User talk:IdreamofJeanie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Help with article Glossary of Belly Dance Terms[edit]

Hi! I saw that you had contributed to the article on Belly Dance. I have created an article “Glossary of Belly Dance Terms” because many of my dance students have been asking for it. I am new to Wikipedia and I was hoping that you would be able to help out by contributing or helping with formatting (I need that!) or adding citations. Thanks!MonicaDance (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU REMOVE KRISTI CHAIR OF PIG! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for this fix. That was a dumb mistake on my part. Ryan Vesey 21:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

no probs. cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you also for picking up my Sandyrust mistake! Dollist (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack The Ripper[edit]

Hey, I noticed your edit on Jack The Ripper when I was reviewing a pending changes edit. As I was reviewing it, the user you reverted re-inserted his edit that you had removed. I just wanted to make sure you know, which I'm sure you do, that if you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, you are required to leave and edit summary other than the default. I am not going to get in the middle of an edit war, but the anon's edit was clearly not vandalism (whether it was valid or not). Please be sure and leave and edit summary with your rationale in the future. Of course this applies to all pages on Wikipedia, but is especially important on protected pages, whether semi- or pending-changes protected. Thank you. – Alex43223 T | C | E 17:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)...You see, Alex desperately wants to be IMPORTANT on Wikipedia.... just so you know... Basket Feudalist 18:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Tom Bdonkey[edit]

Well spotted. It's unfortunate that so many people do tidying up, typo correcting, adding categories etc, and never ask themselves, is this whole article perhaps nonsense or a hoax? I have known instances where a hoax article was blanked by an IP with edit summary "Guys, this is all made up!", but that was reverted as vandalism and the hoax lingered on. If you come on one that you have doubts about, but are not sure enough to tag it for deletion, there is a useful template {{hoax}}, which says only that it might be a hoax, but puts it into CAT:HOAX, where someone probably pick it up and check it out. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, just suspicious about the name, so I checked a link, then another, then googled. Totaly amazed when a photo showed a banner refering to Allen, and caption said Bdonkey. ah well. it's gone now. cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Different from[edit]

is a common gramatical error made nearly every time the word 'different' is used. The Oxford dictionary of English Usage states (slightly paraphrased):

"Different is always followed by to, never from or than. The use of different from is a common grammatical error. The increasing use of the awkward form different than is probably due to confusion with other than. [It then goes on about the incorrect use of the adjectival form where the adverb is required]."

The form 'different to' was drummed into me at school. The Americans may well use the form 'different from' as a matter or routine since they always take the easy approach but as the article is about a UK invention, British English is the required version for the article. Pointing to internet sites that claim otherwise is not going to impress, because they are clearly making the common error, but it is difficult to weed out those that are thinking in American English. The Oxford University dictionaries are generally regarded as the authoritative source for all things concerning the English language. I B Wright (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Death of Lee Rigby[edit]

Hi there. I can partly understand your logic in removing the murder category. But you might wish to note that e.g. Death of Keith Blakelock has, in fact, no less than six murder categories. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine any right thinking person would agree this was murder, viscious and horrific at it was no other description would fit. However reading the the talk page the overwhelming concensus is that we should not refer to it as such until the evil scum (sorry, suspected evil scum) have been convicted. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering what broght about the decision to name that article in that way, despite the use of those six categories. The two do not seem to be incompatible. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Forms of history and plays[edit]

I think you are somewhat confused. What you defined in your explanation for "historical play" would apply more accurately to "historic play" (though there is an alternative interpretation). In contrast, your preferred "history play" is a strained and somewhat implausible usage, though the most likely interpretation is that play in question follows the history quite accurately, and the reason it caught my eye in this particular case is precisely because the history is disputed. The general adjectival usage of "historical play" is usually taken to refer to a play that is based on history. I actually prefer such usages as "historical fiction", "historical fantasy", or even "history-based play" where the distinctions must be made clearly.

