User talk:Kvng/Archive 2
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hi back at ya!
Hi Kvng, I've been around at Wikipedia since about 2004. I was not always an anon IP, but I am now. I'll try not to get into any scrapes with you or anyone else. Bestest, 71.161.192.73 (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Welcome back! -—Kvng 01:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
An invitation for you!
|
| Hello, Kvng. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 23:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC) |
Done -—Kvng 15:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for joining! Northamerica1000(talk) 23:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of common misconceptions
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of common misconceptions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Question
Hi Kevin, thanks for your comments in the discussion about IDEF. I wonder if you could help me out with an other matter? I question if there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources on this subject. Since you comment on these kind of questions more often (for example here), I wonder if you could give your opinion here as well? -- Mdd (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like problems with that article are being sorted out. If any editor believes that the topic is not notable, he or she can [[WP:AFD|nominate the article for deletion. Were you considering doing this? I did a quick search and there seem to be sources (e.g. [1]). -—Kvng 20:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, a quick search indeed reveals all kind of reliable source (online), but they are almost all written by the designer. My concern remains, that the article doesn't seem to comply with the prescription, that Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. Now I did added a notability-tag, but I doubt about what to do next. The thing is, that the subject has received some significant international recognition by the The Open Group and ISO (see here), and if things develop well this coverage in secondary sources will follow (within the years to come). So what should we do more? -- Mdd (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe in this particular situation the Notability - tag should be replaced by the Primary sources - tag ? -- Mdd (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- {{refimporve}} or {{primary}}. I personally don't think there is a {{notability}} issue. But notability is not judged based on potential notability. It sounds like you might be thinking it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. -—Kvng 03:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, it indeed looks WP:TOOSOON. One last question: What are you main arguments that there might be no notability issue? -- Mdd (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I quickly found one independent WP:RS indicating notability. Only two are required to establish notability. -—Kvng 13:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I fail to see how that computable article written by MP could possibly be considered an independent source of the Wikipedia article started by MP about the framework developed by MP, and now exploited by MP's company. This discussion did reminds me that these (free) online (open source) magazines could be taken into consideration in matters like this. Thanks again. -- Mdd (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps I've misread that ref. You don't need my permission to nominate for deletion, just be sure to do the required research WP:BEFORE nominating. -—Kvng 18:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 15:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
TAFI
 Hello,
The Project is almost ready to hit the Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page. If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the Holding Area. Above all, please do not forget to improve our current Today's Articles for Improvement Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project, |
Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Internet Protocol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IP header (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Second Amendment lead discussion.
I'd appreciate your input.
- Been a bit occupied with other things but intend to get to it. -—Kvng 03:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.GreekParadise (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Lucius (band)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Lucius (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. PKT(alk) 18:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Network Congestion
You responded at one time to a comment I made on the talk page for network congestion. If you're interested, I've added further musings related to congestion avoidance and am, possibly, proposing an additional section in the article on congestion prevention. However, it's at an early stage, so unless you've got a specific interest in the subject, you may not feel it worth further comments as yet. Graham.Fountain | Talk 10:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Second Amendment Collective-Rights History pre-Heller
Please review prior to editing or commenting further on the Second Amendment. I have posted it on the Talk Page as well, but I'm reaching out to you and all other editors personally because I sincerely believe when you review the evidence and when you search for contrary evidence, you will see I am correct about this history. I'm not claiming you personally had any statement about this, but I wanted to post the identical thing on every editors' talk page so please do not take it personally. "You" refers to anyone who disputes the reliable sources I have posted below.
The law WAS collective only prior to Heller. If I show you 3 cases and several commentaries by irrefutably accurate sources and you cannot show me a single case from 1939 to 2000 to refute it, you have to accept that history is history.
- Here are some quotes from:
In 1977 at a Denver hotel, Don Kates paced a conference room lecturing a small group of young scholars about the Second Amendment and tossing out ideas for law review articles. Back then, it was a pretty weird activity in pursuit of a wacky notion: that the Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm.
“This idea for a very long time was just laughed at,” said Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, a chair endowed by the National Rifle Association. “A lot of people thought it was preposterous and just propaganda from gun nuts.” ...
The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Before the Heller decision, the Supreme Court and lower courts had interpreted the language as “preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias,” according to a Congressional Research Service analysis.
“It was a settled question, and the overwhelming consensus, bordering on unanimity, was that the Second Amendment granted a collective right” enjoyed by the states, not individuals, Bogus said. Under this interpretation, the Constitution provides no right for an individual to possess a firearm.
Lund [Remember he's the NRA-endowed Second-Amendment professor!] agreed that there was a consensus but said it was “based on ignorance.”
OK, you don't trust the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the National Rifle Association-endowed professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment? How about trusting the courts themselves? Just read these three:
- Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)
- United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) (“[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.”)
- Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right.”)
All of them cited Miller. All of them were the law of the land. There's not a single case in all of American history in any court state or federal that found an individual right to bear arms absent service in a militia and struck down a gun law as unconstitutional prior to 2000. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any case that says so.
Furthermore, there is not a single President prior to 2000 that stated he believed the Supreme Court conferred an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment absent service in a militia. Even Reagan didn't believe it. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any President that stated this position prior to 2000.
