|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User talk:Wtmitchell |
If I wrote on your user page you can answer there since I do keep such pages on watch for a while.
Put new messages at the bottom of this page or under the appropriate heading if there already is one. And don't forget to sign with your user name!
One way to contact me is to edit this page and leave a message here. Please sign your messages with four tilde characters, like this: ~~~~
 |
The Bronze Wiki | |
| Quadell has awarded you a Bronze Wiki for your tireless disambiguation work. You may proudly boast of your laurels, but resting on them is discouraged. |
This relates to the text on the placement of footnotes which you helped to work out last month; you may wish to comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from vandalizing articles. The Catholic Church has never been established in Ireland. User:Personalbest 11/7/07 —Preceding comment was added at 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bill. I think it's okay to cite the article by Rev. Fr. Castro as a reliable source. After all, according to http://www.cs.ust.hk/faculty/dimitris/metro/Phil_back_clergy.html, he is the parish priest of the largest Orthodox church in the Philippines. --Angelo 01:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I would definitely react... -chris^_^ 06:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know that the addition & removal of this Feast Day is being discussed here. -- Boracay Bill 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I made the mistake of mentioning the current status of what's going on in Talk:Spanish language (#31) because they were debating of including the Philippines or not. I really regret it!
If you'd like the link to that article: La presidenta perdirá ayuda... Preferably I'd like that news restored to update the world about it, but... I just don't have the will to do it. Idolmonkey 18:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed your failed verification tags on Spanish language. With respect to Spanish's status as the second most spoken language by native speakers, this Ethnologue cite clearly ranked it as second, with 332 mil speakers as of 1999. The CIA link was added as more recent verification. If you look in the box under "World" you will see a list of the most spoken languages by percentage of world population: Mandarin (13.69%), Spanish (5.05%) and English (4.84%). These sources verify the text.
With respect to Belize, please check page 7 of the PDF citation. According to the 2000 census, 52.1% of the population speaks the language very well. The text mentioned "native speakers," which as far as I can see is not mentioned in the citation. But I have changed the text accordingly, and it should be OK now.
If you see anything else that you think is wrong with the article, I invite you to raise the issues on the talk page. Thanks! SpiderMMB 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article William Radford (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Wl219 01:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you made an edit on citizenship talk page. I have a question and I hope that you can help me with it: do you know about any western democratic state that can rule out the citizenship from any given citizen for doing a crime other than immigration fraud? Best--Gilisa 17:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for joining the group. It hasn't really grown to be honest, but give it time. Onnaghar talk ! ctrb 16:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Boracay Bill! Thanks for your help pushing for this potential refhide extension. I saw your comment on Meta.Wikimedia and copied it here on mediawiki.org. It's hard for me to tell which page is more likely being watched by developers. I've never watched the process of proposing an extension before, but hopefully this will gain some traction. Cheers! --JayHenry 01:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that it was you who first mentioned the hidden section trick. I'm not an academic and am not familiar with the various style standards, but I have seen several different styles used. I've also seen several different styles used in Wikipedia, often used badly because tools to do better aren't available. Anyhow, that example article I mentioned on your talk page which I redid the references for to try out the hidden section trick uses {{harvnb}} and {{Citation}} templates similarly to the Charles Darwin article (see discussion here, where opposition to the hidden section trick gotme started thinking about <refhide>). None of the stuff I discussed on your talk page is incompatible with placing the <refhide> block in the References section and having the refs expanded there in their order of first encounter in the text. I know that there have been talks about sorting the refs, and about whether/how to do that. I'm just observing that the refhide block in which the ref text is defined could as an editorial option be placed at the head of the article, and that doing that gives the editor control of References section item ordering and possibly sensible organization into a (probably alphabetized) list or into several (probably alphebetized) sub-headed lists.
