User talk:Hatster301

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Welcome!

Hello, Hatster301!
helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - 2/0 (cont.) 20:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit to the page

welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Anaxial (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Whoops, my mistake. I had noticed that "Felinae" wasn't listed on the "housecat" WP article, and thus presumed that they weren't included in Felinae (which seemed strange in retrospect). I guess I should have been a little more thorough. Sorry for the confusion. -Hatster301 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trillion.

Hi Hatster301, thank you for the enlightenment concerning trillion. I would like you to have a look at the Trillion article, as it's misleading. Do you think that the 10^18 should be deleted? Forasmuch as it's only bilingual English-speaking countries which use long scale; in French (Canada), Afrikaans (South Africa) and Spanish (Puerto Rico). The Trillion article claims that trillion can denote 10^18 in English. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not deleted outright, but perhaps amended to clarify that the "long scale" (10^18) meaning is outdated, and that "trillion" almost always refers to 10^12 in modern English-language contexts. - Hatster301 (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers game

welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Did you not read the edit summary? It had nothing to do with censorship or offensiveness; the problem is that the only supplied reference is from more than 60 years ago (1949 if I'm not mistaken), and therefore most likely inaccurate today.

If you can find a (much) more current reference to the information, then by all means, present it, and it can probably be included without issue. Otherwise, you keep adding incorrect information to the opening paragraph that is outdated by more than half a century.

When you revert changes from other editors, it's important to read the edit summary to understand why the change was made, instead of just assuming the reason without reading it. Making (or undoing) edits based on unverified assumptions stands contrary to the very nature of Wikipedia, don't you think? -- Hatster301 (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I hate to say it, a Google search of the term finds a variety of current and relevant references that could be added if you really think it's necessary to add any more weight to it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]