User talk:Trevor GH5

There is a discussion occuring

I can vouch for everything about that colloquialism "Jints" except for the statement that it is now used in reference to the football Giants. There, we're taking someone's word for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your note. I'm not sure what you're getting at about "attitude". You made a comment about not taking peoples' word for it, which is a totally fair statement, and all I'm telling you in the above is that while the reference to "Jints" relating to the baseball Giants is something I can verify, I don't have any information about the uncited part you had left in originally, about the football team being called the "Jints". For that, I'm taking the word of whoever put that info there. Perhaps it should be cited also? In any case, I'll just assume I don't get your sense of humor, as apparently you don't get mine. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would appear that it's you that has the snippy attitude. And I'm still waiting for someone to cite some evidence confirming the actual usage of the nickname "Jints", as well as its "current" pronunciation, for the NFL's Giants. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a bit of standard author notification for you: I have nominated {{

Dear Trevor, I just noticed your question on the discussion page for this article.

Well, in the formula

${\displaystyle l=\pi \cdot s\cdot n^{2}}$

${\displaystyle \pi }$ is 22/7, s is the spacing between the turns of your scroll and n is the number of complete turns in your scroll (which in the formula is "squared", i.e. multiplied by itself, which is what the little 2 means). You multiply all these together, i.e.

l = 22/7 x s x n x n

would be another way of writing it.

I find this formula a very useful way of estimating pretty accurately the amount of stock I will need for a job.

As for the second formula in the article, someone else added that. It seems to be about how the scroll formula was worked out, but I am not mathematician.

Foundryman 21:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in the article on the first

Further, there is plenty of misinofrmation about the MVPs as well. I am fully aware that there are publications that list Gino Marchetti as the 1958 AP NFL MVP, they are not accurate. Futher, Joe Schmidt was not an AP MVP in 1960. Alan page was the first defensive player to win the AP NFL MVP. Lawrence Taylor was the second.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your negative edit about Jessica Alba. I will be starting a discussion shortly over editorial decisions to include negative information.

In any biography, there is probably a tendency for fans to be attracted to an article. Therefore, consensus could be wrong. For example, the Jessica Alba or Governor Bill Richardson article is probably watched by people who like these two individuals. Add negative information and it is possible that it will be deleted citing "consensus".

I am not that kind of person. I seek the correct editing position. Include negative and positive information. However, I also see the posibility of article manipulation by gangs of fans. Therefore, I seek a broader consensus on the policy.

I am alerting you because I follow the highest ethical standards and transparency policy even though I like Jessica Alba and wouldn't mind a very positive article written for a fan, like me. Spevw (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC) FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Editing_the_correct_unbiased_version_instead_of_being_manipulated_by_gangs.3F Spevw (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of WikiProject Pornography, I'm just letting you know there's currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography about changing the WP:PORNBIO criteria. Your opinions would be appreciated. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you kept some tabs on the spam on y talk page. Ty.

I did wonder about the photos. These have a rather ugly black number section at the bottom right corner. It would look better to remove these digitally but I expect that would not be a proper thing to do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article

reliable source

that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

The article

reliable source

that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

The article

reliable source

that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see