I don't do a lot of talk page banter and don't know what protocols are usual. I'll put a note on your talk page that I've sent this, in case you've not watchlisted my talk page. -- Boracay Bill 04:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to get a Pilot Project started at an elementary school somewhere in Aklan, pref in Kalibo, Ibahay, Boracay to show DepED and Batasan Pambansa that the provinces can lead the country into the digital age unlike as in the ZTE Broadband controversy. http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Philippines :)
<a href="http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Philippines" target="_blank" alt="One Laptop Per Child">
<img src="http://wiki.laptop.org/images/e/e1/Olpc_badge_white.gif" alt="One Laptop Per Child Logo" style="border: medium none ; padding: 5px;"> </a>
--Mkouklis 06:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC) aka Chief Mike
the link IRT The Blue UMPC says "Bundled OS Microsoft Windows XP Home" I don't think it's a full/legit OS for the price they are quoting, the OLPC project has been having an effect on laptop specification/prices "Revenge of the clones?" SeaTacSystems(of Kalibo/Boracay) was showing me their newest arrival ASUS EeePC the other week but, mine is better for learning/teaching though for many reasons and not just only IMHO!
BTW I have your page here on my watch list but don't sign in to wikiP very often due mostly due to lack of time :)Busy with many other things esp. the kids R on summer vacation, not to mention Akelco's all day power outages/clogged up Globelines-DSL :( ping me here when you're back from Romblon, ok? --Mkouklis (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
My report is first-hand, but that is not the same thing as Original Research. I was not expostulating a theory. I was reporting a fact. -- Evertype·✆ 20:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I made William Stanton into a disambiguation page to decrease confusion, but when I was checking links, I saw that this page already existed, so I put a PROD on it. Hope that's okay. GlassCobra (Review) 13:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I know you're trying to arbitrate a bit here, but re: your explanatory note; if the option had read "I believe there is God" as opposed to "I believe there is a God" it would not have been grammatically correct. The capital G indicates the name of the god of the Abrahamic tradition or the monotheistic God. Jooler 07:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you send me a link to that Style Manual. It came up as a bunch of jarble when you commented on and reverted my editing. It's hard to find manuals and such regarding editing wikipedia. where are they all at? Yaki-gaijin 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC) I was talking about your undo of my editing on the Comfort Women article.
I will check out the Style Manual. The "jarble" I was talking about was just that the link you tried to make didn't work; thus I couldn't get to the Manual of Style. Now I can because of the links you put on my talk page. Thanks. Yaki-gaijin 05:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'll look into the matter further. The website frequently posts articles from print media, so I doubt it's a brazen copyvio. Thanks again. Tromboneguy0186 11:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Wtmitchell, you mention that you do not understand my revert. However, neither do I understand your addtions! You are adding material related to Hojatol-Eslam Khatami, Ayatollah Kamenei, etc., to the biography of Dr Mossadegh! Is there any need for me to explain that this is inappropriate? The same would apply if you had added a similar amount of material concerning Dr Mossadegh to the biographies of the last-mentioned individuals. I believe that you must be confusing things. I shall revert your changes right now, and should you disagree with my reversion, we should put the matter to arbitration by other Wikipedia men and women. Please note that my statement should not be misconstrued as any kind of opposition from my part towards Hojatol-Eslam Khatami, Ayatollah Kamenei, etc. (my work on Wikipedia is purely academic and not motivated by my political views, whatever they me be). I am stating the evident, that one person's biography should not be mixed with the biographies of others. If you wish, you could always make reference to the above-mentioned individuals in the section "See also". Kind regards, --BF 14:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for the massive expungements(by others)/restorations (by me) going on in the Puerto Rico page. Unfolrtunately, many hours of work to produce over a hundred edits had gone down the drain by the massivbe expungement done by one of the overseers of the page. Whatever cites I may have affected was unintentional. My apologies.Pr4ever (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the source quotation, I couldn't have done it that way. I also added several links towards State constitutions, but it will take more time to find more, not all the historical constitutions are online... --Pylambert 02:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted this edit of yours. Perhaps I miss something but that didn't look like vandalism to me. Garion96 (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello there. Could you please explain the purpose of doing this? – SJL 00:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Your recent sourced additions to this article are a big improvement! futurebird (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi W,
