User talk:Three-quarter-ten/Archive 1

Thanks for your help
Thanks for your edit to Larrys Creek on October 19. I appreciate your help keeping the article presentable while it was Today's Featured Article very much, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delaware and Hudson Canal
Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Civility and No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing. Daniel Case 22:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That wasn't personal toward anyone. But I'm sorry. It's true that that was snarkier than 99.9% of my edit summaries. I'm generally noncontroversial on WP. Happy editing. — ¾-10 03:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review of Ralph Flanders
Dear Three-quarter-ten, I invite you and anyone that you feel would be a constructive reviewer in a peer review of Ralph Flanders at WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ralph Flanders. Please see WikiProject Biography/Peer review for instructions. Sincerely, HopsonRoad 14:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Interregnum
Hi Ooperhoofd. Looks like you changed your mind about posting a comment here. (I was composing a reply, but looks like you removed the thread [intentionally, I think?].) I don't think that I understood it entirely. I gather that there is a controversy among people who are knowledgeable about Japanese history as to what periods can properly be called interregna. I gather that you want to shape WP's interregnum article in such a way as to reflect that debate. If you want to say essentially "OED says X, some people think Y," etc., you could do that. I think that's about the only 2¢ that I can add in response. The only reason why I edited the article is that the article had 3 different lede drafts that had not been integrated, and that it did not include the Latin etymology, so I fixed those aspects; but beyond that, I may not have much to add to the article. Anyway, hope that helps. Happy editing. — ¾-10 21:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Speech Recognition
I would agree that the task of most ASR is to take an input of human vocal utterances and to deduce from them, by means of phonemes, syllables or word shapes, a series or "words" conforming to an expected syntax or natural lanuage. But the visible (or audible) output is going to be a system design decision, e.g. the output might be - where to route a bag in an airport baggage handling depot, might be a grade on a pupil progress chart, or might be a string of words spoken in a different language i.e. not necessarily "written text" at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. I revised my edit accordingly, and I'm about to transfer this discussion to the article's talk page. Thanks! — ¾-10 00:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to James Hartness
Dear Three-quarter-ten,

Thank you for your diligence and interest in editing James Hartness. I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, so imagine my delight in seeing your hard work. I've tagged many pages in Roe that I plan to use to further augment the article. I don't have a specific timeline, however. In the meantime, keep up the good work!

Cheers, --User:HopsonRoad 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! I read Roe 1937 recently and found it very interesting. I'm sure any additions you make will be excellent as always. See you around! — ¾-10 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Holbein
I won't change it, but I didn't feel a hatnote was necessary to this - the only other Holbeins, both very obscure, are his father and brother, who are both linked within the first lines of the article. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

List of decimal-fraction equivalents: 0 to 1 by 64ths
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of decimal-fraction equivalents: 0 to 1 by 64ths, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of List of decimal-fraction equivalents: 0 to 1 by 64ths. GameKeeper (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Medical abbreviations
Hi could you create a navigation box or categorize them to connect them all. Thanks  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure thing—I have the navbox sandboxed already—will go live soon. Thx. — ¾-10 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Belated update: Finished on 17 April. Looks good, IMO. — ¾-10 20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Provider Duality...
It means that in providing a link, a site like Google Books isn't favoured over another. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Printing run
Good work! But also, do we need: Edition (books)? Can you get rid of that un-necessary redirect? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * D'oh! My bad. Somehow I managed not to notice the "(books)" vs "(book)" detail. Let me go back and straighten that out. Thanks! — ¾-10 16:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha! Now I see. Page move occurred. No prob, I updated all links to "Edition (book)" not "Edition (books)" (sg vs pl). Thanks! — ¾-10 17:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Very kind! — ¾-10 17:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Milling Machine
Ta. That's much better. Greg Locock (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

help
I need help with the Brown & Sharpe page. It is a mess. I saw that you had contributed to it so please help.Toonami Reactor (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm moving this thread to Talk:Brown & Sharpe, because the substance of the discussion is best left there for future editors to review. Thanks. — ¾-10 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Swiss Precision Instruments, Inc.
A tag has been placed on Swiss Precision Instruments, Inc. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Aspect in English
Thanks for your input and support! &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 00:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Category barnstar

 * Thanks! And thank you for building Wikipedia's coverage of machining. It's nice to think that when someone googles something, they're going to get a decent result that actually helps answer their questions. — ¾-10 01:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Holy Sepulchre Cemetery
[Moved to its talk page]

