Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tom harrison (talk | contribs) at 13:05, 21 October 2005 (reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello Tom, welcome to Misplaced Pages. Here's some tips:

• You can introduce yourself on the new users page
• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
• If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Misplaced Pages policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 21:16, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that you could be a valuable addition to WikiProject Mathematics. A lot of our math material is written by people with PhDs in math, so it tends to be very high-level. Even topics that are approachable by most people are not always explained in ways that would help a non-mathematician.

If you teach introductory mathematics, you probably have a lot of experience making lower-level material understandable. Articles on subjects like factoring by grouping would be entirely appropriate, and greatly appreciated. Of course, it's always good to check what's there already. There's almost certainly discussion of factoring on Misplaced Pages somewhere, so you'd want to find it and make sure that your new article finds its place in the existing web of knowledge.

Anyway, hope you stick around and keep contributing. If you need anything, don't hesitate to drop me a message on my talk page.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 02:38, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Invite

Hi

I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW , a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:41, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

See Conspiracy Theory discussion on other page

Hi, some of my recent edits are based on a big discussion on this page:

Please join in.--Cberlet 19:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Dirigisme

I'm a bit unhappy about your copyediting. For instance, as far as I know, manuals of style usually specify that one does not use a capital after a colon or semicolon. I reverted your changes, feel free to let me know your opinion. David.Monniaux 18:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Society of Jesus

Thanks for your quick fix after my error of omission. --Dpr 00:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

George Washington edit summary

Howdy. Changing "Washington first gained prominence as an officer during" to "Washington first achieved prominence as an officer in" isn't exactly vandalism, as your edit summary indicates. If you disagree with a grammatical change like that one, please say so in the edit summary rather than referring to it as vandalism. Thanks, android79 14:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. See User talk:Android79 and User talk:209.7.119.170. Tom harrison 16:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Superscan

You can let it run, or enter a comment saying that you withdraw the nomination. The choice is yours. Don't let my single keep vote bully you into withdrawing it if you still have reservations about it. If you do withdraw it, I know the markup to mark it as closed. --GraemeL 20:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I had some concerns at first, but I think they can be addressed by expanding the article. See Talk:Superscan. I'm inclined to let the vote run its course. Thanks, Tom harrison 20:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Melchizedek

Mr. Harrison, why do you want to start with the article about DOM that is less balanced and less complete as a starting point? KAJ 12:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Having examined both, it looks to me like the version I suggested is in fact better-balanced and more complete, and is preferred by a consensus of editors. Tom harrison 13:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)