I saw your posting over at Template_talk:Infobox_Country#Problems_with_refs_and_footnotes and thought I'd let you know that {{Infobox Settlement}} has footnotes/ref parameters set up in it. It may help you with {{Infobox Country}} to look at how Infobox Settlement does its footnotes for area, population, elevation, etc,. I'll post something over there, as I won't be adding your talk page to my watch list. Good Luck. —MJCdetroit (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Kumusta, Bill! Say, I noticed on Tagalog language you labeled this source as having failed verification. I took a look at the page, and it appears that there is a heading in that document titled "Nine out of ten can speak Tagalog" - was there anything particularly wrong about this or did you happen to miss it? Based on the 2000 population of 76.5M Filipinos, this should amount to about 73.7M Filipinos, of which 20M are native speakers. So the amount of second language speakers in the Philippines alone is over 53.7M and not 65M as stated in the article. What do you think? --Chris S. (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Your talk page is on my watchlist, so you don't have to worry about me missing your replies. In any case, I didn't see what you did as nitpicking, I just want to get it right because I'm not too hot on citing sources. I've made an edit to the article - I've combined the overall figures from the Philippine, US, and Canadian censuses to get 75M. 73.7M (96.4% of the Philippine population in 2000) from the Philippines plus 1.2M from US and 119K from Canada. BTW, were you able to locate those Census CDs? It might be moot now since I recently read that the 2007 census results will be released this year. --Chris S. (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I misread then. The figure I got was based on the fact that the population of the Philippines was 76.5M in 2000 - 96.4% would be 73.74M. I will make that change accordingly. I took a look at WP:SYN and I do not believe that it applies to adding statistics especially when I will make light of the breakdown in the body of the article itself. Even if they do come from different time periods, the figure I have is still an approximation. --Chris S. (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
That the Wiseman hypothesis is pseudo-scholarship is a fact, not a point of view - rather like the world being round. It's never mentioned in the scholarly literature, never cited in scholarly books, is simply ignored by scholars. Perhaps there's a vast conspiracy to never mention Wiseman, but I don't think so. The definition of "scholarly" I'm using includes all those who hold teaching/research positions in major seminaries and universities, and who publish in scholarly journals (Journal of Biblical Studies, for example) - research and publication (in peer-reviewed outlets) is the sine qua non of scholarship. The reason it's ignored is that it ignors over 200 years of research - if Wiseman wants the scholarly community to accept his idea that Moses had clay tablets available detailing the contents of Genesis, then he has to begin by convincing the scholarly community that the existing theories on how Genesis came to be written are incomplete. He will have to convince them, for example, that the author of Genesis 1-11 wasn't taking Babylonian myths and inverting them to show that Yahweh was greater than the gods of Babylon, he'll have to show that people like Gunkel and Noth were wrong in their ideas on the Patriarchal stories, and much more. He does none of this. So this is why he's ignored - he ignores 200 years of scholarship, and advances ideas that are already disproven. This makes his work pseudo-scholarship. This is why I dfon't think the Wiseman hypothesis belongs in a scholarly article on Genesis. (Are you really from Boracay?) PiCo (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The message was not meant to offend. I only wished to point out that the original title was the accurate one, and that it had been mistakenly changed when the refrences were reformated. Sorry about any misunderstanding. F-451 (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Wtmitchell, you just overwrote a bunch of stuff at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources -- would you mind undoing & redoing your cmt? --Lquilter (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to my questions in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Short footnotes with "Reference" section. I have tried out your suggestions in User: Gerry Ashton/Harvard citation and have extended them slightly in User: Gerry Ashton/Note citation. They seem to work quite well, but if this were to be done more widely, we would have to find a way to educate users, because the methods are intimidating at first glance. If you care to glance at my examples to see if I did what you intended, your comments would be welcome. (The large vertical spaces in my examples are so I can easily see if the links are taking me where I want them to.)
