2]

The UBC CoA can be obtained from the UBC Visual Identity Guidelines PDF file [3] --Cahk 08:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new user to wikipedia and I was wondering if I could get your input on an article that I have just posted. Any comments or feedback would be very helpful to me. Thanks. The article is titled Automated Quality control of meteorological observations. Or this should link to it Automated Quality control of meteorological observations --Amanrye 16:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. That edit was an accident. I don't know how that happened. My bad. I must've pasted the wrong thing. --CrookedAsterisk (contribs • talk) 18:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I figured it was a simple slip-up .. happens to us all. +mt 19:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I made the change on my user page - didn't know about MSc subject. I'm wondering though if we should merge the two templates - it's a fairly trivial thing to fix the bug that you found and once fixed why do we need two templates? (I'm putting this on the template page as well - discuss there). Egfrank (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Image:TransLink (British Columbia) logo.png from the Translink page as you might be aware of, Translink has changed it name from GVTA to SCBCTA (refer to article) and thus a logo with the old name would not be appropriate to use anymore. --Cahk (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah great ... that's the part of the logo I least liked. I'll make a fair-use SVG. +mt 06:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an easy way to remove the Inkscape data from SVG files? I've been uploading quite a lot of SVG's lately so if you could help that would be great. Thanks --Tkgd2007 (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really an easy way to do this. I generally use a combination of Illustrator CS and a text editor, and any knowledge on basic SVG specifications for basic types (such as default parameter values, so that certain data can be excluded). I used to use Inkscape, but it felt too clunky and produces really bloated SVG code—it is sad to say (since I support free software) that I really appreciate Illustrator, since it is slick and produces very clean SVG code. Certainly, Adobe authored the SVG specifications, so it is not surprising that Illustrator writes the best output (in my opinion). However, when opening SVG files in Illustrator that were originally saved in the Inscape SVG format, Illustrator will usually retain the "sodipodi" metadata, which is specific only to that application (and Inkscape). I try to remove the sodipodi data using a text editor to keep the code to the standard SVG coding, then reopen/save in Illustrator. Another method is to save the figure as an Illustrator AI or PDF file, then reopen/save in Illustrator again to shed the sodipodi metadata. If this fails, and it is a simple circle, I redraw the object. Often I'll name objects, but remove "Layer 1", since multiple layers are not needed for logos. If you can, find original artwork in PDF format, and simply open it up in Illustrator, and edit then save in SVG. This way you can avoid doing too much tweaking to get around Inkscape's annoyances. The last thing I do before uploading is to remove the second line comment about the software used, since it's not needed.+mt 04:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks a lot. I'll keep this in mind --Tkgd2007 (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put a comment on the discussion page at for the Dupuit assumption. Just wondering if you could take a look...

Dannya222 (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. +mt 03:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mwtoews. I see you reverted my changes at HMS Beagle (disambiguation). You are of course quite correct that the guidelines, as they stand, expect all that extra stuff in the link displays. The guidelines were not designed with the specific vagaries of ship disambiguation pages in mind. Anyway, could I invite you to share your thoughts here or here as a preliminary to either agreeing to work within the existing guidelines or push for change. As things stand I don't see any point in doing further work. Regards --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reverting hard work isn't fun for anyone. Well at least I read in detail for the the other improvements you made to make sure they would be get transfered. Anyhow, I put my suggestions over here, but I probably don't have much more input than that since I'm not completely aware of the special needs for disambiguation between ships (nonetheless, I'm interested). +mt 05:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you changed a number of the features of this page back. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but perhaps the best way to think of these pages is as a list page, being an article on the history of a ship's name, but incorporating the disambiguation element of directing a reader to a particular ship if they so need. As it stands, the principle of one link per section is not supported by our guidelines anyway. Would you particularly object to me changing it back? Benea (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've reverted the edits. I see your point that it is not a generic disabig page, but of an article for a ship's name. The "(disambiguation)" part of the title implies to me that it is a page tagged with {{disambig}}, but on further inspection it does not have that tag. Sorry for not taking notice of the {{shipindex}} tag, and carry on editing! +mt 20:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite all right. It's particularly easy to fall into that trap with Beagle, as the index page is at HMS Beagle (disambiguation) rather than just HMS Beagle. No harm done. Pip pip, Benea (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for taking that on; and nice tidying job on the earthquakes. There's an issue with the further meaning of Haida Gwaii as including PoW Island, in the Alaska Panhandle; it has its own Haida name too, like Gwaii Hanaas (or is it Gwaii Haanas? aka South Moresby) but it's also part of Haida Gwaii; but not part of the Queen Charlottes. I think it's cited on one of the existing Haida page, I'll see if I can find it.Skookum1 (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. From what I read, Haida Gwaii is a relatively new name, adopted in the early-mid 1970s. +mt 06:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like a lot of "ancient history" in BC, not much older than the '70s.....there was no Haida nation-state before; rather warring petty kinglets like Anglo-Saxon England; the term is of new coinage, "the ancient name" posited by IanKeir is a fictional ancientness; but it's highly-charged politically to say so in these/those parts...the same claim is made about Salish Sea, that it's a traditional name when in fact it's less than half a decade old or so, although its webhits have been multiplying as the faithful generate/encourage/inflict new uses of it; Haida Gwaii is no doubt what the statelet will be called once the legal technicalities get worked out; the islands are still gazetted as the QCI, especially in other languages; reform English all you want or can get away with; no one else has to or likely will; which is why "Kwakiutl" is still acceptable in German and Croatian and Greek for the Kwakwaka'wakw but it's not in English...don't mean to be sour-grapey....Skookum1 (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:WWF logo.svg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. +mt 05:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The SVG Designer's Barnstar
		You have created multiple traced (and possibly original) SVG images and I think its about time you recieve an award. You deserve it, and keep up the good work! -- TIM KLOSKE|TALK 20:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mwtoew. I see you have undid my changes to Toronto Airport disambugation a few times. I see your point of directing it to the list of gta airports, but I think that it should be directed to the Toronto pearson page. More people will be looking for Pearson say from all over the world like Tokyo Airport which redirects to the Haneda page as more people will bel ooking for haneda than narita. Same logic. Anyway, most people don't know it's called Pearson and just assume its just toronto airport, so putting that confuses them. Thanks for your attention and please reply.

MessiiskingMessiisking (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point.... it does have some logic..... ya go ahead revert it.

