|This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at
Hi Wikievil, welcome to Wikipedia.
I "reverted" some of your edits to Dr. Angelou's bio. I think that I explained them in the edit summaries. Please don't give up on this article! I totally agree that it's a mess. I've taken all all of Angelou's articles (I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings is a FA), and I could use all the help I can get! I've been slowly improving this one, but it's taken a long while because I feel like I need to read all six of her autobiographies and create their articles before I can really do this justice. I've just completed her fourth, Heart of a Woman, but my RL responsibilities and other WP commitments have gotten in the way. I'm so lucky that there is no deadline in WP. I also know that this article is in dire need of a good copyedit. I welcome you doing just that. Thanks for the editing you've done so far, and may you have loads of fun here. --Christine (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The term 'rotative' is correct when describing these types of engine and is in widespread use. 'Rotary' is incorrect. (Another editor has already reverted this change before I could!) However, you may have a point that the term 'rotative' could be considered jargon and needs describing on its first use in an article, and/or linking to a section of beam engine maybe. I'll make a note in my ToDo list... -- EdJogg (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- When I saw all of your edits in the history just now, I thought, "Who is butchering the Kubrick article?" But looking at them closely, I have to say I'm impressed. We need more editors with actual "editing" skills; nicely done. — Satori Son 23:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi! It looks like you've done some great work on WP over the years but I'm curious as to why you almost always mark the edits as minor. You may not be aware but the edits you're making aren't always "minor" as defined at Help:Minor edit. The "nutshell" portion at the top of the article summarizes what Wikipedia (or more exactly, its editors) considers a minor edit. Some people consider it "poor etiquette" as it's described in Help:Minor edit. It doesn't particularly bother me but apparently can throw off some bots, filters, and watchlists which is considerably more important than etiquette, in my opinion. OlYeller21Talktome 01:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
"Plated" is baseball talk for "scored", not "hit". It's a slangy way of saying "touched home plate". However, because it's slang, you were right to change it, just not for the right reason. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm... Kinda thought a batter COULD actually hit homers. Oh, I see... gotta add this --> Wikievil666 (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I know of home plate, but never heard the verb "to plate". I've only been a baseball fan for 50 years. If I understand correctly, the runner can plate, the batter can plate himself if he hits a homer, and the batter can plate a runner (RBI). In that sense, both runner and batter plate the same run in the case of an RBI. Is that correct? Wikievil666 (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's one way to look at it. I think of it primarily as just a different way to say "scored". I don't know that I've ever actually heard it said out loud. It's something writers might do (or might have done, some decades ago) as a way to vary things. Like saying "tallied" or whatever. In any case, I agree that it doesn't belong in the article, as a casual reader might say "Huh?". "Scored" does quite nicely. As per your original change, it would be fair to say that the World Series trophy might well be "plated". :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The dog biscuit under the sofa?
There was a very good reason for an editor including the words about the name being similar to calling the United States "the States". It was because readers might be confused about why, if one of the group's former names was "the Islamic State", it apparently chose the same name again some years later, when it announced itself as "the Islamic State" in June this year, but giving the impression that it was a new name. See here, paras 1 and 3. Cheers. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)