User talk:KTC/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:
For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
WikiMedal
For helping clean up the talk section of the Pope Benedict XVI article, here is the Wikimedal for Janitoral Services. Zscout370 00:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Much appreicated KTC 01:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dalai Lama vandalism
Sorry. But some folks are being asinine and continually violating 3RR on that page. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Page moves
Hi KTC, and thanks for the proposals to make the page titles consistent with others in the same country. Fg2 04:27, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
FAOC
Re your vote on styles. I understand and agree. But only casting one vote is effectively a vote against Alternative 1 because it means that less opposition is recorded against its nearest rival. Ireland uses an electoral system called Proportional Representation using a Single Transferable Vote. It works on the same principle as the one being used (only less complicated! I never thought I would find a system more complicated than PR.STV!) What you do is give your bottom preference to the people you want to defeat, and spread your vote in a way that boosts the rivals of the alternative you do not want. So if for example, you find Alternative 3 the one you least like, give it your bottom vote so that opposition to it is recorded. And spread the other votes to ensure the weakest get votes ahead of it. If for example in Ireland I want to ensure candidate 'x' of Fianna Fáil is elected, and ensure candidate 'y' of Sinn Féin is defeated, and there are 15 candidates, I give my number 1 to 'x', my number '15' to 'y' and spread my other votes to ensure that all other candidates beat 'y'.
Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil voters famously used to practice a 'first and only choice' vote by just voting for their own preferred candidate and then stopping. They eventually realised that they were wasting their vote because they weren't using it to block those they were most opposed to, or to build up the rivals to the candidate they were opposed to. To stop Alternative 3 winning, if that is what you want, give it your fifth choice and give your second, third and fourth choices to the weakest options.
Just be careful though not to copy everyone else doing it. If everyone gives the same other alternatives the same order of votes they may win. So if option 4 gets a lot of 2s, give it a 4. Doing a full vote right down the line will have the effect of strengthening Alternative 1 vis-a-vis 3 or whatever. Just voting for 1 and stopping actually weakens it against its rivals if everyone else votes down the line, because while their opposition to different alternatives is recorded, by stopping at 1 your's isn't. That is why though very popular Alternative 1 is being beaten. Remember the winner won't be decided by who has more votes for, but which faces the least opposition. By voting first and only choice you haven't recorded your opposition to the other options. Slán FearÉIREANN
(talk) 00:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Survey on Prefixed-Styles
Since you are one of the people currently voting a "First and only choice" I am hoping to encourage you to vote a full set of preferences in the ongoing survey before May 14, in order to prevent a deadlock which will result in no consensus. Whig 12:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
HKWNB, HKCOTW, Current events
Hi. Thanks for your contributions to the Education of Hong Kong. You might be interested to take a look at HK wikipedians' notice board, HK Collaboration of the Week and Current events in Hong Kong and Macao. Happy editing! — Instantnood 16:38, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
I Need your help on 'Move Tsushima Islands' Issue
Hi! You appear to be an possible QUALIFIED interested disinterested bystander... I'm just making the rounds to everyone that has made their mark on Tsushima Islands which lead me to Fg2, (thence to then YOU! Congrats! Booby Prize, but I badly need some responisble People to help me mediate therein that are familiar with things Japanese... Sorry, but I infer that's still YOU!) in the last month trying to mediate this flaming revert war — I can use your help — Bring lots O water! (Better yet Beer) Frank
- This is the message I've been dropping on anyone on the Talk or Article pages since 13 May, I'd appreciate it if you can familarize yourself on the small article and stand-by to jump in on Tuesday with some cogent watersprays from a logical firehose! Thanks for the trouble -- the issue is trivial, (Is proper name plural or singular, Forsooth!) save there seem to be at least two teens in a war going well over three hundred edits in this one month sampling interval, over 70 edits in the past three days.
- I would appreciate a rational explaination (after you read my Comments in the subject dispute Talk:Tsushima Islands), of the arguement or arguments you consider vital and germane to the discusion and vote. Frankly, MOST all of you are being silly over nothing of particular importance, since both names can be redirected into the one used. I have left a comment concerning my contribution to the article, which contribution — seems to have triggered the current edit and revision wars. For that I apologize, but see the Comments on the vote. I am also taking the liberty of putting the vote section AFTER the Comments about same.
- Still, I have just spent over four hours of valuable spare time, and would welcome your thoughts after you read and understand the distinction I put forth between a governments termonology as a governing body and a geographical reference like an archepelego, which it certainly is.
- More to the point, I'd like to see your defense regarding your favorite POV of what I had to say viz a viz the mergest attitude of the senior editors and administrators that frequent the Wikipedia:VfD discussions. To my recollection, I don't recollect any of you hotheads in this dispute ever spending anytime thereon, possibly excepting Mel Etitis, but rarely even then.
- In any event, I'm neutral here, and have asked that the article be kept EDIT FREE for the next three days by placing The Inuse template into it — I'd copyedited over two and half hours before I suspended that effort the other night because this shameful fued was going on — proper English grammer does depend, unfortunately, on whether one uses the plural or the singular. I saved that on my hard drive, but I don't need to wade through yet another 70 edits to finish the job. As it is, this matter will probably double the time it takes for such a simple job.
- If you are local to Japan, some history of the canals or Sea-channel is certainly germane to the ongoing discussion, moreover, any cogent arguement you condsider being particularly telling needs to be clearly repeated in the current on going comments if you want them counted on in the vote.
- I will make sure this message goes to each contributor to the article the past month, so you are not being singled out. Now is the time to take a deep breath, for rational concise summaries, not all the arguing that is so wearisome in 66 printed pages - half a novelette, I'd guess! It's certainly a lot to ask your fellow editors to wade through on a minor issue.