Messiisking (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The en-dash replace thing is starting to annoy me, too! I had a user script installed which replaced them, but have removed it from my monobook.js ... and yet the edits continue to be made! Any suggestions? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I think I've got it. Trying it on another browser reminded me that I had first experimented with my script in Greasmonkey - my efforts to delete that trial script had clearly not succeeded! Thanks for your help: hopefully there'll be no more dash-misendeamours now!! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mwtoews, I noticed that you removed the wiz-attack (its an old (long way befor year 2000) attack performed to emails) entry from the disambpage. I put it there to write an article about that, and hoped that some else will give his opinion first. There is not much information on the internet (at least google gives very few hints) but it is covered in a book about "intrusion detection", starting there I tried to get further information so I thought an wiki-article whould be helpful for othere people too. Greetings 87.162.123.145 (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

→reply +mt 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you state that you know two digits of Pi. Would that be in the correct order?  :-) --Paddy (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Many years of schools has learned me well.+mt 18:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mwtoews. I have a question from one of our discussions last year which I haven't had the time to ask you. How are Canadian volcanoes a trivial natural hazard? In fact, there's significant hazards from almost all Canadian volcanoes, some of which pose threats across Canada.[4] [5] Black Tusk (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

→User talk:Black Tusk#Re: Question +mt 04:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on my talk page. Black Tusk (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your addition — do you have sources for any of the Implementations section? They're rather thin at the moment. Richard Pinch (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Date linking used to be effectively mandatory. So it is not surprising that it was hard-coded into templates. Now many templates are being updated to remove the hard coding. This is being done in several ways:

• Method: simply remove the hard coded link. I have seen this method being used e.g. in 'birth' and 'death' templates. It is the simplest, so that is why I tried it with 'release date'.
• Method: create options for 'link=on' and 'link=off'. Default to on. I have seen this method e.g. 'dts' templates.
• Method: create options for 'link=on' and 'link=off'. Default to off. I have not yet seen this method but it may exist.

If you look at the templates that I mention, you may get ideas of how the code works. I think I understand it but I am not a programmer so I am reluctant to make the changes myself. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

→User talk:Lightmouse#Re: release date+mt 19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you give a reason for removing four images from the article? Thanks, Renata (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

→User talk:Renata#Re: Cultural icon +mt 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was a little harsh with my edit summary. I do still feel that the Rugrats episode should also be linked on the AGU page as it is also commonly known as AGU. A good example would be this website in which it is refered to as the AGU special. Thanks and Happy editing! Sloan ranger (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. There's no strong reason why I delisted the Rugrats episode, I just didn't see any mention of it on the article, which tells me it isn't common. Relist it if you like. +mt 18:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just [updated your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concatenation&diff=255312102&oldid=254814199] to Concatenation. I think in this context it makes more sense to use the 'code' element rather than the 'tt' one. Just thought I'd let you know about it so you can use it in future :) —porges_(talk) 00:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I always can't figure out which one is best in which context. I usually use code if I want it non-breaking and tt if I don't want a background. +mt 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a non-default stylesheet? <code> doesn't show up any background as far as I can see... [edit: I went and checked and it does have a background colour but I can't see it on my poor LCD :P] —porges_(talk) 01:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the background is really subtle, and only noticeable on good computer displays. +mt 04:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I see you made {{BCGNIS}}, I'm wondering if I could indulge you to also make one for the Canadian Geographical Names Database aka Canadian GeoNames Database hmm their own page-title is just Canadian Geographical Names...anyway I just made Deadwood River and, as sometimes occurs, there's no BCGNIS listing and so known places still need a ref, and sometimes CGNDB is the only verifiable/official source vs tourism/hobby/community pages or commercial pages, even in some cases. this is the URL for the Deadwood River page although it has a unique identifier JBBPB which you can see is part of the URL. I'm sure you understand parsing such online databases better than I could ever figure out. I just think it would be handy; partly because CGNDB also has a map-generating feature which BCGNIS doesn't and BCGNIS pages don't have a re-search ability, i.e. links to anywhere else, though it's still the "prime source" for BC placenames....anyway, when you've got the time and inclination, just think it would be a good thing to have, as well as providing/genearting a standard formatting for CGNDB links when they're used in the same way {{BCGNIS}} operates....Skookum1 (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems doable. On a quiet day I can do this. +mt 04:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out: {{CGNDB}} +mt 07:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; saw your attempt to provide a cite for that - see User_talk:Skookum1#Re:Harriet_Nahanee.27s_death_and_re_Skwxwu7mesh.2FSquamish and also my comments on User talk:Scorpion0422.Skookum1 (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting read from the inside loop on the issue is from Harriet's friend whom tried to prevent the sentence here.+mt 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm..Unfortunately blogs cannot normally be used as cites, although the line could say "Nahannee's death by pneumonia contracted during her incarceration was cited in a letter from fellow protestor Krawczyk...." etc, but needs to be terser. My own "scan" on this is that Olympics boosters don't want it talked about in Olympics-related copy; I'm unaware, however, of any other anti-Olympics protest which resulted in a death, or even which was alleged to; that in and of itself makes it notable in Olympics history. Finding the right way to word it, and to determine how to reference the available cites, without being POV, is the main issue. I think Scorpion0422 means well but he understimates the high profile of her death within BC re Olympics politicking....Skookum1 (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello (and sorry for the unfortunate subsection title). Why remove the link to a substantially talked about Lily Allen song from the Fuck You (disambiguation) page on the grounds that there is no article, but thn restore the mention of a 1999 Dr. Dre single, which also has no article of its own (the link leads back to the same wiki page)? --95.178.134.44 (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and yes such an unfortunate section title, but I guess it's a noun in this context. I actually don't know anything about either Dr. Dre or Lily Allen's songs discussed here—I'm just following the guidelines at MOS:DAB to make disambiguation pages function without clutter. There is already an article for the Dr. Dre at "Fuck You" (since March 2007), which is notable since it a single and someone has taken the time to write it. Note that this is not the same article as Fuck You (disambiguation), and the article could be moved to Fuck You (Dr. Dre song) if it needed to be disambiguated from other songs. As for Lily Allen's song, this is also potentially notable as it has reached chart positions in some countries. However, it does not have an article written for the song at present. If you want to try starting this article, be bold, start an account, write the article and make sure to provide content and references (it must meet WP:MUSIC to make picky editors happy). Also, keep in mind that there are well over 100 other tracks also called "Fuck You", see this search result. The majority of these are not notable and shouldn't be listed in a disambiguation page. Let me know if you have any more questions. +mt 04:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, re H2 in AFS disambiguation page (AFS). I've been trying to clear through some of the backlog on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia (Headlines start with three "=" rule). apologies if the edit was incorrect... why do you think this is not applicable to the AFS page? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubathy (talk • contribs) 16:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of style that I follow only for disambig pages. Unlike normal articles, disambig typically have many short sections (in longer disambig pages where section brakes are helpful). If a level 2 header is used for each short section, then there are many horizontal lines that cut though the article (often several in one screen view), therefore they don't really make sense or look good. Level 3 are cleaner and have no horizontal lines, so are ideal and offer clutterless viewing. Level 2 headers are appropriate if there is nesting (e.g., Delta), and I usually always style a "See also" with a level 2 (e.g., HIM). +mt 17:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I see you'd previously notified this SPA about not-spamming; I just had to do it again, especially after noting Find furnished 2010 rentals for Chinese visitors hidden inside "Participating Nations". What I'm starting to be concerned about is the probable prevalence of similar spam-links on foreign-language sites; I'm not aware of any Chinese-speaking WikiProject Canada people; perhaps there is a corresponding spam patrol on Chinese wikipedia, and re other language. Also now more and more curious if political-POV as well as spam is prevalent on BC-election and candidate pages......German-language and Spanish-language and French-langauge spam I can check for, but no, not Chinese.....I just suspect that the anti-mercenary attitudes of English wikipedians may not be widely shared and also know that there's just not as many editor-patrollers in the other-language wikipedias....cause for concern IMO....Skookum1 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey that kind of makes no sense to me and makes it harder for people to find information... but i guess the wikinazis can have it their way this time. Yonskii (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read—actually read—the links I provided. As a guideline, it does make sense to not link each term of a DAB item. This message is also iterated at the top of an edit window of a DAB page, since it is a common error. +mt 20:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lot to read for the casual Wikipedia user, but i did skim through it and found the rule you are referring to the very first time. As for it making sense or not, i think that is a matter of opinion. If i had my way, i would make it so you can get to any article as fast and conveniently as possible. In my opinion, every term (with a wikipedia entry) should be linked at least one time on any page it is on within Wikipedia.Yonskii (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, "skim" is more appropriate. Wordy docs. Certainly at least 1 blue link is good for each item, but when there is more than one, it devalues the usefulness of quickly looking for that song/album/band when there are several blue links. I'm pretty sure I made the same mistake a while back. +mt 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See-User:Buster7/Hand Held Computer..There WILL be an article soon. ).de:HHC.[[6]]