However, I'm not going to get in a reversion war with you, though it bothers me to see poor usages in Wikipedia--and it bothers me more to see those usages aggressively defended. (BTW, I've been a professional technical editor for many years.) Shanen (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"BTW"... something only a 'professional technical editor' who has also been mildly cretinous would use Face-wink.svg Basket Feudalist 18:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 :-) Horror film: horrible movie, Love Story: Lovely story, Travel Show Travelling Show. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Zulu / The Zulus[edit]

Hi, IdreamofJeanie. The main purpose of my last contrib in the Anglo-Zulu War article was the standardisation of the article encyclopedic style. I think the ethnonym should be mentioned in the same manner in every occurrence ("the Zulu" for the whore article or "the Zulus" for the whole article). That's what I think... Regards. Kintaro (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism done to My Work on Lap Dance Article[edit]

This is pretty much what I said to Rick Block, and basically sums up what must be done:

You or one of your admin associates needs to look more closely at the incident. These guys ignored the article for years, and it stagnated. After doing much work cleaning it up and adding research, Candleabracadabra without any discussion on the Talk page and during a late night hour, removed the majority of my work, cutting the article in half. His friend, Beyond My Ken who also has deleted the same work has received many complaints from users about his excessive reverts, his use of profanity in his comments, and has even been disciplined multiple times for Edit Warring (see link below). I will not work on this article, or any other articles, unless Candleabracadabra and Beyond My Ken are banned from the page, in order to preserve the much researched and referenced work that I have invested in. Do you really think that any volunteer would continue with this type of treatment?
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion to Beyond My Ken Carroll (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your revert on Gibraltar[edit]

Hi, I noticed in this revert you made, you said that you were reverting me in your edit summary. When in actual fact you were reverting this edit made by this Anon IP from Andalucia in Spain. I just thought you should know. Regards IJA (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. please read edit summary again. it clearly states that I was restoring your edit. Cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry my bad. Apologies. IJA (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St Mary's Cathedral, Johannesburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St.John (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Observer Corps[edit]

The Observer Corps played a vital role during the Battle of Britain, and I was very pleased to see them acknowledged on the Battle of Britain Wiki page, however the caption was incorrect as the Observer Corps was not 'Royal' in 1940. I am a former member of the ROC and I’m also currently a member of the ROC Association Heritage Team who advise in matters regarding the heritage and history of the ROC throughout our 70 year history, so with this in mind I made the minor edit with the best intention improving the accuracy of this page. It is well published that the ‘Royal’ prefix was not awarded until 9th April 1941 when Sir Archibald Sinclair made the announcement in Parliament, and was brought about by the contribution made by the Observer Corps during the Battle of Britain the previous year. Further Information on this can be found on page 112 of the excellent book ‘Attack Warning Red’ by Derek Wood (along with a wealth of other information about the Observer Corps contribution), or on page 52 of ‘Forewarned is Forearmed’ by Henry Buckton. The Wikipedia page on the ROC that you linked to was written by and is maintained by a former ROC officer, and I can vouch for its accuracy as the gentleman concerned is extremely knowledgeable in all matters concerning the ROC.

Uncanny Valley[edit]


I note your revert on the entry for Uncanny Valley but in the UK the example which I gave achieved notoriety and the image became instantly recognisable for millions of people who saw it, and commented directly within the region of relevance of the Uncanny Valley. Sorry for making an unwelcome introduction into the subject for such purposes. With regard to the slant of your accusation, the "sex doll" image which I have provided presents a better neutrality than the 2006 image, which personally I found to be gross and possibly am not unique in such a reaction. The 2006 image was not representative of what is available now and the article [Sex_toy_industry_in_China] demonstrates the extent to which the subject has moved on within intervening years unimaginably, and it is appropriate for the pages to represent that. Whilst possibly not intended in such a manner the wording of your comment has a tone of being derogatory in the relation of someone associated with a "sex doll" and therefore not neutral. With the greatest of respect, anyone seeing the 2006 image would be justified in being derogatory, and it is specifically for that reason that I have provided a less prejudicial image.