- I will also personally be making sure that at least a dozen other Administrators I'm acquainted with take a look at the debate after the time below. I will in fact ask for twenty commitments, so be clear and respectful of our time!!!
- Thankyou for your time, attention, and good professional behaviour. I'll check the Talk state again no sooner than Monday around Noon (UTC), And ask the uninvolved others to do the same. PLEASE BE CONCISE. 24.61.229.179 03:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- 24.61.229.179 03:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well that's my heads up, and appeal -- Hope you can help. I really don't have a dog in this fight! If you can alert a few others qualified on matters Japanese, by all means, please do so!
Students' Union executive officers
IMO, being on the Union exec does not in any way equate to being on the board of a multi-million multi-national company. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Because some officers go on to great things does not mean that they all will, and an encyclopaedia is for recrding what is and what has been, not what might be. That they might be notable in future is not a reason to include them now. More importantly, if you want to discuss this somewhere, that's fine by me, but user pages are not an appropriate venue for general content debates. I will be removing the discussion from my talk page in 24 hours. If you wish to continue, find an appropriate article talk page or start something in the Wikipedia: namespace, and I'll happily join in, but user talk pages are for contacting people personally, and I'll not have something like this cluttering up my talk page (which is long overdue for cleanup anyway). Chris talk back 16:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to Talk:Students Union at Chris request.
Accusations of vandalism
From your edit summaries:
- rvv - where in the hell did I accuse you of vandalism
rvv = "revert vandalism". Chris talk back 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
SU Info Box
Like it. Although stylistically "Sabbatical Officers" would probably be better than 'sabbaticals'. Paulleake 03:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. That bit is easily change. Done. ;-) Better ? -- KTC 03:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
WMF article spelling change
Hi, I reverted your recent change of spelling on the WMF vulnerability article. The difference is not a spelling error, rather alternative in spellings. The old one pointed to the actual wikipedia's article, whereas the spelling you changed to points to a redirect. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. -- KTC 05:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks re: User:Jim16
|
For looking into User:Jim16. - RoyBoy 800 05:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
Arbcom
Hello there. I noticed that you had voted neutral on my candidacy, and I was wondering if you had any specific questions of me which might aid in your deliberation. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your first question, my primary goal would be to convince the other arbitrators of the need to resolve the dispute in a friendly manner. In the event that they did not agree, and sought a position more punitive than I could accept, my written opinion would serve two purposes: explication of my own position consistent with my previously-stated philosophy, and hopefully providing an example for others to follow. I grant that a minority arbitrator does not carry much weight under the current system. Regarding recusal, the short answer is that I don't have that many skeletons in my closet, and that at least one user with whom I quarreled in the past is supporting me in the current election (much to my surprise). Mackensen (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
"Weak object, one single sentence is not enough of a lead for FA. While I very much like the page, I feel this qualify more as a Feature list than a FA. If this was relisted under FLC, I'll be more than happen to support it (assuming I know it's been relisted under FLC of course). -- User:KTC 23:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)"
The lead has been expanded, and there are only two bullet points remaining (in the first section), which in my opinion should not be de-listified. Do you think you could support now? Thanks either way! —Nightstallion (?) 06:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting!
Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
sg template reverts
Hi, why did you revert my changes to {{Stargate character}} ? You said "edits is broken", which wasn't a real sentence so i didn't see what you meant. What was broken? My changes were made to incorporate a new automatic system discussed with User:Andromeda.-- Alfakim -- talk 01:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- The short answer. I was on a stargate character page, and your edit broke his user box. Longer answer. I couldn't see what was wrong with it and couldn't fix it while still keeping your addition, so I reverted to the last known good working version. -- KTC 02:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, I've stopped after L, but the following is examples of what I meant when I said it's broken. Ra (Stargate), Hathor (Stargate), Nirrti (Stargate), Loki (Stargate).
Image:KeithPatrickCardinalOBrien.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KeithPatrickCardinalOBrien.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
- On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hamming codes
I saw your comment on Talk:Hamming code and am seeking input. Could you comment on the changes I've made to Hamming code and Hamming(7,4)? Both technically and in prose. Thanks in advance for any input (or good comments)! :) Cburnett 07:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Note about AfD discussions
Hi, I just thought I would let you know, the normal way to say you are agreeing with the nominator, is per nom, not per norm. ;) Jackaranga 14:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
UoB AfD
Regarding [1] thanks for catching that. JoshuaZ 23:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Watch
yea, after all problems with how to watch or not, some settings might have been removed or changed. I'll perhaps fix it locally soon. (perhaps) (need to fix twspeedy first) (second, I need to fix Status to be totally replaced, as I really don't want to introduce NewStatus lkve). →AzaToth 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:IPSAbowl.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:IPSAbowl.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 20:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for answering my question so quick. Also, if you came onto platform 5, and saw someone with a camera, or talking to a guy near the end of the platform - that was me!!
ACBest 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
re:User talk:ACBest
Reply to your message @ 18:25...
Actually, the 'news' is all cited by the pictures ACBest 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
AFC Drive - Last Day!
As I write this message, we officially have 2 hours left before the end of the drive. Prizes will be awarded tomorrow, so don't worry, I haven't forgotten. It's been a great drive, with tons of work accomplished. Thanks, everyone. GrooveDog GrooveBot 21:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Automaticlly delivered by GrooveBot at 21:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
AFC Drive Award
GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 13:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, this article has been nominated for deletion again, would you mind swinging by and defending it as you did last time? Looks like it could really use the help! GlassCobra 01:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It is currently under a deletion review. Therequiembellishere 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
| This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |