Hello, Toyokuni3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
I answered your question on the Harpsichord talk page. As a rule the talk pages are used for commenting on the article rather than general chat: so were you suggesting that Beecham's assessment should be added to the article? By all means add the quote, provided you can find a reference, and provided you can find a place in the article where it would be appropriate! Don't worry about making mistakes: if people disagree with your edits (and that is bound to happen sometimes) they should do so civilly. --RobertG ♬ talk15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for bringing Mexican pewter to my attention! It has been deleted as "blatant advertising".
If you are interested, there are a few procedures for nominating articles for deletion. The first step is often a discussion - which is your current approach, and is to be commended! A nomination at articles for deletion gives everyone a chance to discuss the matter. There is a more lightweight procedure for more clear-cut cases which is documented at proposed deletion. For articles that may be blatantly inappropriate for an encyclopedia there is a much speedier process documented at criteria for speedy deletion. Best wishes. --RobertG ♬ talk11:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: CSKA Moscow. I don't know the answers to those questions and I agree that they are important to the article, and the article needs fleshing out. Gives me something to research next time I'm bored.
Re: Quebec surnames. They all desended from a pretty samll group of settlers. I'm suprised the list isn't even shorter.
Re: Flags. I didn't pick the Maryland flag for that userbox but I'm always interest in vexological information.
Cheers. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 08:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I assume you mean the list of eponymous medical signs? Are you thinking of suggesting moving it to something like "List of eponymous medical terms"? You may well be right, but I am afraid here is a subject I know very little about! I can advise you what to do, though… The best first step is probably to ask for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. You can find out about the Wikipedia procedure for moving pages at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Good luck! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk09:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Go ahead and change the abbreviations, it sounds like you know more about it than I do. — jwillbur01:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I had been reviewing free Flickr images to no avail & the military image site only had the older images. I haven't been the stadium since the 90's, so from my recollection the image seemed fine. I watched the new Hopkins (TV series) show last night. Finally, a medical program the lacrosse team can be proud of . . . Thanks for digging in regarding the image, --Mitico (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Homewood image, it looks about right to me. I was only there once for a JHU/UVA game in '04/05(?), but the image seems to match this Johns Hopkins Athletic Facilites. I think the blacktop is where they put the tv booms & all. Regardless, I had not previously noticed this image below (thumbnailed). File:JHU 001.jpg. This image may work, but when thumnailed may be too tiny to see. You are welcome to change it. The flickr photo has the logo framed nicely, which is why I used it. For what it is worth, I think that is a field hockey net in the photo. --Mitico (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I notice that you nominated Jämtlandssången for deletion, but something messed up the template, and it did not work. No problem, happens to everyone. Rather than re-format your deletion request as a Proposed deletion, I simply merged and redirected the article. So, Jämtlandssången is now a redirect to Republic of Jamtland, which now mentions the name and existance of the song. Crisis averted. Just wanted to leave you a note, in case you wondered what happened. Best, UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence17:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I'm not sure whether you watchlist my page for replies or whether I should leave you a note when I reply, but here it is just in case. Peace, delldottalk02:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi, i know your new but i don't know how to write a message or get ahold of anyone because i have a important question. i was looking up online, chest of drawers trying to look for the dresser i wanted on craigslist. and i clicked on chest of drawers wikipedia. and the dresser i been looking for is posted to the right. i have no idea what kind it is or what company made it. and i can't find out who posted it. i need some help finding this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristinap.22 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing edits for a beginner is somewhat intimidating. Your explanation made it seem easy so I did edits on the Nam MOH page and it seems to have worked!! amazing! Again, thanks for the help getting started here.