Also, your response didn't address the fact that you suggested using the Citation template in the reference list, but most style guides suggest using periods to separate reference elements, while the Citation template uses commas. Is it actually necessary to use the Citation template, or would Cite book, Cite journal, etc. work just as well? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The author and his background is not "dubious". A quick search of the book could have given you this: 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottava Rima (talk • contribs) 04:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bill, Just to be clear, so you could use <ref>s like this, yes?
The Sun is pretty big,<ref name=Miller2005 /> but the Moon is not so big.<ref name=Brown2006 />
== References ==
{{reflist}}
<ref decl=Brown2006>Brown, R (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78).</ref>
<ref decl=Miller2005>Miller, E (2005). "The Sun", Academic Press.</ref>
--SallyScot (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason I ask about this is because I believe it'll relate to the rendered display order of the footnotes.
If the new 'invisible' content bearing named references are included a Reference section following the article body text, then they'll render (via <references /> or {{reflist}}) in the order that their associated <ref name=AuthorDate /> instances appear in the article body text.
If the new 'invisible' content bearing named references are included preceding the article body text, then they'll render in that order. The point being that the order could then be different to the order that their associated <ref name=AuthorDate /> instances appear in the article body text.
One could make an argument for ordering them alphabetically by author name for example, so that they appear that way in the References section. In which case the article's superscripted reference numbers will appear out of sequence. That may be fine and dandy, but I just wondered what your view on it was.
Cheers, --SallyScot (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
<!--
Footnotes and footnote headers are pre-declared in a block ahead of the article prose,
Note that these declarations are invisible.
That is, no visible links (e.g., <sup<[1]</sup>) appear for them.
Note that refs are expanded in the References section in their declaration order here.
-->
<ref head>Notice that:
* These are footnotes are listed in the editor-controllable order of their declaration, not in the order in which their references were encountered in the article prose.
* The footnote declarations at the head of the wikitext appear in the '''References''' section, not above the article prose.
* Arbitrary information such as this can be inserted above, below, and between numbered footnotes.
</ref>
<ref head>'''A header such as this might be inserted above a block of related footnotes'''</ref>
<ref decl=one>this is the first reference defined</ref>
<ref decl=two>this is the second reference defined</ref>
<ref head>'''A header such as this might be inserted above some other block of related footnotes'''</ref>
<ref decl=three>this is the third reference defined</ref>
<ref decl=four>this is the fourth reference defined</ref>
<ref decl=five>this is the fifth reference defined</ref>
<ref head>'''A header such as this might be inserted above yet another block of related footnotes'''</ref>
<ref decl=six>this is the sixth reference defined</ref>
<ref decl=seven>This is an orphan footnote — one which is never referenced in the article prose. (this could be handled as an error)</ref>
<ref head>'''This is some arbitrary text placed at the end of the footnote declaration block'''</ref>
<!-- that ends the footnote declarations -->
This is a demonstration test case for a proposed cite.php extension coded by wikipedia user Wtmitchell. The explanatory text which follows is laden with a number of arbitrary footnote references in order to demonstrate the functionality added by this extension.
The implemented extensions are intended to be entirely backwards compatible with existing wikitext, and to enhance functionality as follows:
*Allow <Ref>...</Ref> declarations outside of the article prose, thus reducing editorial clutter inside the prose.<ref name=six /> Support for a ''decl=whatever'' parameter is added for this. Refs can be invisibly declared in a block using <ref decl=whatever>...</ref>, with all the clutter represented by "..." being removed from the article prose. Only minimal clutter (e.g., <Ref name=whatever />) would need to be placed inline in the article prose.
