User talk:Majts

Welcome!

Hello Majts, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -03:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. May I suggest that sign your contributions with ~~~~? Please look at other edits for examples. -Walter Siegmund 02:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I've fixed any I missed. Still getting used to that bit. Thanks for creating my talk page though. I felt quite excited by getting my first wiki message until I realised I was being told off. Majts 02:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But, I tried to do so in the nicest possible way. I just learned how to welcome a new user, so I did so above. Welcome. -Walter Siegmund 03:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, it was received in the nicest possible way. Many thanks for the welcome. Majts 03:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Read

Sorry if I came across as patronizing. That wasn't at all my intention. It was just a beef I had with the use of the word 'national'. Unless you know in which country the questioner lives, using it may cause confusion to them. All I ask is that you mention a specific country in the future. That's all. Apologies again. I hope you can forgive me. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your very gracious reply. I completely agree with your beef about the use of the word national and the misunderstanding comes from the fact I was using the word to describe multiple nations. I will try to be clearer in future and I apologise if my complaint seemed petty. Majts 19:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Your reply meant a lot to me. Since you understand what I meant, and since we both apologized to eachother, I think we can consider this solved. :) I hope we meet again in the future and have a fruitful collaboration on editing. What are your interests? - Mgm|^(talk) 19:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you very much for looking at the djbdns article; I can not possibly be neutral on the subject and your input was very valuable. Samboy 19:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Devolution

Hello, I was the original person that added Devolution to Vfd (at the time) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devolution (biology) Thinking it was a complete hopeless mess :) I am very impressed with what it has become Devolution (fallacy) which I consider factually accurate, and useful! I just wanted to say thanks for turning that sinking ship around! hehe - cohesion | talk 09:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celeritas

Majts: Thank you for mentioning Celeritas on your user page. I thought it was interesting and informative. It reminds me of some of the other stories of word origins that are equally apocryphal. Thank you for the kind works about my pictures. I admire your self-restraint. Not clicking on the link? Really? -Walter Siegmund 15:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi Majts! Thanks a lot for replying to my query on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities on Frank Lampard, and thanks also for the lead. Its much appreciated. :) --Aabha 07:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for having a look at the article. I was wondering myself if it was actually too much detail...should I do away with the club table altogether, coz if I keep it I'll have to put in the entries for Swansea. What do you suggest?? Aabha 08:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Left no instructions

For some reason, that comment reminds me of something I heard awhile ago. There are two ways to win an argument with a woman. Unfortunately, nobody knows either of them. Qaz ^(talk) 09:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re Hubble Deep Field article

My replies in BOLD Majts 06:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in this article. I notice you reverted some work I put into it, on the grounds that it "seemed to damage [the] prose". So I might make more worthwile Wikipedia edits in future, I would appreciate your comments on the following from the article as it now stands:

Context: This article was Wikipedia's front page featured article last Friday. This means that it has been peer reviewed and perfected by numerous contributors and read by thousands. It is therefore safe to say that any major problems with this article have been addressed. I have never contributed to the article.

Conception ¶3: "the then director". You don't share my feeling that this reads clumsily? In any case, no timeframe has been established before these words occur in the sentence, so when "then" is read it has no point of reference in time. Hence my moving "in 1995" before the "then" and consequent removal of the superfluous "the". Perhaps the whole sentence should be rewritten.

I think that the sentence in question is of the callibre that I would expect to read in the highest quality press, e.g. The Economist. I am so surprised that you have raised this as a problem, I am wondering if this is a British\US English difference. As for the timeframe, 1985 is established in the sentence after the comma, why does it have to established before?

Conception ¶3: "a 'typical'". I agree my offering of "an agreed" in lieu is a substantive difference. However, the scare-quotes around "typical" indicate that a little more explanation is required, so they may then be removed. How about the following? :

A special Institute Advisory Committee recommended that the WFPC2 be used to image a patch of sky at a high galactic latitude that was agreed to be unremarkable, using several optical filters.

"agreed to be unremarkable" sounds mangled. By using "to be", it somehow implies that the area of sky is complying to the committee's wishes. If you really want to get rid of the quotes then I would suggest the word ordinary or just get rid of the quotes, the sentence still works without them. But I personally think the use of scare-quotes is perfectly valid.