But, in the meantime, there is a device that was used by the Census to do Address Canvassing for the 2010 Census. Over 500,000 of these devices were used over the past three months. Don't be so quick to delete. A little communication is in order. Please do not undo my edit.--Buster7 (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC

I'm not antsy to delete the article. I'm only cleaning up red links that have been on dab pages for too long with no article creation. +mt 15:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha! No problem. Thanks for the lesson. I'll re-enter when I submit the article--Buster7 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, so Colin McRae 1 & 2 both get to be linked despite being on the same line simply because they are only linked on the page once each. Wait a second, if "Alice In Chains" was linked, even though the album Dirt would be linked also, "Alice In Chains" would still be linked just once. That makes sense. We'll just link one, but not the other.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 10:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of Colin McRae 1 & 2 having two links, because this is an exception since they are both referred to in one way or another as "Dirt". Disambiguation pages are required because someone is looking for something named "Dirt". If there are two closely related "Dirt" entries, then great! This meets an exception stated in the guidelines. However, all other items should only use 1 link. This message is very clearly shown at the top of the DAB page you edited. Sorry about the bureaucracy, but this is all in MOS:DAB, which I do recommend skimming through (search for "the Grateful Dead"). +mt 14:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining that. Take care now and happy editing.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for listening. Keeeep on editing the good stuff. +mt 03:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to clean up my sloppy first attempt at an article. If you have the time and inclination, I would very much appreciate any comments you may have regarding the state of the article as it is and any ways to improve it or things to consider for future submissions. Thanks again--!---slappdash---! (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you added information for the "initial" release of Django as being in September 2008. While that was the date of the 1.0 release, the first packaged public release of Django was November 2005. Is there something I'm missing with respect to how Wikipedia considers "initial" releases? I ask because it's both confusing (since the article text places the initial release in 2005 but the infobox says 2008) and makes me wonder how pre-1.0 software would be handled. Ubernostrum (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to correct my first article for Wikipedia. Glad to know someone actually read it (much less cared enough to improve it!!. ---timothyapetty---

No prob, that's what I'm good at. +mt 05:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific gravity is based on mass. If weighings are used they must be corrected for the buoyancy effect of air if true specific gravity is desired. It is the ratio of the masses (which, in vacuo is the same as the ratio of the weights. If weighings are used without correction then the "apparent" specific gravity is obtained. This is not the actual specific gravity. It's explained in the article.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scutelatus (talk • contribs) 15:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it. I had initially thought ${\displaystyle g}$ was required to produce weight, since you can't measure specific gravity without gravity. +mt 02:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weight is just a way to get to mass (via g) and, obviously, a convenient one, even if the buoyancy corrections must be done. I, and others, measure specific gravity via direct mass measurement using devices like the one described in oscillating U-tube98.169.64.210 (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is an Okanagan Canal, but for now I won't mess with your edit; mostly that's a reference to the canaliszed channel of the Okanagan River through the city of Penticton, but it's also sometimes used to refer to the stretches of canal-ized river farther south, e.g. in the Oliver area; I think there's some canal stretches on the US side of the border too...such a pitiful stream now, diverted for irrigation and always weak, it was never a real river until the Similkameen confluence in the secns the South Okanagan now it's barely a trickle....but there definitely is a canal, called the Okanagan Cannel or Okanagan Channel (Penticton does have n official name for it, whatever it is)..Skookum1 (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just so happens that I focused my Masters research on the hydrology in this region. Check out Figures 6 and 7 and the nearby text here. To me, it is a river. It was a river before humans arrived to the region, and it still behaves like a river, since it periodically floods during spring freshets and has a typical river elevation profile. The river was channelized through Penticton and Oliver (except for the first 5.7 km after Vaseux Lake where it is a real river) in 1950 to 1957, so it no longer meanders as it did before. But it still floods and is not completely "engineered". I have plenty of resources on this subject back at home, including the history, engineering drawings, etc. etc. .. maybe I'll put them to good use on the Okanagan River article.

