User talk:Alexconlin

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ''' 69.145.123.171 Hello! ''' Tuesday, June 27, 2006, 21:04 ( UTC )
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Ha, I can't spell to save my life. If you see any more of them, feel free to point them out. :)  69.145.123.171 Hello!  Tuesday, June 27, 2006, 21:13 ( UTC )


 * Probably my LAN internet and Firefox browser. They combine for some speedy surfing. That, and I've gotten use to that annoying little orange box. I like new messages, though. Oh, and here's something good to rememeber: Wikipedia wants to save space for its servers, so it sort of saves a 'copy', if you will, of pages on your computer. If you see a 'new messages' bar on the top of a page and you don't actually have new messages, you have to purge. I know in Mozilla all you do is press Control+shift+R, but I need to know what kind of browser you use to tell you how to do it. :)  69.145.123.171 Hello!  Tuesday, June 27, 2006, 21:19 ( UTC )


 * Yes indeed. If you want to see a certain user's edits, click the little box over in the corner below the search box that says 'User Contributions'. It can show up to 500 edits normally, but you can go to the URL and change it to 5,000. That's the most it will possibly show. As for watchlists, I dunno, 'cos I'm not actually registered-I'm editing just using my IP adress. I would suggest asking George, because he helped me a lot and is very good with new users.  69.145.123.171  Hello!  Tuesday, June 27, 2006, 21:23 ( UTC )


 * Oh, and you may want to use edit summaries-those little white boxes right below the space where you're typing. They're only there when you're editing the page, and it tells everybody here what you're doing. That way, they don't think it's vandalism. That page shows every change that just happened, and it's really good for reverting and vandalism that may be there. For instance, I'm going to type 'reply' in the box so that they know I'm replying to a message. :)  69.145.123.171 Hello!  Tuesday, June 27, 2006, 21:30 ( UTC )


 * No problem! If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.  69.145.123.171 Hello!  Tuesday, June 27, 2006, 21:31 ( UTC )


 * Well, it seems I've arrived late, as George has already answered your question!  69.145.123.171 Hello!  Wednesday, June 28, 2006, 17:11 ( UTC )

Your article
Yes, that article is there. The way to find it is to click the "my contributions" link at the top of the page, and it will take you to a list of all of your edits. You should find it. Also, the deletion log for the page is here --GeorgeMoney (talk) (Help Me Improve!) 15:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

MRI lead critique
Could you please provide additional information as to how the lead ought to be improved in your opinion? I encourage you to look at the history diffs from prior to February and then after. The second paragraph was previously misleading and full of irrelevant information. I edited it to to be relevant and accurate. However I did not change the purpose of the paragraph, which is to give a concise explanation of how MRI works. I was under the impression that the table of contents lists the forthcoming sections of the article, but I may be mistaken in that regard. -137.53.91.235 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

My general opinion is that particularly the second paragraph of the lead section goes into too much detail about how MRI scanning works. It also includes material that is not present in the rest of the article. In the article Wikipedia:Writing better articles: Lead section, it says that the lead section should follow the body, so I think that the content of the second paragraph of the lead section should be moved into the body of the article and a summary given in the lead section. alexconlin (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I agree it could be better, I'll give it another shot. -2601:1C2:102:645A:488B:EE2B:E307:96BD (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC) (same user as above)

Hi, I've substantially revised the second lead paragraph, and I'm wondering if you think it's an improvement. Feel free to respond on the MRI article talk page, or here. Thanks. -137.53.91.235 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Bairstow
The edit summary you gave here was so inaccurate it could lead other, less tolerant admins to suspect that the change you were making (it's not part of his full name) was a joke edit. That kind of thing can lead other, less tolerant admins, to block accounts. I suggest you're more careful in future. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I think what happened there was that we both made the same changes to the statistics (one minute apart) and I didn't notice that you had already corrected them (I had not experienced an edit conflict before). I noticed that the stats were ridiculous and spent several minutes getting the correct ones from espncricinfo. I think it's a bit much to threaten to block me though - rather aggressive given my good history of constructive edits. I suggest you're more courteous in future. alexconlin (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)