Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I manually undid your edit on Storm Éowyn. "Impact" is correctly used. In this case, "impacts" refers to the severe, disruptive consequences of Storm Éowyn, such as fallen trees, power outages, and transport disruptions across the UK, Isle of Man, Ireland, and eastern Norway, emphasising the immediate and significant effects on daily life; whereas "effects" is a more general term that encompasses all outcomes, both minor and major, without highlighting the intensity or disruption caused by the storm. Please do not use "effect". ^Tattooed_Leprechaun｜^🗣️💬 17:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TattooedLeprechaun: What provoked my edit was the word impact was grievously overused, even two or three times in the same sentence. Using the verbs impact (though that is an Americanism) , strike, affect and the nouns effect and impact makes the text easier to read as well as livelier. Perhaps with that in mind you might review and find a middle way? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to change it. "Impact" was used to clarify the intenseness of the situation. ^Tattooed_Leprechaun｜^🗣️💬 20:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TattooedLeprechaun: If a word is overused, it loses its impact. (No pun intended). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then change it to another word like "impact", but not "effect" as "effect" is too light of a word in this situation.

If you want, you can change them to these below or something similar:

• Repercussions – Emphasises lasting negative outcomes.
• Consequences – Highlights cause-and-effect relationships.
• Destruction – Suitable for severe damage.
• Devastation – Conveys large-scale harm.
• Toll – Often used for human, financial, or structural losses.
• Damage – Direct and widely understood.
• Aftermath – Good for discussing longer-term effects.
• Ramifications – Highlights broader, sometimes unexpected outcomes.

These still convey the seriousness and damage Storm Éowyn did, but they don't use "impact".

^Tattooed_Leprechaun｜^🗣️💬 13:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but now the sentence is plainly wrong. "End of Line" in classic Mac Os and other old OSes is signalled by a CR not foolowed by LF. Treutwein (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Treutwein: yes, fair comment. I have tweaked the text to remove the error. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk page has an old section "Minor edits" so I've renamed the section you started User talk:Pol098#Minor edits 2025. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And many thanks indeed for your offer to set up archiving my Talk page, now implemented. I should have done this long ago ... Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JMF,

I have been working on a Draft: Paul J. Maillet. I recognize edits are needed and that improving the draft will take time. But I have reached my limit in working on the draft on my own. Can you possibly provide feedback as to whether the draft, with eventual necessary edits, has any value to continue to be prepared for possible publication as an article? Also, what further steps would be needed to improve (whether possible) the draft? Your recommendations and guidance would truly be appreciated. (This will also help in the preparation of 2 other drafts that I hope to begin soon, that are historical in nature.)

Thank you for your time and consideration. M0RPHEMEZ00 M0RPHEMEZ00 (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M0RPHEMEZ00: At a simple functional level, it looks ok apart from MOS:CAPS on section titles.

More significantly, there are two tests that you need to 'pass': WP:Biography of living persons and WP:notability. I have never done a biography so I am not really one to advise. Can you study the article about the Fritzl case to do a "compare and contrast". It is critically important that anything you write is cited twice over, because of the risk of being sued for libel. As for notability, it would be a good idea to ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Brunswick or even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada. Perhaps someone there might help you with the draft because it is way outside my comfort zone. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly should have added "tax" after duty. Thank you for your edit. Eteethan (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. In fact I already did exactly what you did (pipe trick) as per normal. Difference is only that I spotted the side-effect earlier. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sir, I’d like to suggest a small addition to the “Public health tool” section of the Waist-to-height ratio article. There’s an online calculator at https://humanbodycalculator.com/waist-to-height-ratio/ that allows users to quickly calculate their WHtR and see how it relates to their health. It could be helpful for readers to have access to such a tool directly from the article. Please let me know if this addition would be appropriate. Thanks! Armanalimolla (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Armanalimolla: No, it would not. See WP:ELNO. The calculation is trivial and is already more than adequately covered in the article.

See also WP:conflict of interest. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kings Sutton is in Northamptonshire (East Midlands); whilst Chorleywood, Rickmansworth (and Moor Park) are all in Hertfordshire (East of England). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Āyah article does not state that as it's somewhat a very trivial thing. But yes, in the old days (Prophet Muhammad era and later), it was not uncommon to express time durations in terms of number of ayas.

This is evident from various quotations by people from this era (maybe in hadiths also 🤔).

Unfortunately, it is uneasy for me at the current time to cite the various authentic quotations (and/or hadiths also) which use this unit in storytelling.

Perhaps add a 'citation needed' tag so someone else might provide evidence. 196.137.110.166 (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is trivial, then it probably is not worth mentioning anywhere. But as a general principle you really should not add non-obvious content unless and until you have the supporting evidence. See policy WP:ONUS. That said, I recognise that your contribution was made in good faith and what you say is to some extent credible though it not ever so obvious how it could be used or useful outside the mosque.

Either way, welcome to Wikipedia. Why not create an account for yourself? It is not required but it does make life easier. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks 196.137.138.216 (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In everyday life they would say something like "I waited for him the duration of 20 ayas" or "he wakes up before Fajr by 60 ayas". It was part of their culture (as evident from their quotes). 196.137.138.216 (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So of course when you find the wp:reliable source that confirms what you say, then it should be ok. Though I can't guarantee that it will (be ok) because it is not a measure directly related to human anatomy. So before you spend a lot of time researching, I advise that you ask at Talk:List of human-based units of measurement if it would qualify (or not) for inclusion.

I suspect it won't, so could I suggest that you aim for Time#Time in Abrahamic religions instead? (You will still need supporting evidence of course. Don't worry about getting the formatting right: when you have it, ask the Wikipedia:Teahouse (or me) for help with that. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

great 👍 196.137.138.216 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments earlier. I'd welcome your thoughts on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leighton%E2%80%93Linslade#Merge_with_Leighton_Buzzard?, too, since you seem to be interested in stuff about the local area! ExplodingCabbage (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the revert. I don't know too much about Dee, I just figured as an antiquarian he was collecting/studying seals as well, but mine is definitely not a well-informed delta. In my defense, he's referred to as a "notable early student and collector" on Sigillography Vonfraginoff (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How strange. The article about Dee just says he used seals under important objects, not that he collected them. The "God seal" was his own creation and presumably he considered it to have some Gnostic powers that would amplify the effect of the crystal ball. So we can take it that he considered seals to be important. I'm afraid I can't get into the mind of fantasists.

As I understood the Sigillography article (starting from zero expertise, your edit was the first time I had ever heard of it), it is the study of seals on ancient documents, deeds, charters and the like - as an tool in the 'bag' of historical researchers.

Have you got access to any of the citations in Sigillography that support inclusion of his name? Did whoever included him actually take it from one of those sources? If so, then if course is stand corrected and you should reinstate the category. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. For now, I'm going to leave it as a citation request on Dee's name under Sigillography. thanks again. Vonfraginoff (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]