As a point of interest, there is an irrigation canal running through Oliver (look here, here, and here .. it's the same irrigation canal), which starts at McIntyre Dam on Okanagan River near Vaseaux Lake, and is hydraulically piped through the region at a higher elevation than Okanagan River. Osoyos Lake levels are controlled by Zosel Dam just south of the boarder. Okanogan River in Washington is not channelized. The Similkameen River influences levels in Osoyoos Lake during high-waters. The Similkameen River is a really nice river too. +mt 00:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; had another template idea these last few days; initially I was thinking maybe of just parsing a given {{BCGNIS}} page such that the link "giving all locations within 5 km radius - actually within a one-minute "radius" square as you can see in http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcgn-bin/bcg05b?491800+1230500+490600+1224100. But there's no need to parse the source BCGNIS page; couldn't this be templated so that if you input the latlongs wiki-style the URL can be generated?; maybe that <bcg05b?> string indicates code/page issues doing this, it's just an idea. I was thinking on a given location page you could have a template/box saying "for a list of all gazetted within x minutes of latitude and longitude, see. The thing about this is it could be done for regions, at least quadrangular-shaped ones.Skookum1 (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When examining other's edits and considering them “too long”, please, exclude and don't count the commented-out sections of text (they appear as visible text on comparison page). Even more so, if you consider some text to be “way too long”, you have a great chance to beautify it rather than dumbly destroy it. Don't be a vandal, respect other's efforts. 217.172.21.161 (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw from here that it's been four years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CGNDB has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated on the 3th, deleted on the 14th....I came here to check to see if you'd been notified, but it's evident you haven't been around in the meantime; deletion was by Plastikspork and based on brief and rather terse comments by people who don't even use the template. As you recall, I asked you to make it because {{BCGNIS}} was so easy to use. It got "deprecated" in favour of {{cite cgn}} which isn't as easy to use, and I'm boycotting as a CFWT {colossal f**king waste of time).Skookum1 (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm barely around here these days, so I don't care a whole lot about internal politics. I just check things randomly from time-to-time and make edits where I deem it necessary. It's a whole lot less stressful not getting too involved. +mt 16:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about it a bit more. As a result, I have started a discussion for changing CGNDB into a redirect here. I know you said you aren't that interested in being involved, but I thought I would let you know anyway. I will do my best to inform everyone who might be interested without violating WP:CANVASS. Thanks for your input in this matter. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...for your contribution to Cat (disambiguation)! Chrisrus (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anytime! +mt 03:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, by the way, normally it seems to me on most disambiguation pages the word "the" is ignored. For example the Wolf disambiguation page, articles and sections of articles entitled "wolf", "wolves", "the wolf", and "the wolves" are all treated the same, whether they have the word "the" or not. Do you think this convention should be followed on the disambiguation pages for "cat" and "cats"? Chrisrus (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also, which would be the likely to be the intended target of a user who types "t-h-e-_-c-a-t-s" into the search box, the cat family of animals, or the Dutch band? Because right now, everyone is sent directly to the band article without even a hatnote to the cat family of animals. Because it seems to me that most people who type in "the cats" are probably going to be looking for the cat family of animals, but I don't know anything about Dutch rock bands, maybe they are very famous. Chrisrus (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd generally split a DAB article from "Whatever" into "The Whatever" if there are more than a few of "The Whatever" entries, for example The Cat, or even The Big Cat. There is no strict rule about this, but generally "the" is considered a fluff word that isn't always required. I don't know the band The Cats, but I think that this name is fine because it doesn't conflict with anything else. But, if a blockbuster movie comes out next week named The Cats, then maybe it should be reconsidered. But for now I think it is fine. Someone looking for an article on the furry pet should probably know better to search for "Cats". +mt 05:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but what about in this case? Are there "more than a few" enough, in your opinion? I haven't looked to closely, but it seems to me that there is only one article called "The Cats", although the Felidae article indicates in a very up front and bolded way that it just as well might be called that. There is an article The Cat that links to a character called both that and simply "Cat", I suppose at least as a form of direct address, so that could go either way, or rather should probably be cross-referenced. So it seems to me that there aren't very many that specifically have the word "the", but I'll look into it more and we'll see if you think it's under the "few" threashold or not. Chrisrus (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the other thing, don't you think it's natural for people who want to learn about cats to type in "c-a-t-s"? You say they should know better, but I think it's pretty likely to be helpful if the ones that meow (and even those that roar) were primary or near primary targets for such searchers. Chrisrus (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "c-a-t-s" is definitely the furry pet, but with "t-h-e" should be something different. There is only one "The Cats" in Cats (disambiguation), so it doesn't require a separate disambiguation article. I suppose it is possible for some things to be listed in both articles with "The Whatever" and "Whatever", only if they are commonly referred to as both. Usually I check on the article itself to see how the name is used. +mt 07:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..for your contribution to Cat (disambiguation)!

I would just like to point out a quote from the very link you used (MOS:DAB): "piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages." Thank you, now stop screwing up that link. Spidey104 14:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the exceptions for redirects on MOS:DAB? And how about the part on piping (where the link should match the text)? See the example on MOS:DAB regarding James Carrey. Redirects are common, and don't "screw up" anything. I've been fixing disambiguation pages for years and years here. Breath deep and relax. +mt 20:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I read the exceptions before I posted that (I do possess a brain). None of the examples apply in this case. Furthermore, what the reader sees is unchanged, so there is no reason to continue reverting the linked page. Spidey104