Technically not. The NCO rank for pay grade E-4 in the Army is Corporal and for paygrade E-5 is Sergeant. Specialists are not considered NCO's in todays Army and weren't in the day of Specialist Four and Specialist Five. Back in the day (1967) when I was a young Specialist Five in Nam, I was not welcome in any Army NCO Club but a Corporal could go in anytime. I solved that problem by going to the Air Force NCO Club at Bien Hoa AFB where I was stationed and they didn't care one way or another. Later, all the Specialist Five's in our detachment were converted to Sergeant (E-5) and no questions were asked at the door of the Army NCO Club. To them, I was a NCO. Nowadays the Clubs on most military bases are consolidated with all ranks welcome. NCO'S in the 60's were expected to have the knowledge to lead Privates and Specialists in all kinds of situations and have a good working knowledge of dismounted drill. Specialists (Four and Five or even the occasional Six!) did not have the knowledge or skills to do that, but did supervise other Specialists or Privates that were in there unit with the same or similar job descriptions (MOS). This kind of brings back some old memories.
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Alan Jeavons, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Alan Jeavons is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Alan Jeavons, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to need to stop reverting my edits without an explanation. Those references are simply not significant, and they do not belong. Now why don't you try and talk to me about your thoughts? Mintrick (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone, I think, changed the DoB and birth place and added the Capitals stuff. the rest looks OK at first glance. Be good to ahve a better source than IMDB, which is crowdsourcedl. RichFarmbrough, 16:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
"the book, which was apparently self or vanity press published, may not even be copyrighted."
Doesn't matter. Unless otherwise specified, everything is copyrighted the minute it's written.
And how do we 100% know that this was in fact Frei's granddaughter who submitted the material? Okay, sure, in this particular context I'll believe that it was Frei's granddaughter, but what about in other cases? "Yeah, I'm the guy who owns that website / wrote that book / took that photo! Trust me!", we're told, and that can lead to problems. If there's some way of confirming that it's her, and that she understands about releasing the rights to the text, that'd be different. DS (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not knowing of Wikipedia etiquette, I have carelessly posted this (You left me a message on honest NCAA Championship counting) -- I _think_ it kind of puts the 1990's 2000's Syracuse flash in perspective. please feel free to delete when done
The 2000 decade of lacrosse has passed and we can look back at some awesome lacrosse. The ‘almost’ of the Duke ‘dreadnought’ brought down in the 2008 NCAA semifinals by the same approach Hopkins used (unsuccessfully)in the 1973 Final game to counter Maryland's Frank Urso, the 2009 season dominated by Virginia until the playoffs, the flurry of OT games – The fantastic players, already graduated and new!
And how did the decade look? Well, Syracuse did well, winning 5 national titles, including the last two. Could this be a dynasty? To answer that question I looked at the national championship records.
First off, we need to remember that there has been more than one national championship. The NCAA Men’s Division I championship, based on a tournament, began in 1971. Before that, during the years of 1936 – 1972 the national championship was the Wingate Trophy. The Wingate trophy was preceded by the US ILA title (1881 – 1935). Because they were not based on a tournament, ties were possible in both the Wingate Trophy and the USILA championship. Combining the three, there have been 143 champions, covering the period 1881- 2009, except for the years 1948 and 1990, with no champion either of those years.
The historical data show that powerful teams do not fit neatly into decades. I found some that seemed obvious and they are listed below, along with the years and their number of titles during that period:
TEAM PERIOD TITLES/ SEASONS
Harvard 1881 – 1887 6 in 6
Hopkins 1898 – 1915 12 in 20
Navy 1918 – 1925 6 in 10
Hopkins 1926 – 1934 6 in 9
Maryland 1936 – 1940 4 in 6
Navy 1960 – 1967 8 in 10
Hopkins 1978 – 1987 6 in 9
Syracuse 1988 – 1995 5 in 7
Princeton 1996 – 2001 4 in 6
Syracuse 2002 – 2009 4 in 8
Except for the Syracuse 2002 - 2009 (50%), these 'dynasties' had a championship percentage of 67% or higher.
