User talk:Mllyjn

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Mllyjn: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. A third option is to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator.

One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! –BuickCentury Driver 13:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia... please join us at the Teahouse!

Hello! Mllyjn, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Fluorescence Diagram

Hi Mllyjn. Sorry it has taken a while. I like your idea of a Jablonski diagram on the fluorescence page, I think it would be more clear than the diagram I put up. I'm not sure if both diagrams should be included, or just a Jablonski. Perhaps more simplicity would be better (I recently saw a fluorescence mechanism diagram with only 3 levels for a bulk material). Phosphorescence, intersystem crossing, and internal conversion could be excluded. I personally like the diagram style on the fourth external link on the Jablonski diagram page. I can create a diagram if needed. Let me know what you think. Jacobkhed (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mllyjn. Is this figure more of what you have in mind? If so I can add it to the fluorescence page, or I can improve it. I made these figures using Microsoft Excel to make outlines (mostly so lines were straight). Then I added arrows and additional captions in PowerPoint. Jacobkhed (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robot

Hi

First, can I ask if you would be interested in joining the Wikipedia Robotics project?

More importantly I would like to collaborate with you on the Robot article. I have just undone your edit (which I hope you can forgive me for) as the discussion is still open on the talk page regarding the lead.

I am more concerned about the body of the article though (as at least discussion has started on the lead and we have that sub-page to work out a version we can find consensus on). Some sections are badly written, lacking refs and more like a skeleton of links found in "Outline of ..." articles. The real issue with the lead is that it was a summary of the body, but as so much has changed in the article over the last two years it is difficult to see how to rewrite it without first rewriting the sections in the body.

Of even more concern is the definition of a robot. Previously we used three or four definitions from various sources as they all varied.

AS WIki uses consensus, and no (wo)man is an island etc., I wondered if you wanted to collaborate?

(Posted to Fountains of Bryn Mawr also) Chaosdruid (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Robotics project

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Robotics! Our goals are to standardize the structure and content of all Robotics articles, improve Wikipedia's coverage of these articles (hopefully propelling them to featured article status), and serve as the central resource for all discussions and information related to Robotics on Wikipedia.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has a few expanding departments, which handle article quality assessment, member recruitment and project awareness and article improvement collaborations.

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask one of the project participants or post a question on the talk page. We'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

Apologies for not getting this to you earlier, unfortunately RL took over during the summer holidays. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]