User talk:Supt. of Printing
- 1 Welcome!
- 2 Good work :)
- 3 Rail terminology pages
- 4 AfD nomination of 2010 Victorian storms
- 5 Eucharist
- 6 Help!
- 7 "Maybe other bios need to change"
- 8 Creation Science
- 9 American and British spellings
- 10 Disambiguation link notification for August 19
- 11 Wattle Glen Station
- 12 November 2012
- 13 Spelling of Baptize
- 14 RE Comparison with other varieties of English
- 15 March 2014
- 16 I think you need a self revert
Good work :)
See you popping all over my watchlist and fixing my errors - good work :) It's one of the downsides doing stuff on Melbourne from Perth. Orderinchaos 11:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Rail terminology pages
Hi. I saw your good work on the general rail terminology page, and the new page for Australia. I have tagged the latter for WikiProject:Trains.
I notice that on the Aus. page you have enclosed the glossary links in a box. I had previously thought that these should be combined into a neat navi-box to be popped onto each of the glossary pages (in place of the rather verbose list we have at present), but haven't got around to doing it yet. With the arrival of another glossary page, the need is becoming more urgent!
Just a suggestion in case it's something you fancy trying...
AfD nomination of 2010 Victorian storms
An article that you have been involved in editing, 2010 Victorian storms, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Victorian storms. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I really liked the changes you made to the lead paragraph of Eucharist. I just wanted you to know that I edited it to de-capitalize the pronouns referring to Jesus (Him and He). Per WP:MOSCAPS, we don't capitalize pronouns referring to deities. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia's coverage of Christianity! Cognate247 (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I need help. These non-believers are ganging up on me and bringing their bias into the Bible article. Please stand up with me. Please help me work for consensus about a statement for divine inspiration in the lead. God bless you. WalkerThrough (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I just added a suggestion in the Bible talk page that goes back to what I think we were agreeing upon earlier. Your comments would be appreciated. WalkerThrough (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
"Maybe other bios need to change"
If you want to discuss possible changes in the way infoboxes are formatted and filled, the place to do that is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. In the meantime, it seems clear that your interpretation is in the minority with regard to the infobox in the article on Martin, and I'd advise you to drop it until we get some added clarity. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Your edit which removed a category has been reverted. The Creation Science article actually states that it is considered pseudoscience and this is backed up by references, so it is hardly controversial to include pseudoscience as a category? RegardsTheroadislong (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
American and British spellings
Regarding this: I most certainly did give a reason for my revert in my edit summary, which was 'WP:RETAIN". American spellings have been used in the article since its inception, and policy says we should retain the existing variety. Radiopathy •talk• 01:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Andrew Bolt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Project (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Wattle Glen Station
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Fielder railway station, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Spelling of Baptize
I was looking at recent changes to the article on infant baptism. I was surprized to see that you had changed all the occurrences of baptize to baptise. I accept the second to be as valid as the first, but since the first was already in use, I think it would be better to have left it as is. Which is why I have not just changed them all back. I did, however, change a number of them back because they were within quoted material and to spell it "baptize" would be to misquote the material. I, myself, prefer the z. I am sure that it partly because I am an American and it is more familiar. However, in this case, the z is more natural also as it is closer to the Greek zeta it represents. Sterrettc (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I generally support the practise of using the spelling that the article is started with or predominantly uses. I noticed that the article started with the British spelling and used it extensively, so I made the other changes for consistency. However, I do support the spelling from the source of a direct quote (having said that, quotes from the Bible could be either, as there are American versions and British versions of the Bible!). On the other hand, if the article is about a subject which is predominantly British, or American, or Australian, the spelling should reflect that of the country in question, irrispective of the spelling used when the article was written. Supt. of Printing (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
RE Comparison with other varieties of English
I won't attempt to re-add real estate agent to the article, but I wanted to ask is it possible that you grew up in Britain or had British parents? Because honest to God, I have never heard any Australian use the words 'estate agent' (real estate agent), 'bangers'(!!!!) for sausages, 'drawing pin' for thumb tack. While rubbish bin sounds just as normal as garbage bin, 'rubbish truck' is one even that I haven't heard used. Could you be South Australian, where there is a strong British influence on the language, maybe? I won't argue if you're sure these are used regularly in Australia -- maybe it's a regional thing -- but if anyone around here (Brisbane, Qld) went on about 'estate agents' they would likely get a blank stare, and as for 'bangers' for sausages or 'sweet' for desert -- it sounds to me like somebody trying to do an exaggerated mocking caricature of the British with a "toad in thee 'ole gunva'" Cockney accent! Saruman-the-white (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I grew up in Victoria during the 60s (I am in my mid 50s now). Rubbish was always used in reference to bins, trucks, etc. including just rubbish itself. We ate pudding after mains, although dessert became much more commonplace in later years, with sweets to a slightly lesser extent. I never knew what a thumbtack was until years later, it was, and still is drawing pin. I never used the term bangers for sausages, it's probably more colloquial in reference to "bangers and mash", so not widely used on its own. I have always heard the term estate agent on about an equal usage as real estate agent.
- Hope this all helps. Supt. of Printing (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Creation science shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you need a self revert
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Stott&diff=prev&oldid=616615674 Clearly links to MOS:ELLIPSIS, which your edit violated. So not only was it explained, it corrected your mistake. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)