Truth is truth. If you don't like truth, you should not be editing wikipedia. Many editors here, I know you believe otherwise. But whoever told you a lie was true was mistaken. Read my sources. Then look for reliable sources on your own. When you can't find any (and if you do, I'll give you $100), I would respectfully request that all of you withdraw your objections. If you don't, then you are clear POV-pushers and should not be editing wikipedia.
Otherwise, if the only way to remove unreliable sources in wikipedia is to put up a request for comment and/or mediation, let's do it. I'll bet my reliable sources against all of your absence of sources any day. There is nothing wrong with admitting you are wrong. People are trying to revise history and some people fall prey to it. Maybe you read something on the Internet from some ignorant blogger and believed it to be true. I respectfully request you look at the sources and come to the only accurate conclusion.
My history is backed up by EVERY judicial decision and EVERY President prior to 2000 and the Library of Congress, and the Congressional Research Service, and the NRA-endowed Professor of the Second Amendment, not to mention the NYT and the WP. And the contrary position is backed up by some sincere mistaken beliefs AND NOT A SINGLE SOURCE.
An honest and ethical wikipedia editor cannot look truth in the face and declare it untrue without a single reliable source to back it up. I will post this on the talk page of every editor who has edited or commented recently because I sincerely want all of you to review the sources before further editing or commenting.
Further sources:
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf (Congressional Research Service)
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php (Library of Congress)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html (New York Times)
GreekParadise (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Second Amendment to the Constitution".
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 03:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvementMessage added by Northamerica1000(talk) 09:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Please comment on Talk:NGC 6357Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:NGC 6357. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC) A cup of coffee for you!
Please comment on Talk:SuicideGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Suicide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC) WP Computing in the SignpostThe WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Computing for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:BPGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:BP. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Proposal at TAFI talkA discussion that may interest you is occurring at Wikiproject TAFI's talk page at: Proposal: use Theo's Little Bot to automate the schedule and queue. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC) May 2013
Comeback?Hello! As you noticed, I am re-retired from employment so un-retired from Wikipedia :-) at least for a while. Looks like some progress in the year and a half I was out, but still tons of work to do. Hope I have not wreaked much havoc yet. For now I am doing a breadth-first search putting articles in the Computing project that should be, assessing, and doing some of the usual un-hype work. Then maybe might have time to go into more depth on some topics. Hope to work some on the articles that I knew about from real life, like all the Ethernet variants and historical Internet protocols etc. Of course let me know if you think I am going off in a wrong direction. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
BP RfCHi Kvng, I was wondering if you could clarify your BP RfC comment to make it easier for the closing editor to evaluate. The question is whether a summary-style section on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill should be included, and if so how long or short it should be. You wrote: "Oppose repeated content. A complete WP:SUMMARY should be provided in #Environmental record or #Safety and health violations." Any clarification of what you envisage would help to make the RfC more decisive. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Your opinion regarding article "Vertical sound localization?"Hello! I want first to thank you for your work in merging the pages "Haas effect" and "Precedence effect." I've added some material to the merged page. I wonder whether you could check out the page Vertical sound localization? The material is quite well covered in the page Sound localization, and there appear to be signifant copyright violation questions on the Vertical page as well. It would seem to be a candidate for merger into the Sound localization article. I've put a note to that effect on the Talk page, but since I have been editing only for a few months, I don't feel competent to make such a move on my own. I'd help with the work (e.g. picking out the valuable references, since they may be the only components that need to be or ought to be moved). You're a much more experienced editor, and you appear to have an interest in this field, so I decided to ask your advice. The reason I'm interested is that neither page discusses the role that head movements play in providing dynamic binaural cues for locating sounds in the median plane. There exists research on that subject, and I would like to add references to it -- on whatever page would be the appropriate place. Thanks. Brazzit (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:India Against CorruptionGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:India Against Corruption. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC) June 2013
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for July 9Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Audio bit depth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AAC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Manned mission to MarsGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Manned mission to Mars. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC) This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013
posted by Northamerica1000(talk) 11:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC) I've added an opt-in section for those interested in receiving TAFI notifications on the project's main page, located here. Those that don't opt-in won't receive this message again. Also, a revised notification template has been created, located at Template:TAFI weekly selections notice. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC) I have sent the Second Amendment article to dispute resolution.Please feel free to comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution GreekParadise (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC) I've also posted a RfC. Please help resolve this.GreekParadise (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Just in case you noticed that the DRN listing of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was closed, please note that it has been reopened and your participation there would be very much appreciated. — Gaijin42 (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC) August 2013
