User talk:Demus Wiesbaden

Concerning Ostrich

Your original edit read suspiciously similar to many of the vandalism edits that plague Ostrich: that is why I reverted it.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that sexual attitudes toward humans is suspect. But I did not post as an anonymous user. I did not change my contribution after you reverted. I just referenced it (my reference looks pretty ugly though). I think one should always doubt oneself as a rule, especially when deleting content. And googling the key words when there MIGHT be a possibility the questionable statement is not vandalism. Besides, you should have seen a warning that I was still working on the article (to reference my contribution). --demus wiesbaden (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of a template redirect

I have nominated a redirect to a template for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 14:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy in Golden Gate Bridge

You appear to be assuming that 80,000 miles is an exact number. Don't. The person who specified 129,000 km only assumed 3 digits of precision, which is reasonable. Or do you have a more accurate source? - Denimadept (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not assuming that. I like accurate numbers. If one is available (like conversion numbers are) it should be used IMHO. One can easily round a number, I don´t need Wikipedia to do it for me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) agrees with you. I follow the logic. Thanks for the comment)--demus wiesbaden (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like accuracy too. If we can get a more accurate number than "80,000 miles", let's do it and plug it into {{convert}} so we can drive it through. - Denimadept (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]