The historical data also show some interesting facts. Swarthmore (!) won 4 titles (1901, 1904, 1905, and 1910). St John’s of Md(!) had a streak of 3 national championships (1929 – 1931) -- Currently, their only intercollegiate sport is croquet. Navy won 8 titles in a row in 1960 – 1967. Syracuse’s first title was in 1922 (tie with Navy), followed by 1983, 1988, 1989, and 1990.
For what it is worth, I compiled a listing of the Team of the Decade from the 1880’s through the 2000’s; It sort of makes you realize that there is a lot of history and tradition that we don’t think of each day. The Teams of the Decade are listed below. Because there are occasionally two teams with an equal number of titles in a given decade, it is worthwhile to look for listings in consecutive decades.
Notice that the Princeton and Syracuse decades were 5 wins -- A number only achieved three times before, and the most recent one was affected by 14 winners in 10 years. These two teams may be ones we look back upon with awe.
A thought that comes to mind when looking at these statistics is who has won the most titles. When that is considered, some of the teams with more titles are not a surprise based on today’s winning teams, while some are quite a surprise. The all-time leader is Hopkins with 34 titles, followed by Navy (21), Princeton (15), and Syracuse (13). These are followed by Maryland (8) and Army (8). If these totals are adjusted by counting ‘shared’ titles as a fraction the numbers of titles change but the order remains the same: Hopkins (34-2/3), Navy (17-2/3), Princeton (13-1/3), and Syracuse (12-1/2). When only the 38 NCAA Men’s Division 1 titles are considered, the leaders are: Syracuse with 10 and Hopkins with 9. (Also Princeton with 6; Virginia and North Carolina with 4 each; Cornell with 3 each; Maryland with 2)
As lacrosse increases in popularity and the number of high school and college players and teams grow, collegiate lacrosse will only become more competitive and things like Harvard’s streak of 6 titles in 1881 – 1887 and Navy’s 8 in a row in the 1960’s will become much less likely. So-called ‘modern” teams have only achieved three in a row -- Hopkins (1978 – 1980), Syracuse (1988 – 1990), and Princeton (1996 – 1998) (with the possibility for three in a row from Syracuse in 2010). These are likely to be the longest streaks we will see for some time, but who knows?
So, for the 2010 season, we may have a ‘dynasty’ team in Syracuse. If they win in 2010, they will have achieved three in a row, which seems to be the limit for the modern Men’s Division One game. Of course, as the records tell us, dynasties fade away. With the 2010 season approaching fast, we may see powerful Cornell and North Carolina teams emerge; Cornell has five titles beginning in 1907, while North Carolina is more of a newcomer, with 4 beginning in 1981. One thing we can be sure of is that it probably will not work out like the pre-season prognosticators predict (including me), and it will be great to watch! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.124.135 (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
Thank you for your question on the JHU ranking section. I elaborated how SAIS was ranked, on the page, in three years 2005, 2007, and 2009. The survey has been done once every two years, beginning in 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worawutc (talk • contribs) 18:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Toyokuni. I really don't want to get in a pissing contest about this, and I agree with some of the stuff you removed. However, a new user asking a question on a subject directly related to the article in question is absolutely appropriate use of the talk page, in my opinion. Not only are you probably driving away a new user that could probably contribute to this and other articles, you're doing it for pedantic reasons. The question Alan Jones asked is a good one, in my opinion. It points out a hole in the article (namely, why can't they just cut off the BOP and cap it with a flange or something). A good answer could be incorporated into the article (under "attempts to stop the leak").