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for August 11Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Absolute threshold of hearing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Binaural (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Please comment on User:Brews ohare/ontological pluralismGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User:Brews ohare/ontological pluralism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Template:OSIstack: Ethernet is layer 3Hi Kvng, there's a user who believes, amongst other things, that Ethernet belongs to OSI layer 3 and edits Template:OSIstack accordingly. Would you care to comment either way? Thanks, --EnOreg (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:PenisGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Penis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Regarding User:Aoidh, Chakra Linux, & such...Thought you might appreciate being made aware of some peripheral 'goings on'. There are threads on my talk-page—and links within—which should bring you 'up-to-speed' should you choose to take interest. [2] [3]
Please comment on Talk:Radiative equilibriumGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Radiative equilibrium. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC) common ethertypesregarding this change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EtherType&diff=prev&oldid=533375158 if you look at the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:EtherType you will see an interesting discussion in the 'EtherType Database' paragraph. so could you re-add the non-common protocols and change the policy? thanks,--Psy0rz (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library NewsletterBooks and Bytes
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for November 4Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BodyKom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Gazette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia Loves Libraries Boulder event time changeHi, Kvng! I just wanted to make sure that you knew that the Wikipedia meetup in the Boulder Public Library has been rescheduled for November 16. I hope to see you then! -- Gaurav (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Ghouta chemical attackGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ghouta chemical attack. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC) hendy's LawThanks for you note about the changes in the Hendy's Law information. I had not noticed it was all gone. I originally had a dedicated page about it but after some debate it was taken down. The main argument was lack of references - which I think now is not a problem. I also put some stuff on both the digital camera page and on the Moore's law page but I see that has all been taken down. In terms of references ... there are quite a few now. I even noticed recently that there is a Youtube video tutorial about it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUjBIlTuLLo That was news to me! A few other references include: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/egs/papers/lesser-known-laws.pdf http://antranik.org/using-moores-law-to-predict-future-memory-trends/ http://i.materialise.com/blog/entry/a-moores-law-for-3d-printing These are just a few I know of ... I have also been contacted by a few researchers who wanted to know a bit more about the topic. I have not done much on Wikipedia - at the time I posted all this i got some flaming because my user name is obviously my name. I was a bit bemused ... I thought it was a bit deceitful to create an abstract name but it seems that was preferred! i have avoided joining in the discussions as I felt I was looked at a bit strange .... The data is certainly a bit old now. I really should up date it with some recent cameras and see how the projections look - but I know the last time I did that - a few years back - it looked surprisingly good. I still have a copy of the content from the original Wikipedia page. If you would like to repost it so it is not in my name - that would be great .... I probably should update the data for you though? Thanks again for your interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry.hendy (talk • contribs) 09:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Potential sockpuppet of LevinepsRecently, User:Oriole85 (contribs) has been sporadically popping up on my watchlist for category-related changes. A lot of new users do that, so it wasn't a particularly noteworthy thing for me. But then he kept showing up with a higher frequency, oftentimes making (what I thought to be) completely unnecessary over-categorizations to articles. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that User:Levineps (contribs) is one of the most notorious over-categorizers we've ever seen (and has the community sanctions, block records, and bans to show for it). So, I did about two minutes' worth of research and discovered that Oriole85's account was created / his edits began on November 5, 2013. When was the last edit by Levineps? November 4, 2013. That is not a coincidence IMO. I don't have (a) the time right now, nor (b) the motivation to formally open an SPI, but I'm hoping that one of the many people I'm notifying about this does. If you're wondering why you're being pinged about this, it's because I saw where you were one of the people who has left messages on Levineps' talk page at some point regarding his inappropriate editing. So now, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues with Levineps, it looks like a probably sockpuppet to throw into the mix. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC) The Wikipedia Library SurveyAs a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Merge of AN/TAS-4 finishedHi Kvng, You asked who would do the merge for this article. After the AfD was closed, I decided to give it a try. Feel free to check my work and make alterations--it's the first time I've done a merge and could have missed something. --Mark viking (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Librarians' Information Literacy Annual Conference (December 13Hi, I appreciate your comments, but also added references for Signum, International Leads, SCONUL Focus and New Library World journals - do this still count as non-notable? Apologies for confusion, but I'd be grateful for clarification? Thanks. Cpack123 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure; I have managed to find one more link for the page. Signum is a Library Journal published by the Finnish Research Library Association, some is Finnish, some English (http://www.stks.fi/in-english), International Leads is published by the American Library Association (http://www.ala.org/irrt/intlleads/internationalleads), SCONUL Focus is published by SCONUL (Society of College, National and University Libraries), who are very highly regarded in the field of Information Literacy, having developed the '7 pillars' model and New Library World is an academic journal on the subject of Library and Information Studies published by Emerald (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0307-4803). Unfortunately some of these are subscription only so I'm unable to provide links to the articles. Cpack123 (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement
Please comment on Talk:Cough medicineGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cough medicine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC) This week's article for improvement
Happy New Year Kvng!
Notability of Rabbit Welfare AssociationThese two news reports from the BBC are dated 2013 and 2006, and have quotes from representatives of the RWA: Rabbiting on: Study and debate on talking to bunnies and Rabbits 'now the most abused pet'
Would these make any difference to your opinion?
Not at all sure why you accepted this article from AfC - there's not a lot in the form of reliable news sources about this company, certainly nothing to meet WP:NCORP notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
drayter rejected articleDear KVNG, This was my first attempt at writing a wiki submission. Can you give me any suggestions in editing or improving the article for approval? Thanks! Dayzee Day zee14 (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
January 2014
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC) DYK for George Burditt (writer) |