Target selection ¶3: Superscripted external link at end. In the other Wikipedia articles I've read thus far (admittedly a small fraction of the total on offer) I don't recall finding external links superscripted and thereby interrupting the regular line-spacing of the article. Have you?

No opinion either way, I never noticed the irregular line-spacing until you pointed it out, although I would expect this to have got picked up during peer review if this had been a problem.

Observations Photo caption and ¶3 rewrite: With the photo caption as it currently stands, the final two words of the section, "CCD detectors", are once again orphaned on the left-hand side of the article. The final sentence of the section, ending with those words, is relatively long. Surely neither ideal?

The layout looks perfect in my web browser, so this is something to do with your screen resolution. I run at 1024x768 resolution

My method, for featured articles or articles that I consider of great importance is to make my suggested changes on the article's talk page to see if I have consensus before being bold.

Thanks,
David Kernow 04:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My replies in BOLD Majts 06:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt and considered responses to my inquiries. I would still question "the then director", "'typical'" and the length of the last sentence in the Observations section, but in light of your pointing out the article has been featured and therefore well-reviewed, I will leave it as is. Thanks also for the reminder about different resolutions (mine is 1152 by 864 but reduced by bookmark sidebar).

Best wishes,
David Kernow 14:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for being so friendly despite me reverting your work. In many ways you were just unlucky with the timing as the article was linked to from the main page the day before. So it had many eyes watching it, reverting all the vandels, etc... If you feel still any changes will make the article better then go ahead and make them, I won't object or revert again. Regards Majts 14:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stats table

Hey! Just thought you might want to look at that table again, since you suggested changes. User:Aabha R/Frank Lampard..should be merging stuff into the original article very soon. Aabha 13:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is very good indeed. If you want I can do a copyedit as I noticed a couple of minor imperfections with the text, but I won't do so without your permission. One small criticism is that you may have a few too many internal links - especially dates. Do you think its useful linking these? For example "He then broke his right leg in a game against Aston Villa on 15 March " Do you think that someone is going to wonder "Frank broke his leg on 15th March, I wonder what else has ever happened on 15th March?" Majts 13:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yea, you're right. I thought having all dates as links was a convention of sorts, anyways, point taken. You're welcome to any edits that you want to make. Actually, the article that I have in my userspace right now is the one in which I've merged my article into the existing article on him. But in doing that I've deleted a few sentences from the original, and I believe that might not go down too well with other editors. So, I think, I'm finally going to put whatever's there in Frank Lampard as the intro, and just add in my subtopics and tables. Aabha 18:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its done!

Hey Majts..Thanks a ton for all the help with the article:) Its now merged with the original. Aabha 14:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun with Devo

That's me done with Devolution (fallacy): hope you enjoy. It took some getting my head round ...dave souza 00:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New pictures and edit summaries

Hi Majts!

Looks like you are doing some good work on WP. I left you some fresh pictures in your user page. Be sure to dump them when you tire of them, but I thought they might interest you in another of our "parks". Just click on the link to learn more.

On another topic, I wonder if I might suggest that you try to add edit summaries more consistently? They are really helpful to other editors and if your edit is a few hundred characters or less, you can just paste that contribution into the summary box (only the first 200 are kept) and that suffices.

Some of your edits are to the Reference desk, and the paste technique is particularly applicable to that work. BTW, I enjoyed the response to 15 math facts for the number 95. It is appreciated.

Best wishes. -Walter Siegmund 05:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought better of commenting on your edit summaries. It was only the reference desk edits that were missing summaries, and those aren't very important. All the bests. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More on "Rex Hamilton"

I don't know if you know this already, but from what I can tell, the joke is one of PS!'s typical "Take a cop show stereotype and extend it to manifest absurdity", in this case, it starts out with Neilsen getting shot at crusing around and returning fire (Normal), then North getting shot at in his office, causing someone to catch on fire and dive out the window, and return fire (Highly unlikely), to Abe Lincoln getting shot at, and returning fire (Historically impossible). Thanx. 68.39.174.238 02:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of State of Louisiana v. Frisard for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article State of Louisiana v. Frisard is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of Louisiana v. Frisard until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 15:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]