This exception has a similar example in the MOS, but I really don't care anymore. Don't be surprised if I completely forget about this and correct it 10 months from now. I monitor several hundred DAB pages, and I treat them very similarly to the manual of style. +mt 09:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you yourself have pointed out there are several exceptions to any of the many manual of styles for Wikipedia. When you are editing remember that they are a guide and NOT strict rules. Note: that page has been on my watchlist since you first reverted my edit, so I'll fix your misguided error if it occurs again. :-) Cheers! Spidey104 14:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to raise this on CANTALK. I'm in touch fairly regularly with the one-person BCGNIS office and she's informed me that at some point BCGNIS links will stop working, right now there's a "File Not Found" followed by a redirect; the new system is BC Names. Item numbers are the same, the links will be different. I'm wondering about bot-changing/substituting the BCGNIS URLs with the new BCNames URLs, not sure there's any consistency. This is an example of the new URL, being the Queen Charlotte Islands item (NB the term "rescinded" no longer appears, it's now "not official"). After all the kerfuffle and utter useless of the {{BCGNIS}} v. {{cite bcgnis}} of last June - which was so nauseating and pointless and "let's make more work for editors" oriented and drove me away for quite a while - I don't want to get into suggesting there be a new template, which will take more time to fill out than necessary; since that warfare I've boycotted the template(s) entirely and just use straight URL-format, which is quick and dirty and, um, not a pain in the ass. How to adapt all the usages of {{BCGNIS}} and/or {{cite bcgnis}} to the new URLs can probably be botomated; "date accessed" is a pointless fields; these are permanent records, despite the new URLs/site. There's too many people moving and painting deck chairs on the Wiki-Titanic, and not enough people actually building any; anything that's too time-involving I start boycotting, and would rather just write articles than constantly have to fight with code-nerds "improving Wikipedia's interface" when actually making it more difficult and cumbersome to use. In any case, BCGNIS will stop working by summer; something will have to be done.Skookum1 (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll see if I can find some method to automate this transition. I knew someday they would bugger-up their interface. +mt 08:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've flipped the switch. All other citations should just with the new website now. It was much easier than I thought, since the IDs remained the same. +mt 12:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, though if you've only changed the template be advised that there's lots of pages that are just the square-bracket URl/format. Also it's not "British Columbia Geographical Names Information System" anymore, it's just "BC Geographical Names" (its parent page is simply "BC Names"...I'll have to look again hm if that's "BC Geographical Names" or "British Columbia Geographical Names" or "Geographic" instead of "Geographical". The one I just checked is Metsantan Pass which is template-format....and I see I have to create Metsantan Peak which has been a see-also redlink on that page for a long time now; see Metsantan which I still haven't made the main Metsantan, British Columbia article for yet, partly because the older name Caribou Hide I wasn't sure whether to use or not.Skookum1 (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I've renamed a few things to accommodate the renamed web service, as you might noticed. As for the use of square-bracket URLs, I'll see what I can do to get them sorted out. +mt 09:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - the page has gone a bit back and forth - I didn't mean to start an edit war. In British English the word 'mean' is about miserliness - the American version of the Mr. Men book was released as Mr. Stingy. The disambiguation still includes a point on the use of Mean that is causing harm due to feeling angry, the American usage; I think that's more Wikitionary than encyclopaedic and an oblique connection to Anger. It seems inconsistent. I don't really understand why my edits were not disambiguation, but the above described point was left in the page. Alternative wording '* Mean is also descriptive of parsimonious behaviour. See Miser'?. Additionally special pages listing pages beginning with Mean, and containing mean, could tidy up the 'see also' section and prevent future problems with notability/edit disagreements. I saw that done on the Miser disambiguation page but I am not sure how to go about it and wanted to defer politely! Kathybramley (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yeah discussions are always better than edit wars—thanks for taking the high road. My main point is that word definitions belong in the Wiktionary space (see wikt:mean), which is linked at the top of the Wikipedia article (but I'm about to edit the page to make it more obvious). Here, I see the full details on all the meanings of "mean", including American/British usages and synonyms. Editors whom are interested in words themselves are highly encouraged to contribute there (for example I see that you suggested "grinch" as a synonym, which is missing in the Wiktionary article—you can help improve that page). Wikipedia is really all about encyclopedic information, so generally there should be an article for it. Thanks for pointing out the American Wiktionary def'n. My other objections regarding "Mr. *" are that they do not appear to be called just "Mean"—but always "Mr. Mean", so they do not require disambiguation on Mean (however they did need some disambiguation, so I created Mr. Mean). Other objections: why keep ethic mean but disagree with mean anomaly? I did read up on "ethic mean", and that article does use solely "mean" or "means" in parts, but "mean anomaly" is always "mean anomaly". +mt 22:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read the dsambiguation style pages and see where you are coming from much better. I did create a re-direct page for Mean (miserly) to the the Miser page as well - I thought it would be helpful from the search engine and consistent with policy. Much more so than a list of all mean wildcard searches, as I suggested before. Do you agree? Kathybramley (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for Vandalism. If you feel this block is unjustified, you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiderolls 02:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to blank the above or leave it struck as a small penance for my mistake. Tiderolls 02:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it looks fun. Almost makes me feel like a bad-ass. I'm keeping it. +mt 04:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Tiderolls 02:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it frightened me! Kathybramley (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my accidental button push. If you ever have any difficulties due to my mistake, please let me know and I will vouch that my action was in error. Let me know if you need further clarification. Tiderolls 02:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you edit. Your search page is not working currently. Please wait till the page is functional before you change the doc page. If the page works for you, note it here and I'll check it again.  –droll [chat] 02:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What isn't functional? Did it ever work for your computer/browser? This has always worked for me with a variety of browsers, and I'm in New Zealand, so there shouldn't be any technical reasons why it works for me but not you. Try on a different computer and see if this helps. I've reverted back to before due to these reasons:

1. http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/bcnames/g2_search_options.htm is an older feature that queries results in the older interface (see 2). This link is not navigable on their website, so it should be used in the documentation. Use http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/bcnames/ as the main link (which is ".." of the link you insist)
2. The old search method returns results in the older style (e.g. http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/bcgn-bin/bcg10?name=123), which are also an older feature that is not navigable on their website. Use the navigable result as the documentation example http://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/bcgnws/names/123.html
3. You had a few slightly erroneous HTML markups in your edit, e.g.: <code>id</tt>

+mt 06:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I generally use Firefox and your search page is returning an error message. I checked using IE, Chrome and Opera and I don't get the message. I'll try to figure out what is happening with Firefox.  –droll [chat] 07:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've confirmed that, currently, the search engine you want to use does not work with Firefox. I modified the documentation to reflect this situation.  –droll [chat] 16:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging into that and correcting the docs. That's is pretty bad they put a lot of development effort into the new interface, and it doesn't work with Firefox (the second most used browser). The new web interface is almost a bit too "Web 2.0", so I'm not surprised the interface breaks on some browsers. Either they need to fix the incompatibility, or re-expose a "Web 1.0" interface. +mt 22:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a question at Mozilla support but they have not responded yet. It's a strange problem. Thanks for you most recent edit to the doc page. I hate it when I miss stuff like that.  –droll [chat] 23:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please explain your edit further? I'm not quite clear about what you meant in the explanation. Any help is appreciated. Sakas (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. I thought the edit removed "Albert", when I didn't see that it was a duplicate. The link to wikt:Al has a better description and more complete list of names (that includes Albert), which is why I had that as the edit description. I reapplied your. +mt 19:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a bit more specific in why you use italics? Ik can not find it at the page you have linked to. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk:Night of the Big Wind/Archives/2011/September#Manual of Style to indicate italics. +mt 20:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had preferred to get the proper link from him, after his incorrect change in the article Avenue and his incorrect link about when to use italics in names of things. After some searching I had already found the correct link. But it should be said that Mwtoews offered rather sloppy work in this... Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy how? I provide comments to all of my edits, but the length and scope to which I need to detail cannot be lengthy, nor do I know which links are helpful for others. Most intermediate editors generally know that comments of the like of "format"/"fmt" are referring to something like "formatting text to the Manual of Style". Although an extra links to the particular section of the Manual of Style is nice, I don't have all of these memorized. And with 67 edits last night, I don't want to look them up or write a large paragraph for each edit comment. +mt 21:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed the error in the process after the fact. My mistake. As far as the reasoning behind the move back goes, please know it's nothing personal. It's a bit of a big change to make without discussion though. At the very least, a consensus should be gained to decide on a more appropriate name for the article should it be moved. Be well. NJZombie (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re c&p move: No worries, mistakes happen (hope I didn't scare you with the template message). I have no problems discussing a move name beforehand, so your contest is totally normal. Feel free to weigh-in your opinion on the talk page, after all, you are probably more of an expert on the biography than I am. +mt 02:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, wasn't worried at all about the template. Just realized my mistake and want to assure you it wasn't the beginning of an edit war or something. I'll check out the discussion. Thanks. NJZombie (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using your histogram for black cherry trees for a student handout on...histograms. Thanks 192.80.64.232 (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You was the main contributor to the DE-9IM article, at 2011... Thanks for it!