I have tried to contribute usefully within the subject providing references and particularly on account of Chinese manufacturers are transforming products that used to be single purpose sex toys into art models. The popularity of the Japanese "Fuccon Family" "Oh Mikey" is an example of how poseable mannequins are inspiring art and culture, and the increased realism of silicone dolls originally intended as sex dolls is taking art using them further into the realm of the Uncanny Valley.Dollist (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It would therefore be appropriate to re-consider whether your revert on Uncanny Valley is constructive within the subject or based upon whether I should be looked upon as an easy target in the terms your comment on the associated talk page suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollist (talkcontribs) 10:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Dollist (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

hi dollist, how would you describe an editor with a username dollist, and 40+edits all trying to get two pictures of his favourite sex doll published, on three different wikipedia articles, having been reverted at various times by three separate editors? Also what relevance is this 2006 image you object to, which was never on this page in any case? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - your response indicates that your edit appears merely in delight of taking a pot shot at an apparently easy target (which I do not deny) personally directed therefore rather than in intellectual objection or contribution upon the issue. No doubt taking pot shots at new contributors in a first subject area is a hobby which can provide no end of entertainment.

The photograph Sandyrust.jpg was a particular example of the Uncanny Valley phenonomen to the extent that it was picked up by a news agency and published in newspapers in the UK with a circulation of millions, syndicated online and went viral on facebook, for the reason that it was felt to be "creepy" - specifically relevant to the subject and a popularly recognised iconic example.

The image and story were syndicated to all VW agencies in the world for the very amusement of the phenonomen that such a creepy, uncanny, image should be used in connection with marketing a second hand VW car.

With regard to the 2006 photograph to which you refer, the sculpture is gross with "assets" of indecent proportions and not representative of the type of item available now. The subject is riddled with issues of discrimination, disgust for the objects and for anyone using them and depictions inclined towards perpetuating either visual disgust or discrimination should be avoided in the interests of neutrality within the subject. To wish to maintain a discriminatory image from 2006 when the manufacture has moved on to products capable of art use and publication within respectable newspapers demonstrates as much lack of objectivity from your perspective as you wish to point out against mine.

The relevance of the 2006 photograph here is that you refer to the image uploaded into the Uncanny Valley subject as a sex doll. The function of the figure to which you refer in that instance is that of a poseable mannequin and not as a sex doll, neither posed nor dressed as a sex doll nor equipped for the functions of sex at the time. She was posed as a mannequin doing something akin to human behaviour and eliciting the reaction exemplifying the subject and by widespread publication of that particular image drawing attention to the subject.

Just because I have some experience and expertise in a subject and make no bones about it in the choice of a username does not mean that I should be discriminated against when making hopefully informed and objective contributions within a field.

Just because when making an edit after consultation with another editor through a degree of senility I made a bona fide mistake in loading Sandyrust.jpg there in the stead of the other image doesn't mean that the use of Sandyrust.jpg if and where relevant should justify your condemnation.

Having been introduced better to the learning curve of contributing, on other subjects such as harpsichords, as I am not a single subject contributor, I have left appropriate suggestions on the relevant subject talk pages and await comments.

(You may or may not have noted that I specifically THANKED you above for having picking up my Sandyrust mistake when it occurred . . . )

Dollist (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Dollist (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you have noted that i supported your use of sandy where approriate, that does not mean i agree that it should be shoehorned into any page with a mere tangential relevance. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
-) OK - thanks. Appreciated. I'm not looking to shoehorn anything but where examples of something can be useful then when a helpful contribution can build the body of knowledge and be helpful.

The question is that of relevance and the way in which the publication of the image exploded through the press and a multiplicity of internet sites appeared to be rather a good example of the effect as a practical example, and seen by many, brings the subject into the wider arena. It is an issue that as human effigies move more into the arena of robotics, familiarity and comfort zones will shift and change or not. The spectrum of emotions hit by the photos on what seemed at the time to be an innocuous ebay advertisment was extraordinary - a mixed spectrum but wide, and the comments upon sites allowing comment were interesting. Some focused on the salacious whilst others were more oriented to creepiness. The spectrum of publications was documented on from which it's possible to see the extent without time consuming googling, together with quotations for comment. Should you be interested to take a look, and therefore a view to relevance obviously as a newbie it's appropriate for those of longer experience to make decisions.

But the photo itself is of interest in being so nearly human, and yet not, and the unhappy valley phenonomen was the specific reason for it having been noticed and taken up.

