User talk:Cannonmc

Freshmen (magazine)
I have added a "" template to the article Freshmen (magazine), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RJASE1 Talk  02:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You carry on and do what you like - I explained why I reinstated it in my 'edit summary'. If you don't like it, delete it. You don't need my permission although I think if an external site links to a Wiki page that does no harm it might be a good idea for the page to exist. You obviously know better, in fact you DO know better because I haven't the faintest idea what half your message means.

Although I see someone has removed your intervention Cannonmc 12:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

Phillips & 1988
Yes hillarious wasn't it! What I was surprised about was that nobody on the panel or in the audience picked up on it. I too rewound (about 5 times) to relisten to whether she said 98 or 88. No matter how hard I try I can not hear a nine. I guess it was just a slip up on her part, but it's still usefull to poke fun at the woman and to get her to self-discredit her own strange ideas. No-doubt some Mel Phillips fan will delete it soon citing BLP or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1812ahill (talk • contribs) 13:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link to her retraction of the slip of the tongue statement, so it can be added to the article as an explanation? (although I suppose the whole statement in the article should really be deleted, as it looks a bit like hounding and an attempt on my part to discredit her, even if I do despise her with every fibre of my being :P) 1812ahill (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the link was an email to me after I emailed her at the address on her web site. Leter in that programme (I can only watch QT in short bursts so I don't throw something through the TV) she dismissed the scientists involved in the email row at UEA as just "four or five" - turns out that they are four or five of the most influential in that particular debate. Cannonmc (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thunderbolt (interface)
Is the lead easier to understand now? TimL &bull; talk 03:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Help me!
I am trying to find out why, when I click on an image on a Wikipedia page, I am suddenly getting a Javascript-like slide show when until a few days ago I was getting an individual image on a new page which is what I like.

I can disable Javascript in my Firefox browser but this also disables stuff I do actually want in other programs.

It happens when I use earlier installations of Firefox when I can't even disable Javascript so I feel it is a change made with Wikipedia. I'd like to go back to single pictures on a new page

Thanks for any help someone can give me :)

Cannonmc (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a new, and not universally popular, feature, see WP:Media Viewer. You can turn it off: click "Preferences" at the top of the scree, and on the "Appearance" tab uncheck the box marked "Enable Media Viewer". JohnCD (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks JohnCD, I don't know how I would have found those without help Cannonmc (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Common
Thanks for your helpful additions to Common (film). I will be nominating this article to appear in the DYK section on the front page, and will include you as a co-contributor! Edwardx (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Common (film)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Finding old edits
That, I have found, can be quite difficult. See wp:Tools. There is wp:Wikiblame, but you need to know the article. If you don't know the article nor the IP, I suspect it would be quite difficult as the amount of data that needs to be searched through would be huge. You should be able to ask on the tool's talk page. I hope this helps. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This can't be right


He reigned from 1901 to 1910, and the Irish Free State dates from 1922. I'd revert you, but you are obviously editing in good faith. Please get this right. Thanks. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Google
Your comment here makes reference to the fact that you came to the Edward Elgar article looking for You then say:. Whilst of course I'm sorry that you've been forced to read something someone has spent a lot of hard work, time and money writing, for the benefit of us all, I cannot simply stand by with hands in pockets looking the other way and not ask you a very helpful question, in all seriousness: Have you tried Google?  Cassianto Talk  16:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "a very helpful question, in all seriousness" Not sure how that is either helpful or serious, but I try to avoid anything to do with Google, never using it as a search engine. I use Wikipedia as my first port of call for facts. The article in question was indeed interesting but not what I was looking for nor expecting when I clicked on the Wikipedia link. I'd still like an infobox but it seems it is considered vulgar to some people. PS My school teachers always told me to take my hands out of my pockets  Cannonmc (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Other search engines are available. I am pro-infobox myself, but the classical music editors here can be a bit snobbish about them. Not me (and having once owned five different CD box sets of Parsifal, I confess to being snobbish about the music itself). But, one can't fight every battle on Wikipedia. Over time, things generally get better. Edwardx (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , snobbery has little to do with it, and you'll never encounter anyone who uniformly hates them. The fact is, on some articles, such as classical, they simply don't work. They don't work, either, in the arts or art articles, and most random biography articles.  They work just about everywhere else. It's the uniform approach that "one box fits all" I just can't abide.   Cassianto Talk  17:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I find it odd that you'll use WP as a search engine. So what happens if you don't find the answer you're looking for?  Simply give up?   Cassianto Talk  17:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"I find it odd that you'll use WP as a search engine" - where did you get that idea. I find it odd that anyone intelligent uses Google But you carry on pontificating and jumping to conclusions Cannonmc (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fox (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freddie Fox. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)