*Allow editorial control over the order in which Refs are expanded when the <References /> tag is encountered.<ref name=four /> Editors would exercise this control by placing the block of invisibly declared footnotes, grouped and ordered as desired, early in the wikitext — ahead of the first occurrence of a Ref tag in the visible article prose.<ref name=six /><Ref name=one /> Cite.php will have stacked the Refs in the footnote declaration block in the order they were encountered, and they will be expanded in that order.<Ref name=five />
*Allow anonymous subheaders to appear in the list of expanded references. Support for a ''head'' parameter is added for this. Subheaders can be invisibly declared in the invisible block of declared Refs as <Ref head>...</Ref>, and will appear in the expanded references list at the point where they were declared.<ref name=two />
Named and anonymous Refs can appear inline in article prose,<ref>This is an anonymous footnote placed inside the article prose</ref><ref name="probable error">This is a named footnote which first appeared within the article prose</ref> but placing them in the article prose instead of within the footnote/citation declaration block is probably an editorial error.<ref name=three />
==References==
<references/>
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on 155.144.251.120, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because 155.144.251.120 is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 155.144.251.120, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Please join us here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lianga13#Bingo.21
Thank so much!
Angelo De La Paz (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I responded to your response at Talk:Tagalog language. --Kakofonous (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
May I ask why you reverted my assessment? The article is a part of a worklist in WP:PINOY.--Lenticel (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll revert for now until you have an explanation in my talkpage. --Lenticel (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Here and this is the diff. See the history. --Lenticel (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
So its was just a Twinkle misfire. I just want to clear things up but I think were okay since the problem is fixed.--Lenticel (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
How do I create an ICU page as outlined in - To admit an article to ICU, when the template - Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit/Article name, has been deleted? I want to formally admit 2 articles in Category:Articles placed in the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit, Allen Joines and Senang Hati Foundation Kathleen.wright5 13:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I am new to editing and your corrections really helped me a lot in editing the article on the Ivatan language. If you still see any mistakes on my work, please tell me and I would really appreciate it.
--Ugar001 (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. WikiProject Equine is discussing an article importance scale here. Your POV would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth did you revert my removal of vandalism from Wikipedia:Reliable sources and call it vandalism?[1] Did you not look at what he had done? Collectonian (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I just want to inform you that I removed your failed verification tag on Policies, activities and history of the Philippines in Spratly Islands. The reference cited said:
When the Philippines abandoned Pugad Island in the 1980s, Vietnam took over with lightning speed and has since held on to it.
I added the ref tag on the first paragraph because the reference did not elaborate further on how the invasion happened. The reference said "it was abandoned" and this does not go in conflict with what the subsection tells ("soldiers left for the b-day party"). Also it said Vietnam "took over." Again, it does not go against the "invasion." The October 1993 date you're saying is for the lighthouse. Please read carefully the entries in Spratly Islands. The numerous edits on the listing have compromised the chronological order of events in that entry. Thanks. eStaRapapax xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa! 12:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
(somehow I imagine a large theatrical voice (with echo effect))
That reference you gave actually did mention "inside a pressurized module of the ISS" so it had the fact that air was involved. Thank you. Shenme (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for linking to User:Wtmitchell/Work1. I hope you don't mind that I used a little from it (US soldiers shooting drunks) in the relevant Phil-Am war article. Credited you in the edit comment. Uthanc (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Tagalog Wikipedia is campaigning for your participation in writing, editing, assessing and translating articles!
The purpose of this campaign is to expand and improve articles at Tagalog Wikipedia. Your participation will be highly appreciated by the community.
There are over 16,000 articles to view, read, review, edit, and expand, so please visit the Wikipedia Café and the WikiProject Philippines at Tagalog Wikipedia to help out!
The campaign includes seeking your assistance in:
Or just anything you can do to help us just like what you are doing there at the English Wikipedia.