Dollist (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


If you do not speak albanian ,go to google translate or another translating website and translete (beautiful) and (is) in the albanian language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakoni (talkcontribs) 13:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have to look anything up. You are claiming that the capital city of romania is so named because that is albanian for it is beautiful. The onus is on you to provide a source. The link you provided did not contain either word, Bucharest, or Bukar, which you claim is the root of the name. If you can find a reliable third party reference for your claim, then please add it, otherwise it is just your claim, and is not acceptable on wikipedia. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Now it does not arrive estleg get a few days to correct the Hungarian greenland[edit]

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levente 2 (talkcontribs) 12:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No Levente, as you have been told before, more than once, work on your article (perhaps off line, or as a draft) and get it in proper English, and THEN add it to Wikipedia. please don't add garbage. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Speedy" Speedy deletions[edit]

Slapping a Speedy Deletion on a new page 3 minutes after it was created is a tad harsh and is the kind of thing that will push people away from editing. Perhaps give the author time to enhance it? — BranStark (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You were a bit early with this one, too. Give them half an hour or so, in case they got interrupted by something. Then check their contributions history and, if they're an experienced Wikipedian, drop a brief, polite hand-written note on their talk page, asking if they're going to expand it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please send a copy of the deleted WizNote page to me[edit]

I spend some time editing on this page, unfortunately I'm not experienced and the page is labelled as "Speedy deletion". I'm not going to argue, so be it, but please send a copy to me. Maybe I'll improve it sometime.

Thanks for the correction[edit]

Hi Jeannie thanks for pointing out that the "Maybe, maybe not..." in Rorke's Drift was in fact part of a quotation. I missed that, as perhaps most people would given it is a long quotation and is lost in the main body of the text. Would italics make it more obviously a quote - or perhaps indent it in parenthesis? MarkDask 20:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Easy done. I only double checked because it was so tabloidese. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Cetshwayo kaMpande[edit]

Why is this image better than this image? You gave little detail in your edit summary. Omo Obatalá (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
THe Zulu king in tribal dress is more relevant to this article than in western dressIdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Thanks. Omo Obatalá (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi there. As one of the recent editors of Gibraltar who recently (knowingly or not) participated in an edit war over how much prominence to give to a certain item in the lead of the article, I am inviting you to comment on a proposal at Talk:Gibraltar towards unprotecting the article. Can I also take this opportunity to cordially remind you that it is both more collegial and more effective to discuss in talk than to join in an edit war? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sexual fetishism[edit]

Hi IdreamofJeanie, thanks for the correction to the above article. Although it sounds a bit awkward, this article helped me. Versace1608 (Talk) 16:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Stone[edit]

When I click on the link I get directed here, which quite clearly says "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" at the top. Perhaps it works differently for you in some manner? DonIago (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

For me in the UK it comes up with "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" with your title underneath and smaller, described as the "original title". Britmax (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. We're discussing it at the film's Talk page now. Seems like it must be locality-based... Thanks for the info! DonIago (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Aeronautical Engineering page redirection[edit]

Hello IdreamofJeanie, i just noticed your recent edit on Aeronautical Engineer article cleared the page and redirected to Aerospace engineering. I also first thought of redirecting it to Aerospace engineering when i created it, but i noticed a difference between the the subjects, i.e Aeronautical Engineer -> identifies a person, but Aerospace engineering -> identifies a profession or industry. So i thought the subject Aeronautical Engineer needs some clarity and decided to write the article as a separate one.

Kindly give your opinions with reference to my reason for making the article separate. see you later, bye. (Social Informer (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC))

Hi. From what I saw there was nothing there that warranted a separate article: a couple of paragraphs about a person which would be better placed expanding the engineering article. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok then, i would look for expanding the main article Aerospace engineering, See you, bye. (Social Informer (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC))

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove my reference in the hyperinflation article. Is that not against Wikipedia rules?[edit]

Why did you remove my reference in the hyperinflation article. Is that not against Wikipedia rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you now going to remove what I stated on the talk page too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

