User talk:9kat

July 2014

Hello, I'm The Last Arietta. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Analyze (imaging software) with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 16:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a summary in my revert. Thanks for the note. 9kat (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 9kat. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Randor1980 (talk | contributions) 13:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?

How can you cite WP:NUMERAL and do that? It specifically says "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words". Dustin (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NUMERAL further for the various exceptions to that rule, specifically:

Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures:

• five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.

• 86 men and 103 women, not eighty-six men and 103 women

• There were 3 deaths and 206 injuries or Three died and two hundred six were injured, not There were three deaths and 206 injuries

People and infants are of course comparable quantities, thus it needs to be "3", not "three". (Or "two hundred ninety-five".) 9kat (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then per "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words", they should all be spelled out (at least within the same sentence). Otherwise, you are only going off of one part while ignoring another part of the MoS. Dustin (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you said "(Or "two hundred ninety-five".)", I will just assume that you won't have any objections... Dustin (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Two hundred ninety-five" is hard to read (and was more tongue-in-cheek, for that reason); we wouldn't write that if the "3" wasn't present. I'm not ignoring one part; the exception specifically allows overriding the earlier rule, as in the examples. While both versions are MoS-compliant, the wording is already stable with "295" rather than the spelled-out version, and 3/three has been both ways...no reason to change that. 9kat (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your view, if you want to change "three" back to "3", please at least bring up a discussion of the article's talk page so other editors can talk about it too. In this way, we can keep this to a minimal and avoid any problems. Thank you for responding. Dustin (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal baccarat scandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a poor edit. Not only are those sentances you have edited, the comma use is sub-standard in formal British English. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, "Sir William Gordon-Cumming in the witness box, in the presence of Edward, Prince of Wales, and others" is not a sentence. If it's a sentence, where's the verb? MOS:CAPTION is explicit that there is to be no period at the end of that sentence fragment.

Use of the comma is trickier. The MOS is not explicit for titles, but the example in WP:SURNAME is to use one. The target article from that example uses them, as does Edward VII (another featured article) in its own caption of the exact text we are discussing. I believe "Prince of Wales" is a parenthetical statement for the purposes of WP:COMMA, in any case.

Finally, it would have been helpful to include your rationale in your revert, rather than a blank summary. There's also no need to call it a "poor edit". 9kat (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. If it's a poor edit, I'll call it a poor edit, and this was. 2. It's a sentence: a verb is not always needed. 3. Your US comma use is very poor in an article written in BrEng, and you are very wrong to include it here. - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the ridiculous sentence issue to the article talk page. As for the commas, I'm happy to discuss those in good faith, yet you only seem to want to claim it's incorrect with no backing. Did you read any of the policy that I linked? Do you disagree with my interpretation of policy? There is occasional mixed usage on other articles where titles of that form are used; Edward VII uses commas for "Prince of Wales" as I noted, and the MOS example I provided does as well, while some others do not. Articles such as Sir William Gordon-Cumming, 4th Baronet, use both forms in various places. References such as [1] back the idea that the title is a parenthetical here, which would make MOS:COMMA apply regardless. Please provide better arguments than just "you are very wrong!" While the article may be in "BrEng" (whichever specific version you're referring to), the Wikipedia MOS wins when there's a conflict. 9kat (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's only an issue because you decided to edit war over it. Read WP:BRD, and next time someone reverts a poor edit of your, don't just shove it back in in a knee-jerk manner. As to the MoS "winning": WP:ENGAVR is a strong element of the MoS, which also "wins". - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it, 9kat, that you are not English? Cassianto ^talk 20:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not, but I don't see the relevance of third-party sniping, since I'm well aware that WP:ENGVAR applies. (And I reverted the comma changes back per ongoing talk page discussion, though not the sentence fragment.) 9kat (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed as much. Third party sniping? Where have I done that? Have you taken your medication this morning? Cassianto ^talk 20:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're a random observer (as far as I know), and your comment seemed more like a jibe than anything else. If that was a legitimate question about my origin, I apologize for not assuming good faith; as you can see, the thread above was already heated. ~~As for medication, perhaps SchroCat could use some, as he or she seems excessively angry.~~ 9kat (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off with unwarranted, unfounded, uncivil, petty and plain stupid accusations of ownership. There is none: your edit was poor and was reverted accordingly. – SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. "I well aware it's the fucking TFA: I took this article through PR, FAC and then nominated it for the front page. I don't say this to claim any special rights here ..." Despite your claim to the contrary, that is pretty much a claim of special rights. You're saying I should've taken the time to go through the article history even further, after already taking the effort to find your broken, summaryless revert. Then you performed a full revert to fix a partial issues, when I was fixing several other issues. In any case, I'm disengaging from this topic and article completely. Have fun with your misfragmented sentences if you'd like. I'm also not sure you're one to complain about civility. 9kat (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I hope...