TfD nomination of Template:Holy Sepulchre Cemetery
Template:Holy Sepulchre Cemetery has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Orlady (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for fixing my error in the Differential article. As I said in my edit summary, I just got that information from another article and moved it to a place where it seemed more appropriate. To be honest, I don't know enough about the subject to have known that what I said was incorrect, so I really appreciate you noticing and editing the error. That's what it's all about, right? :) -- edi (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, I completely understood what you meant about moving info to the right place. If my edit summary seemed sarcastic, I should apologize—it was not meant to be sarcastic—that quantum mechanics quote was just the first way of phrasing my explanation that popped into my head. Thanks, and happy editing! — ¾-10 22:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletionism
I'd suggest you read or perhaps ponder about what a disambiguation page actually is. FPO in the graphic design world was not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia, so, there was no content that a searcher of FPO (in the graphic world) would find fulfilling. That you evidently feel that your article is in danger of my editing shows that you're missing the point completely. 70.238.153.98 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I overreacted. I actually do see your side of things, and I do agree with WP's DAB and MOSDAB policies. DAB cleanup itself is good; and if I see a need for certain follow-up to DAB cleanup, I should just do it and not be a dick about it. I wrote an unfair edit summary because I was jumping the gun by imagining a battle where none yet existed. I've had some experiences in the past where good info that was in the wrong place was deleted from WP entirely when it should have instead been moved to a more appropriate place, but when I tried to recover it and move it, I ran into trouble with it being deleted. But I am realizing now that I've overreacted to that, and that it was dumb of me to overgeneralize and prematurely see a new instance of that type where there actually wasn't one. It was dumb to throw a tantrum of snarkiness, like I was already slinging mud in a battle that no one else had even started yet. A lack of time and an overload of things to do IRL has pushed me into a state like a toddler who has missed his nap, not treating others fairly. So in summary I do apologize, and I do realize that I could have made whatever follow-up edits that I thought were needed without being a dick about it. Happy(ier) editing to you, — ¾-10 17:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the help with the Pratt & Whitney Measurement Systems article. I generally edit aviation-related articles, but I do also edit on other topics of interest to me. Occasionally, I'll work on a subject I know practically nothing about, such as this one. I've done a fair amoint of article splits and mergers, so if the basic info is already present in the parent article, I can usually get things off to a good start. It's good to have an assist from someone who seems to know about the business, or at least has a good interest in it. If I may ask, how did you discover the new article? (Or have we been corresponding via another name? It's OK with me.) Btw, has it been listed in a relevant list of new articles? I added it in on WP:AIR's new articles page simply because it was a split off of P&W, and I know some other editors there had been following the split discussions in the past. Thanks again, and you may use the "email-me" feature if you'd like. (I change addresses occasionaly to shake off the spammers.) - BillCJ (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! My interest in the splitting off of an "old-school P&W" article from the "jet engine P&W" article began as only a thought in my own mind, so when another user suggested it a few months after that (2008-04), I piped up with a vote in favor. I saw your recent splitting activity because the "jet engine P&W" article (and therefore its talk page too) is on my watchlist. I was glad that you got the ball rolling, because it fit into a pattern where there's something on my long-range to-do list but I feel like I'll never have time to get around to it, then someone else gets the ball rolling, and that's good because suddenly I end up contributing anyway despite my long-standing dream-deferral. So thanks for your good work! Cheers, — ¾-10 00:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollback?
Hello. Recently I noticed your anti-vandal work on the Penicillin article. The easiest way to clean up vandalism and spam is via the rollback tool. If you are willing to abide by the rollbacker rules (see WP:ROLLBACK), I would be more than happy to grant you access to this function. If, after reading WP:ROLLBACK, you promise to follow the rollback rules to the best of your ability, just drop a quick message on my talk page saying as much and I will update your rights. Thanks again for your help in keeping Wikipedia clear of vandalism! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Kralizec! (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.

Ayoob books and videos
I'm not sure if you caught it, but Some of Ayoob's videos are sometimes titled differently than the corresponding books. IIRC, this is the case with the Stressfire books/videos. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No prob—I added what value I could, but additional value-adding is welcome. Cheers, — ¾-10 23:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lathe
Thanks for cleaning up my poor attempt to merge back gear into the article! Wizard191 (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No prob. Glad you're continually improving things. Hopefully I'll supply some photos of cone pulleys and step pulleys at Pulley when I get the chance. And some back gear photos here. — ¾-10 02:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some photos would definitely be nice. Keep up the good work. Wizard191 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

H
Thanks for catching the misspelling of Pittsburgh. I wish I hadn't cloned the mistake and embedded it in about 15 other canal articles using the same map. (Measure twice, cut once). I'll fix them all tomorrow. :-)
 * No prob. Pardon the whimsical edit summary. — ¾-10 01:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for standing up for me about that whole stalking thing...LOL. It's the first time someone has accused me of that. The more I edit, the more wacky things I run into. If you ever need something I owe you one. Wizard191 (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you, Three-quarter-ten, for your continued interest in and active editing of the history of machine tools, in general, and James Hartness and Ralph Flanders, in particular!

Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 15:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * … and thank you … — ¾-10 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Link
Hi 3/4s. I'm trying to work out where your username comes from (a sports reference?) and what kind of engineer you are (mechanical?).

You may wish to have a quick look at my nerdy tutorial page on wikilinks. Any feedback you may have is welcome on the talk page.



User:Tony1/Build_your_linking_skills Tony   (talk)  11:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The link to your subpage (User:Tony1/Build your linking skills) was valuable; I found its content highly relevant to our recent discussion. (Hey, my preceding statement is either meta-ish or tautological—I haven't decided which.) When I read the page I felt a feeling of recognition that I imagine is a tiny analog to the spark of recognition that scientists and engineers have often felt over the years when they see that something they just recently independently discovered/reinvented has been discovered/invented before by others ( "The act of linking, which is to say, the choice of what to link or not to link, is ideally a form of metainformation that should be conveyed with pedagogic skill […]" versus "High-quality linking is a skill like writing […] we have begun to realise the potential for refining wikilinking—how sophisticated decision-making is required to achieve a high standard of linking: what to link, what not to link, how and when to research more focused links […]" ). Regarding your 2 questions: for the latter, I'd suppose that one could say me, except that I'm less egotistic than that, because I have detected with certainty that I am just one blind man palpating tiny fractions of an elephant; so I think that the correct answer is me . Regarding your former question, I generally like to leave that to people's eventual inference based on my foci of content-area contribution, but you're a busy man frying bigger fish elsewhere (to the benefit of the rest of us), so I'll link to a good hint. Cheers, — ¾-10 18:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Uncle Albert
No need to apologize for an honest mistake here. I've boobed enough times, & had to put up with trolls who seemed to set out to make trouble, not to worry about it.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC) (If you're wondering, it's a ref to this; I went through three different ones trying to think of something that wouldn't sound insulting. ;p)


 * Maybe you're the walrus. Goo goo ga joob! — ¾-10 01:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)