User talk:MLRoach/Archive 2

Capitalization

Yes, I understand this is a habit of mine. I do think the Capitalization policy of Wikipedia is flawed as it isn't proper American grammar. When the letters are capitalized in fleet tables, the information is presented better as most information is very short.--Golich17 15:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

But there's no reason to capitalize anything after the first letter... I believe it looks more professional in 'traditional' casing. --Matt 15:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok first of all, it does not look more professional looking, as it is improper grammar. Second of all, fleet tables should be exempt from this policy, as it is flawed. Orders should be capitalized because you are announcing something as well as Entry Into Service (EIS). Bottom line, the system is flawed, and certain items should be exempt. This is the way these tables have been for a while and you are the first person that had a problem with how they were layed out. I have edited many airline articles to implement this table style, as it is the most user-friendly, as well as easy to read layout.--Golich17 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary capitalization is neither user-friendly, nor correct. Orders and Entry Into Service are normal words that happen to also have a meaning in the airline industry, there's nothing special about orders to induce capitalization. Entry Into Service can be abbreviated EIS, but it doesn't mean it should be capitalized --Matt 16:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Following support on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Fleet#Over capitalization, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Abbreviation capitalization, and User talk:Golich17#Capitalization in fleet descriptions, I have lowercased all of the cases of "Entry Into Service" I could find. --Matt 04:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

In response to a plea on WP:3O, I have placed my opinion at User_talk:Golich17#Third opinion. -Amatulic 01:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and happy holidays --Matt 01:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

CMU in fiction and popular culture

"University X in popular culture and fiction" sections are found in SEVERAL university-related articles on the Wikipedia, e.g. the Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, and Oxford articles. If you feel a section/article on "Carnegie Mellon in popular culture" does not belong in the Wikipedia, I wonder if the same principle should apply to the other aforementioned university-related articles. Please let me know. 161.24.19.82 17:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually have an opinion. I figured moving it to its own article was the best of both worlds - having it, but not cluttering the main article; not having to debate which pop culture references warranted inclusion in the main article. --Matt 22:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the source

Kid Chris told me that they were closing the CVG hub he's an insider from Delta.72.69.213.21, 19:33 January 12 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we're going to need a verifiable source as Wikipedia can't accept details from an inside source--Matt 20:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Is this Matty's page? Hello, hello anybody there?--Inetpup 16:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, what's up? --Matt 23:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just hoping that I've convinced you that I'm not such a troll (maybe only occasionally) ... I have made some good contributions to the BART article. Thanks! --Inetpup 03:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I do see lots of good edits, but try to keep in mind the sentiment expressed by this template. Cheers --Matt 05:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I got it ... I'll just create an article called BART bad jokes, then create an external link and everyone will be happy. Did I get this correct? Let me know. Thanks! --Inetpup 09:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be nominated for deletion pretty quickly. I am not sure bad BART jokes really have a place in an encyclopedia. --Matt 15:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Sorry for the edit summary problems. Didn't know we had to use them. Still new to this game. --Luke 11:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's more like you should use them. It's good to be able to see what someone did to an article without having to diff it, and then it's good to see a couple edits from a user instead of a long list of edits. I think you're doing good edits - so I don't mean to discourage you! Cheers --Matt 16:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)