Now (2012) I do a lot of inserts and little changes: can you check it?

--Krauss (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I would like to know if the dashed blue lines in the bottom figure of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Acf.svg&page=1 are significance intervals. It does not seem so from their straight nature but the fact that the correlation maxima are the only points that are above those lines seems to suggest otherwise. I would very much appreciate if you could let me know, and if you know if the correlation maxima when searching for a hidden signal need to be significant to a certain confidence level I would very happy to know that too.

Finally my suggestion is to add that info to the plot so other users can see what the dashed blue lines mean. I could not find any caption for it.

thanks many!!!

Eyrryds (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good question. I did some digging in R with the plot.acf function, and found that the blue dashed lines are the 95% confidence interval, assuming a white noise. I'll add this to the figure metadata, as you suggested. +mt 06:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Eyrryds (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Help:Books/Feedback#SVG_cover_image_in_PDF_output, SVG rendering has now been fixed. Thank you for pointing out the issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

It is not clear to me why you reverted my edit. XOttawahitech (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia disambiguation page is to help readers find different things that are called the same thing. Although you had linked to a interesting and newsworthy article concerning a python, the incident is not referred to or called "Python". The best way to index these types of articles is through categories, like Category:Deaths due to animal attacks. Hope this makes sense, but I can elaborate further if needed. +mt 09:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote in 2006 that "In 1980, the first version of S distributed outside of Bell Laboratories, and in 1981, source version were made available." Do you have a citation for this? Either way, do you have any suggestions as to how I might obtain the source code? I want it because I it has a graphics device for pen plotters, which R doesn't have.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlevine (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the S history! Thomas Levine (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know why the GRASS GIS v.concave.hull "threshold" parameter is in the range 0-10?

Could you comment on the AfD for Concave hull at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concave hull? The thread is very long, but my last edit on this question is here. --50.53.38.50 (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, too late now. Here's the source for v.concave.hull.py. I see that the parameter was added to 90, so that perc is between 90 to 100%. I'm not sure how it is used elsewhere though, except it is essentially a fraction. +mt 05:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, coming to you because I recognized your name on the history at the TransCanada Pipelines article (advert), or rather where it redirects to....re this restructuring matter and that there were two companies rather than one (or ? I dunno it's confusing). The relationship to Kinder Morgan isn't in the article, nor is there one on Energy East pipeline (which shouldn't need that dab, as Energy East redirects to a page with a Spanish title and that's not PRIMARYTOPIC of "Energy East" IMO. This article addresses the restructuring issue re the NEB; corporate SEO and mainstream media mostsly working from corporate press releases means that's not in the first pages, if at all, in the googlesearch above. This article is only about their Energy East campaign but what it says needs to be somewhere and should be noted as a caution to watch for POV/COI activities on all connected articles. I'm seriously tired of political battles in Wikipedia and am trying to keep myself to geography and history articles and the like (in order to protect my aging health, partly) but wanted to field these to "someone who might care" as I venture that you might.Skookum1 (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is somebody supposed to discuss something with you if you keep changing your remarks? Please add new comments rather than revising your previous comments. Bazj (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo my edits to LRS? --Lance E Sloan (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are in the edit summary: "no article or links to that redlink". So if there was an article to link to, there would be no problem. But without any article, there is no point of including it in a disambiguation page. +mt 05:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That you can't find results does not mean they do no exist. Synonyms are very difficult to find good sources for in the medical literature because sources normally call them either one thing or the other. Please stop removing synonym information, you should know that disambiguation pages do not require sources. CFCF 💌 📧 22:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable references, and not things that may or may not exist. Things that are not supported by reliable sources should be removed, otherwise it creeps into a mess of potential misinformation. For the article in question, I simply cannot find any literature using an abbreviation other than ESA. +mt 23:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be a commonly used term, it just has to exist for it to be listed on the disambiguation page. There are sources and being disruptive to the encyclopaedia isn't helpful. CFCF 💌 📧 23:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:DABABBREV guidelines suggest that abbreviations used in disambiguation articles should be verifiable and commonly used. I'll leave your edits for now, but may revise these edits later. +mt 23:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Infiltration&oldid=prev&diff=702980203 ..."not mentioned in the article". Well, then you still have an awful lot of cleaning up before you. Would it be asking too much if you compared my claim to dictionary or thesaurus wisdom? -- Kku 23:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines are pretty simple, see MOS:DABMENTION. If you insist, then improve the Indoctrination to make the connection to infiltration. If it is just a dictionary/thesaurus thing, see and improve the Wiktionary article wikt:infiltration. +mt 00:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling is wrong in the file File:ArXiv web.svg you created. Should be arXiv.org (no E). Please correct. --V1adis1av (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@V1adis1av: Thanks for spotting this! It has been fixed. +mt 21:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. The reason for this might have been right for mere formal reasons. But by erasing the only non-pop-culture reference you have (involuntarily?) confirmed the prevalence of ephemeral entertainment fads and trade marks over something that goes a little beyond John Doe's horizon. I understand the formal justification for the revert. But instead of thinking, let alone pondering the possible worth of the concept and possible ways to improve the article by careful modification, you have been reacting blindly. For quite a few people on earth today a random TV station broadcasting insipid shows might appear more fascinating than formal logic. Are you counting yourself amongst them? How do you contribute to make this an encyclopedia that is worth its name?-- Kku 22:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kku:. I don't watch TV and am not familiar with any of the entertainment-related items in that article, so please put suspicions of my motivations to the side. Additions to disambiguation articles that have multiple links / references are "red flags" to me that they should be improved or rolled back. There is no article for existence predicate, and it is not defined anywhere on existence, so there's no clear reason why this entry needs to be disambiguated. There is only one minor use within the body of one article. Not all minor definitions of every article needs to be disambiguated, otherwise disambiguation article would be a mess! Simple definitions with or without Wikipedia articles should be add to the Wiktionary wikt:E!, which can link to Wikipedia's E! (disambiguation) article. Apart from MOS:DAB, there is no clear guideline on what should or shouldn't be added to these articles, but since you have improved the entry to show one blue link and removed the reference, I'll leave it alone. +mt 23:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a mess already in most places where the fanboys have left their mostly unsavory traces. And nobody seems to care. This is what I find most disturbing. As for the E! - I might have overdone it a bit at first. But on the other hand you could have looked for the good parts right away instead of just assuming non-notability... Thanks anyway! -- Kku 08:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out to me on my talk page. I'm tracking down some answers about the use of our logos. I'll be in touch. I appreciate your offer to assist. Farleyeye (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, he's been known professionally as Marky Ramone since 1978. He's fine pertinent work under both names. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: I'm definitely a fan of early Ramone's stuff, I'll have to check out the Voidoids. My gosh, we started editing Wikipedia over 10.5 years ago, within a week! Random! +mt 06:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Random indeed! Can't guarantee a Ramones fan would like the Voidoids—the music's awfully different—but they're definitely an awesome band. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mwtoews,