Thank you in advance and regards, Tagalog Wikipedia CommunityFinally, Wikipedia is the 7th most visited site in the Philippines. Then why is it that the Tagalog Wikipedia, the Wikipedia in your own language remains unknown to most of the Filipinos? The mission of this campaign is to change that. Will you join us?
I am wondering that why you always deleting higher Buddhist estimates although it has got reliable citation given [2] and please read its introdution again (not Buddhism only) and I think you could read this line [3]:
"...Shintoism and Buddhism are not mutually exclusive and most Shinto and Buddhist believers follow both faiths..."
And there is no problem with me if in 1 country could contain 2-3 various estimates (lowest, highest); it's suitable for NPOV. Now do you understand? I only want many people know about East Asian culture and custom as much as better because our culture is totally different to Western culture; and I know that about 90% Westerners don't know or know wrong about East Asian culture and religions. Do you believe it or not? 25% in over 300 million Americans believe that Earth is the center of universe (OMG)!!! Best regard!
Angelo De La Paz (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Angelo De La Paz (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to add that policy shortcut back to WP:EP. Well, it isn't so much I forgot as the servers went down and I had to leave before they came back up. Hiding T 12:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, it probably labeled you as a vandal in the edit summary. Anyway, you accidentally blanked all or a large part of WT:CITE, at least I'm assuming it was an accident. Carry on :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
"2500, 250, 250, 250, 250, 250" (income by families) is not "an economy with one wealthy household that has half the total income and the rest of the households share the other half equally" - it is "an economy with one wealthy household that has two thirds of the total income and the rest of the households share the remaining third equally" (the total income is 3750 = 2500 + 5*250; 2500 is 2/3 of 3750)--83.132.77.218 (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Wtmitchell/Boracay Bill. I am adding your suggestion to drop anchors to the new version of the {{shortcut}} template. See Template talk:Shortcut. --David Göthberg (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. It is one of my pet peeves that editors of various continents and countries reflexively change words to their individually preferred spellings. Trust me, I'm familiar with MOS#Consistency within articles.
First, let's consider the article and its subject, Boomerangs. Most popularly associated with Australia, colonized by the English, thus quite likely to use British English spellings, such as, say, 'metre'. So I can't help but think that a British English spelling is going to be more natural to the article.
Second, let's consider what is actually used in the article. Currently, after your revert, we have 3 'meters' and 5 'metres', the original edit and your revert having changed 2 'metres' to 'meters'.
If we go back farther in time, say to your vandalism revert of 04:55, 21 March 2008, we find the numbers, 1 for 'meter' and 7 for 'metre'.
So I'd say that 'metre' was the 'correct' usage for this article. Did you get the from/to direction you meant to do in your recent revert? Or was it late in the day for you like it has been for me when I've reverted to the "tracie has too much hair! hahaha" version of a page? :-) Shenme (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Bill, sorry, im not exactly sure how to fix this reference tags, do You think You may kindly give a better explanation, thnks. As far as copying a sentance word for word, this stems from a now Banned user who deleted everything that wasnt copied for word as part of his harrasment and stalking against me. He insisted everything from an article must be copied word for word. In a few months time his ban will be up and i have no doubt the whole matter will start again and end back up in arbitration again. Kind RegardsSusanbryce (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, just noticed one of the tags you tidied up in the article and i think i understand now, thankyouSusanbryce (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I left a recommendation on the talk page for that template. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
HI Wtmitchell,
Thank you for your edits to List of official languages by state, however I am in the process of clarifing this page by cleaning it up and adding flagicons. Please edit away as you see fit, but be careful not to undue the edits I am making to the flagicons.
Much thanks and best wishes --RobNS 03:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I get the feeling that the writer of that press release got his information from Wikipedia, given how closely the wording matches what we already had there for nearly a year. E.g. we're basically citing ourselves --- so it might not be the best source for stronger verification. Any thoughts? Cheers, cab (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)