"Every nation in the world" by definition includes USA, so there is no need to add "Including USA" IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. But, another editor doubts that what I stated is true and needed a source. This other editor specifically mentioned the US and stated that the US does not follow the general rule as set out by the IASB. That is not true, so I specifically stated that the US follows the IFRS or IASB rule regarding the definition of hyperinflation and I sourced it to a very reliable source, namely the SEC. There is no better source than that. Now you removed it. Please put it back. (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
do you have a source that says "All countries in the word......" if so you can add that. If you have a source that only says USA, then change the sentence to match your source. "Every nation in the word, including USA" is a ridiculous sentence for an encyclopedic work.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that IP editor is banned long term abuser and sockpuppeteer User:PennySeven. PennySeven is a South African who resides in Portugal, who has edit warred about inflation and hyperinflation. All similar edits of his should be summarily reverted. LK (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Units of measurement on Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, Earlier today I updated the article Battle of Cannae to correctly reflect the units of measurement as according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style: "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units…" You reverted this change, under the assumption that I had wrong motives. I hope we can now agree that was not the case and reinstall the correct style usage? Have a good one! Bubbly (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

from the same guideline: The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1]
Fair enough! Thank you for linking those cases. :) I do find the Committee's resolution counterproductive and firmly against the principles of upholding styling conventions and standards, although I understand their (it's been 5 digital decades since some of these judgments: outdated) view. These changes are a great example of 'minor edits' usage. I think it should also be stated that reverting such minor style changes should be equally unacceptable: it starts a revert-war, but a cheek is turned because of a handful of editors who made a decision in an ancient digital era. That said, I learned of the relevant jurisdiction and am leaving it at this. Cheers! Bubbly (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)



Hello. I noticed that you recently edited without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks (reminder. vandalizing Wikipedia is bad) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdkvbn (talkcontribs) 20:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Colossus of Rhodes[edit]

@IdreamofJeanie: in the source it states and I quote most accounts agree on a height of 70 cubits 70 cubits equals 32.004 meters and 105.00 feet it dose not say 30 meters (98feet) since most account agree on 70 cubits and since 70 cubits equals 32.004 meters and 105.00 feet then that is what should be listed not 30 meters (98feet)

the problem is we can not really believe that whoever measured the statue two thousand years ago was able to measure it with the accuracy you are claiming. 32.004m? not 32.005. or 32.003. you see this full stop here . that is about a millimetre can you really confirm that the ancient tape measure was accurate enough to measure to the size of that? or that the ancient scribe didn't round it from 69.9 cubits, or 70.3? we can not be more precise that the person we are quoting. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@IdreamofJeanie: maybe I should not have been so precise but the source still says 70 cubits which is 105 it dose not say 98 feet and I think it should reflect that by saying 32 meters(105 feet) it also says it might have been 80 cubits, or could have been 33meters or 110 feet nowhere dose it say 50-60 cubits and the page should not specify that when the source dose not (edit conflict)

That's why it says "over 30m": a similar level of accuracy to the original source see IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@IdreamofJeanie: but the ref dose not say it was ever thought to have been 30 meters or 98 feet tall, since the sources says most accounts agree on 70 cubits then it should be at the very least be over 32 meters(105ft) not under 32 some other sources that say 105 feet [1] [2] [3]

see the relevant guideline linked to above, and reproduced here:

Converted quantity values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source quantity value, so the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth, not (236,121 mi). Small numbers may need to be converted to a range where rounding would cause a significant distortion, so one mile (1–2 km), not one mile (2 km). Be careful especially when your source has already converted from the units you're now converting back to. This may be evidenced by multiples of common conversion factors in the data, such as 160 km (from 100 miles). See false precision. The "level of precision" of the original source is one significant figure, therefore the level of precision we are justified in using is one significant figure. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC) @IdreamofJeanie: every source list it as minimum of 105 feet [4] [5] it should say over 32 meters(105) no source I can find says under 105 feet or just drop the meters and say over 105 feet you know what forget it not worth arguing about it anymore no sources list it as under 105 feet but if you really want to keep it that was despite what the source says and what all the other sources I have provided say then go ahead when people read the ref the will see otherwise anyway and knowing wikipedia eventually someone else will change it anyway goodbye and pleasure talking with you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plmokg22345 (talkcontribs) 20:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


Too speedy[edit]

This speedy deletion tag was too speedy. You tagged the article literally within 1 minute of its creation. Admittedly, the article contained little information, and was apparently an autobiography, but in cases of no content of no notability, you should allow the article creator at least some time (my rule of thumb is generally 15 minutes) before tagging for deletion. You never know, the author may well have a wealth of information to impart, but your early tagging will discourage them from doing so. (See Please do not bite the newcomers.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

If someone is incapable of writing two sentences about 'themselves' to justify a wikipedia article then I can scarcely believe that there can be that much more to add. IdreamofJeanie (talk)