User talk:Johndburger/Archive 2008

Please don't bite the newbies

This edit summary seems a bit bitey to me. The anonymous editor whose question you removed was probably unaware of the convention of adding new comments to the bottom of talk pages. Calling it "defacing" to add a comment to the top instead is quite an overstatement. –Henning Makholm 02:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just that they added the comment to the top, they actually edited an earlier comment into their own—very odd. Still, you're right, I could have been gentler. What I should have done was just reinstate the old comment, and move the new one, which is what I've now done. —johndburger 02:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact they did just add the comment to the top. But the part of the MediaWiki software that produces the diff view sometimes fails strangely then it tries to match old text to new. For the anon's edit, for some reason it choses to compare the old first paragraph against the new comment — and then shows the actually unchanged old first paragraph as an added one. But when it shows your revert it figures out fine what is actually happening. –Henning Makholm 11:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oy! I see now—boy, I misread the situation entirely. Thanks for catching this, so I could (partially) right my wrong. Amazing to think I'm still learning these little idiosyncrasies after several years of editing. Thanks again! —johndburger 16:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading skills acquisition

Good catch. Thanks for touching base with me. I have that page on my watchlist and would have caught it. I will continue to monitor that page and some others. I am glad you investigated this further.

I also love the Buffalo buffalo sentence. Kearnsdm (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unknown subject

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Unknown subject, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mathmo

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mathmo, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathmo. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mrh30 (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mathmo AfD

Would appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Mathmo as it's been subject to a non-Admin closure. The non-admin in question seems to have totally ignored the fact that it's a DictDef. Mrh30 (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Stingray Sam

The Wikipedia article for the upcoming Cory McAbee's film Stingray Sam is nominated for deletion. Please contribute to the discussion.--DrWho42 (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent improvements to List of Boston Latin School alumni

Hi, in the past week, I have made several improvements to the List of Boston Latin School alumni article. I think it worthy enough to be a featured list on Wikipedia. Because you have been so helpful in the growing of the BLS article I was hoping you could contribute or provide assistance to making this article as good as possible. In the near future I also plan to secure good article status for Boston Latin School, but this will take an enormous improvement.

--Pgp688 (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC) (I always forget to sign)