User talk:Dmyersturnbull/Archive 1

Sparta
Hi, thanks for your typographically savvy corrections to Sparta, which are welcome. I'll tell you what would have been even more welcome: taking the badly formatted citations and putting them into proper Harvard format, or something similar (cf. WP:CITET). Thanks all the same. Lexo (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha. Thanks—it’s good to feel welcome. I spent about 15 minutes arbitrarily choosing articles, performing a global search-and-replace ( {space}-{space} to — ) on and checking the results for each, so I didn’t even notice that those were references. Having looked through the diff, I’m assuming you’re referring to the notes section? I’d be happy to help with that.dmyersturnbull (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Signing edits of others
I just saw your edit on the talk page of list of power metal bands and saw that you were trying to show which comment went with who's. There is an easier way to do this with the signed template or like this:. I was going to do it myself but I decided to let this to be your first practice. :) So just remove your previous comment and add the template after their comment with their ip (or username) inside as shown.^ FireCrystal (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to Atkins diet.
Perhaps I did overtag, but editing an article to fix an issue is better than reverting an edit filled with otherwise good changes. Please revert only as a last resort and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ talk 00:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to be more cautious about your edits, in this one you removed several sections, including 'See also' and 'References". Go a little slower with your editing, the overtagging far outweighed any other changes made in that first edit.
 * For convenience, please reply here on your talkpage, I've got your talkpage watchlisted. Dreadstar  ☥  01:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! . Dreadstar ☥  01:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching that. Reverting was unnecessary and harmful, whether or not the overtagging outweighed the other contributions. dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ talk 01:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you on this particular edit. Dreadstar  ☥  02:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Suez Canal
You were too fast in looking at SCA's table: The lenght of the canal over land was and is 162.25 km. When first built, the depth was 8 m (as in SCA's text, as opposed to their table). The width cannot possibly be 44 m at 11 m depth, if the total depth is only 8 m. The increase of the length in SCA's table from 190.25 km to 193.30 km is a result of the increase of depth: the access channels had to be extended. You changed the first sentence which now contradicts the second. And if you change measurements, should you not also change the data in capacity? --AHert (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I just copied the information in the table. I didn't change any measurements; I only added some. Oddly enough, the table says 10m depth in 1869, while the body text says 8m. That is strange. But actually, the width at 11m depth can be 44m even though the "depth" is only 10m (or 8m) because it depends on how one measures "depth". Presumably, 10m (or 8m) is not the maximum depth. I don't know what it is, though; there is not enough information, unless perhaps with assumptions people used to looking at these numbers make. And I don't know whether 8m or 10m is correct. Unfortunately, the other citation being used is now dead, so I can't verify the information.  dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ talk 19:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It simply is a mistake on SCA's new website (not existing on their former one). The canal was intended to be 8 m deep, but after its opening in 1869, there were lots of complaints that there were areas not yet fully excavated. Works continued, in fact, until 1871. --AHert (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)