....I didn't make too much of a mess here. [2] EEng (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...so, the problem (that I ran into as well) is that you need to create that page as a redirect, and use an {{anchor}} as in my edit. However, the reason I stuck the shortcut at that specific location is that the "comparable quantity" one is pretty frequently misunderstood, whereas the other ones don't tend to be an issue, so it seemed like a good idea to link directly. Linking to the top of the section does seem cleaner, though, and maybe my link was too specific. We could have both, but that might be too cluttered...what do you think? 9kat (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think just one at the top of the section-ette is better -- if you're OK with that, can you fix the mechanics? Notice [3] EEng (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC) BTW [4][reply]

That's fine with me, though I changed it to WP:NUMNOTES since a few others use NUM. I like the general purpose of your change in the wording (I tweaked it slightly), but it still feels a little cluttered. I'm not sure the best way to address that, though. (I kind of wish the MOS had an example with disjointed items like the one above [5], but I think that requires further consensus to add; I'll open up a talk page discussion there if I get around to it.) 9kat (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC) And thanks for the last bit.[reply]

For a minute I thought it said WP:NUMBNUTS. BTW I'd be less than honest if I said I'm not sure which way to go with the infants example. Many people think good writing as a set of formulas, or a programming language syntax, and it's not -- other than basic stuff like subject-verb agreement and so on, it's a matter of what looks, sounds, and feels good. Some clear examples would be:

The dead included 140 Dutch, 23 Malaysians, 5 Germans, and 2 Americans. (Though to be honest I'm not sure how I'd feel if it were 1 American.)
The death toll was at least 295. blah blah blah. blah blah substantial intervening text. blah. In addition, three infants were unaccounted for.

But in the example under discussion the two quantities can't be called tightly coupled, but neither are they disjointed, so I'm not sure what has more weight -- the oddity having one quantity in figures and one in words, or the oddity of 3 being in figures instead of words. Left on my own I'd probably go back and forth a few times until my attention was attracted elsewhere. EEng (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I feel the same about the original infants example, actually, since there was just enough intervening text that it feels ambiguous. I can see arguments both ways for that one. I think an example like this is reasonably "5" instead of "five":

The attack killed 23 men and 8 women, including 5 children.

...but it still feels a bit ambiguous when it's not just "and". Your first example (even as the slightly awkward "1 American") seems like it's already clearly covered, and adding a three-parter might not hurt. Not sure it's necessary, though, without covering the disjointed stuff too, but local consensus and context are probably fine for things like the "infants" one. 9kat (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MH17

I reverted the addition about "Ukraine and its allies" because I think that concept is just too politically charged. We are not allies, we may be sympathiser, but above all else we just seek the truth. The 'by whom' can be covered by references, there are many. If you want to create allies, you will far more problems finding quotes to support that idea. E x nihil ^(talk) 13:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; thanks for the note. I wasn't completely happy with the wording myself. I don't think the tag can be covered by references, because that doesn't indicate that Russia opposes the claim; there's no harm in leaving the tag for now. I think we may need to restructure the whole paragraph to fix the tag... Let's continue on the article talk page, since there's already a discussion starting there. 9kat (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JoKa2014=

Hi 9kat, I am quit uncomfortable with your editing of Krill oil page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krill_oil). Replacing clinical studies, published in peer reviewed journal, with an a subjective analysis of one scientist, is NOT relevant and appropriate. I think this deceleration may be suitable to the "supplement" section. Did you read any of the papers that I used as a reference? Do you disagree with these journals review procedure? I feel like something is "fishy" with your editing process. In order to give the Wikipedia users the scientific data, I am working on replacing it back. I will be happy to discuss with you on my talk page regarding the minor modification that can be done. Please let the science to talk and not subjective opinion (which by the way agree on the better bio availability).

By the way, talking with some high level Wiki editors, they all agree that 'pricing information' is promotional advertising crap that should be deleted on sight - as I just did.

Thank youJoKa2014 (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)JoKa2014[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]