Anyway, I'm going to put the question back in. If you really want to, go ahead and revert again but I'll be filing it as a three revert and washing my hands of the matter (an admin will come along and decide if your criteria for talk page inclusion are appropriate). I don't really want to do that, but I also completely disagree with this removal, particularly since it involves biting a newbie. TastyCakes (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very valid concern, the talk page is getting quite unmanagable. I think the auto-archiving bot needs to be tweaked to archive more frequently, I'm not sure maybe we can manually archive some of it too (I don't know if that screws up the auto-archiver). And in some cases, I agree with you outright deletion is probably a good idea (most especially when people cut and past news stories on the page, likely copyright violation as well as space wasting). TastyCakes (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
I am in receipt of your query, sorry cannot access gif. I also remember rotary telephones. What is your interest in heart mechanics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeben (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I direct you to the proceeding entry that grants your reviewer right and advises temperament.
Is it your intention to remove every text of every poem, every lyric of every song, every paragraph of every prose, and every quote from every individual in wiki?
If it is, then you need to declare so to the world and create a category of pages redacted by Toyokuni3.
Perhaps you would also like to remove every photograph, every drawing, and every painting from wiki in favor of textual description of what might have been there. If you want pages to redact then start with the Spears, Kardashian, Hilton pages please.
That being said, good health to you and go in Peace. Geeperzcreeperz (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Virginia Dare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to MidSTAR-1 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
an artificial [[satellite]] produced by the [[United States Naval Academy]] Small Satellite Program]. It was sponsored by the [[United States Department of Defense]] (DoD) [[Space Test Program]] (STP)
David Gerard (talk·contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Francis Wharton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conspiracy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Grand jury may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
grand jury is so named because traditionally it has a greater number of jurors than a trial jury (also known as a ''petit (French for small) jury'' or, in English usage the spelling can be ''petty
Hi. Regarding this edit, the street name is in fact Mississaga and not Mississauga. Please take care to check proper names before assuming they're spelling errors. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Toyokuni3. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
Please review the following two sentences (per your most recent reversion and edit) and tell me if you're missing something:
Her parents, Joseph Wilfred Crough (1919-1987) and Anne (née O'Malley) Crough (1922-2006). Elder siblings, Mrs. Kathleen Galaise (1948-2009) and Patrick Thomas Crough (1956-1993), all predeceased her.
Since you are apparently now offline, and so have not returned to repair your edit, I have done so. What you were missing is a verb in the first sentence. The phrase "all predeceased her" refers to all four of her relatives, including the two parents and the two siblings, so all four should appear in the same sentence. I have returned the sentence to its state prior to your edits:
Her parents, Joseph Wilfred Crough (1919-1987) and Anne (née O'Malley) Crough (1922-2006), and her elder siblings, Mrs. Kathleen Galaise (1948-2009) and Patrick Thomas Crough (1956-1993), all predeceased her.
Simplified, purely for illustration of the grammar, the sentence in its present form means: Her parents and her elder siblings all predeceased her. This is not a run-on sentence (please review that article for information on what does constitute a run-on sentence).
Hello, Toyokuni3. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Nonetheless, it is an Anglicism. Moreover, even in the UK, it is slang. This, as I have always understood it, is an encyclopedia, the purpose of which is to convey information concisely and understandably, not colourfully. I am an American, born here, but grew up and received my primary and secondary education in the Commonwealth country immediately to the north. I never heard the term as a kid and the Monty Python sketch on RAF banter is the only reason I have to be familiar with it at all. Since the way I phrased it is understandable to everyone, Pommies, Aussies, Canucks, Kiwis, Yanks and even front row forwards,I view it as preferable.
Further, I would contest your statistics. I strongly suspect that a considerable proportion of your 5,000 hits were attracted solely by her relationship to Feldmarschall Keitel, and didn't read that far.
Bottom line, though is that this is a minor point, and if you feel strongly about it, by all means change it back.
Cheers.Toyokuni3 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I will add it to my list of words to avoid. The problem with an obvious wording is always that it may be similar to the source. As for the hook, I was unsure if anyone much had head of him. Hawkeye7(discuss)02:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Toyokuni3. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
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.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to MidSTAR-1 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
The problem with an obvious wording is always that it may be similar to the source. As for the hook, I was unsure if anyone much had head of him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