I had a problem replicating the figure you posted for the wikipage of Correlogram. You posted a R code that generates the figure.

.

x <- rnorm(100) + sin(2*pi*1:100/10)
par(mfrow=c(2,1), mar=c(3.5, 3.5, 0.5, 0.5), mgp=c(2, 0.8, 0), cex=.7)
plot(x, type="o", col="blue", main=NA)
acf(x, 100, main=NA)
dev.off()

So the data in the above figure in Acf.svg is 100 random numbers sampled from normal distribution plus a sine function. I then calculated the auto-correlation of these 100 numbers. But my figure is different from the below figure in Acf.svg. Sin function can be revealed but auto-correlation is not decaying to zero as Acf.svg showed.

Then I started to doubt the acf() function. Is it equivalent with the formula given in the section of Estimation (4th section) in the same wiki page?

Thanks!

--Jlmiao (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlmiao: I'd expect the figure to be different, as it depends on randomly generated values (`set.seed` should have been used for pseudo-random values). Looking at the functions again, I still see similar results. Note that the acf values don't decay to exactly zero, just towards zero. The acf values are in [-1, +1], similar to the formula, but I'm not certain that it is otherwise equivalent. +mt 21:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwtoews: Great to see your reply. My expectation was to observe the decaying sine of acf. I tried generating this figure with Python. It turns out acf of Gaussian+sine is sine but not decaying. That made doubt what acf() in R really do. Thanks! --Jlmiao (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to CDF is nice and simplifies things, but the way the Compound Document Format bullet now reads (without the secondary link to compound document) makes it seem redundant. I think it needs that link in order to illustrate what it is saying. The other option, which you overrode in an earlier edit, was to create a separate bullet for "compound document format," but (as you noted) that page doesn't actually mention "CDF" (and I do not think it should), though neither does the Comma delimited [format] article. Thanks for your diligence. Wikipedia certainly benefits from standardization work like what you're doing.   Adam KatzΔ☎ 17:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't see any reason to do this change. For me seems a good link to add, can you explain to me? Many thanks! --Lluis tgn (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lluis tgn: Good question. The MOS:DABENTRY guidelines for disambiguation entries say there should be exactly one navigable (blue) link, and shows a good example. Hope this clears up your concern! +mt 21:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was unaware about this guideline. Thanks again, have a great day. --Lluis tgn (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restore because I understand now : (1852 meters, or ≈1.15078 statute miles) [I understood the dot of 1.852 km as a digit grouper as in the 5th, 10th and 11th examples here, not as a decimal point]; added geographical mile; order of second of arc accordingly :

https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Minute_and_second_of_arc&type=revision&diff=771926008&oldid=771491227 ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 09:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You previously caught me in "mid update" 3/19 when your reverted the section that didn't "work" thanks .

I thought the image I presented was a better demonstration of tab usage. In particular the use of &Tab; rather than &#X9; . As well as showing how a tabulated table appears.

Not sure how I got started one this revision but along the way I had a terrible fight until I remembered that the is case sensitive.

Notice that without <pre> the lines in which the source BEGINS with a tab do not render a beginning white space. In particular between the .01 and This as I would have expected.

Why revert an example that is at least as good as the previous one? Please consider "un-reverting " Sincerely, DGerman (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGerman: Sorry about the rollback, no-one appreciates their work undone. However I'm certain we'll sort something out. It wasn't clear to me why an image of text was better than text itself. Particularly if (e.g.) someone wanted to copy excerpts of the text to examine where the tab character is. I thought the image was used since some readers may be unable to correctly see the rendered text with tab characters. If this was the case, then I'd suggest to show the rendered text with an equivalent image underneath (e.g. in a {{collapse}})). As for the visible "pre" code, I generally agree that showing the classic &tab; is more relevant for a "HTML" section. Should we show both? And perhaps improve the example a bit more? A quick solution would be to just re-add your image, and recode the equivalent code above it. Happy to discuss further. +mt 22:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never like image of text myself but I used an image of the text because I got very tired of fighting with the wikipedia editor. I'll give you the source if you'd like. ARGGG: maybe you can see the source nicer than to displayed!

<table bgcolor=paleTurquoise cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=1px style=border-style:dotted>
<tr ><td style=border-style:none><p>
These lines contain &Tab; before each number:<br>
<code><pre></code>
<pre>1234567812345678123456781234567812345678123456781234567812345678
<span style=background-color:linen;>	</span>This line begins with a &#9;<span style=background-color:linen;>	</span>1<span style=background-color:linen;>	</span>10<span style=background-color:linen;>	</span>100<span style=background-color:linen;>	</ span>.01
<span style=background-color:linen;>	</span>This one with a &Tab; instead<span style=background-color:linen;>	</span>2<span  style=background-color:linen;>	</span>2<span style=background-color:linen;>	</span>2<span style=background-color:linen;>	</span>2.

</pre>

Without the <pre> tag:

This line begins with a &#9; 1 10 100 .01 This one with a &Tab; instead 2 2 2 2.

These 2 lines are tabbed:
2009	This line uses a tab.
&TAB;This line also uses a tab.
This line does not use a tab.

For now I'll put back the image until you can figure out how to get it in source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGerman (talk • contribs) 12:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGerman:, sure that's fine with me. You can roll it back if you think it's best for the interim. I'll dig around a solution that may hopefully work when I get a chance, but this might be a while when I can find time. +mt 23:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for semi-protection are to be made at WP:RFPP. The edit semi-protected template is not to be used for requesting protection. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the episode "Eagle Day" of Foyle's War, the Crown Film Unit is referred to as the "CFU". While I do not know if the initialism was used at the time that the organisation existed, its use in this British TV series (which made a great effort to be historically accurate) suggests that adding a link to Crown Film Unit from the CFU disambiguation page could be helpful to readers. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following the guidelines MOS:DABACRO, the linked article needs to mentioned that it is abbreviated as such, but I don't see anything that indicates the organisation was called "CFU". I've even checked out a few YouTube videos, and the beginning credits are always "Crown Film Unit". I'm sure some think it can be called "CFU", but this doesn't seem common enough to be disambiguated as such. +mt 06:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> and <tt> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links.

You are encouraged to change

<samp>+[[User:Mwtoews|<span style="color:#008000;">m</span>]][[User talk:Mwtoews|<span style="color:#6B3FA0;">t</span>]]</samp> : +mt

to

<samp>+[[User:Mwtoews|<span style="color: #008000;">m</span>]][[User talk:Mwtoews|<span style="color: #6B3FA0;">t</span>]]</samp> : +mt

—Anomalocaris (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris:  Done, thanks! +mt 07:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mwtoews. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mwtoews. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've seen that you have deleted my edit from the scram list. Why? It's real data. HumanGuide (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanGuide: Howdy! Entries in disambiguation articles should have a blue link to an article; see MOS:DABRED for more info on this. If the subject of the entry meets notability, then consider writing the article for it (and then of course, relist it in Scram (disambiguation), but different to Scram (video game)). Hope this helps! +mt 22:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing sources use all caps when talking about TOP so I believe TOP is the commonname [7]. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: Hi! The best place to discuss this is at Talk:Top (rolling papers)#Common name. I've copied/pasted this comment there to continue the discussion. +mt 18:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you undid my Space Force edit. Can you provide me some feedback as to why you did this? If I messed up, I'd like to avoid repeating the mistake; otherwise I'd like to return the info to the page.

Thx Dlairman (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlairman: Hi! Simple reason: there was no article to link to. And while there were several other blue links provided, none of them offered any further information on the possible new subject. +mt 01:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you undid my edit here: https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Cis&oldid=867995130

I don't see an edit summary message beyond 'undo'. What is the reason for the revert?

Slaurel (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slaurel: The edit summary was: "Undid revision 867879214 by Slaurel (talk) listed in CIS". You may have confused cis vs. CIS articles. +mt 20:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtoews: Ahh. I somehow missed the correct page - CIS. Thank you.

Not trying to sound harsh, but are you telling me that correcting a spelling error is against the Manual of Style? WikiBrainHead (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiBrainHead: Correcting spelling mistakes is certainly welcome, but there was no spelling error (organisation versus organization). I linked to MOS:RETAIN because changing spelling of to a different national variety of English is generally discouraged. Make sense? +mt 00:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that just make everything confusing though? WikiBrainHead (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiBrainHead: I'm not sure what you mean by "make everything confusing". What's confusing? That words can be spelled differently? English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of the language over any other. +mt 02:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, as in people would just "correct" the mistake like I did. I believe the only reason no one did was because no one visited the page in the first place. WikiBrainHead (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiBrainHead: This stuff can get confusing. And this was a really minor instance. What I find really confusing is that the yogurt/yoghurt article has moved several times, with some surprisingly through discussions on the topic. +mt 04:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mwtoews. Please have a re-read of the Help page on the minor-edit check-box as, from a recent revert you made of one of my edits, you appear to be using it wrong. Thanks. Oska (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oska: Hi, yes I see that I have indeed misused the minor-edit feature. I'll pay attention next time. +mt 05:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwtoews: Thank you for your reply. Also, I see you have reverted my addition to the Tritium disambiguation page again. Thank you for the reference to MOS:DABRED you provided in your edit note; I was actually looking at that section earlier today myself. I don't fully agree with the policy there but I will let it be and go and create the article sometime soon before adding back the entry in the disambiguation page. I'll probably invite you to look at the article I create before re-adding the link. Cheers. Oska (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oska: Sorry about being a pain and un-doing your edit, but that's fantastic you are considering writing a new article. Take a look at WP:CORP, as I know many others (not me) tend to get picky about articles that look like advertisements. I'm generally supportive of adding new articles for this sort of content. +mt 08:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

computer forensics: 6.6.5.3 https://www.pdf-archive.com/2014/10/02/ansi-iso-9899-1990-1/ansi-iso-9899-1990-1.pdf

others: https://web.archive.org/web/20181230041359if_/http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/abq/c17_updated_proposed_fdis.pdf --Diaspomod (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect GIMP/Archive 1. Since you had some involvement with the GIMP/Archive 1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Data plot women weight vs height.svg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have an RfC going on at Talk:Gwar#RfC_about_GwarBar_vs_GWARbar regarding using all caps in an article and would appreciate the input of some long-standing Wikipedia editors who may be familiar with the policy. Thanks for your time! NJZombie (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora from the South Island. I started a discussion on the talk page. Could you check it out? Cheers. Brycehughes (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you're okay with my reasoning there so I'm going to remove the no-red-link policy comment. Of course feel free to revert if you want to continue the discussion. Thanks, Brycehughes (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the reminder! +mt 20:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think there is no possible ambiguity which might make this a bad idea? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thumperward:! At best, Terra Formars is possibly a MOS:DABMISSPELL for Terraform? If so, it'd be in a "See also" section. However, these are often used sparingly, i.e. when they "sound" the same. +mt 21:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are for getting people to the articles they wanted to go to. We should err on the liberal side unless there are issues with manageability. Were the dab in question dozens of entries long then I'd be more receptive to alternatives, but it's a relatively short page and anime/manga are notoriously slippy in terms of exactly how their English titles are presented. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thumperward: If you genuinely feel this entry will help readers find the article, then go ahead and add it to a "See also" section. +mt 02:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You made changes to the article "Water Balance" stating that we should use simple math equations and symbols instead of latex. I totally agree, but do not know how you did it (I am new in wikipedia). Would you please direct me to a guide /video that can teach me (in simple language) to use the simple method. Thank you. Mitral8 (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitral8: sure, here are a few useful resources to see:

• {{math}} for simple math formatting with useful examples
• {{mvar}} for referencing italicised variables in text
• And see Help:Displaying a formula, section named "LaTeX vs. {{math}}" to get a better idea of where to use one or the other. +mt 10:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]