User talk:StuartBrady/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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 07:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Refrain from changing prefixes from one style to the other

That is, they should refrain from adding unwanted binary prefixes to articles that originally did nor have them! please read WP:MOSNUM's discussion page to understand the rationale behind why this paragraph was added.Mahjongg 23:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And that is exactly what you did. --StuartBrady (Talk) 21:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No sorry. You did the opposite, but "refrain from changing prefixes from one style to another" does not mean the same as "refrain from changing prefixes from the style that Mahjongg likes to the one that they dislike". --StuartBrady (Talk) 21:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No indeed, nor does it mean "to change it to what StuartBrady likes...". Or what -any- person "likes", for that matter.

what it -does- intend to mean is "to refrain from changing the -original authors- style to something the original author did not intend".

So the user who did the first edit of an article were he changed all the KB's to KiB's (or vice versa for that matter), is in the wrong! and all the reverts that are necessary to return to the original are just attempts to restore the article to comply to WP:MOSNUM.

Otherwise this rule would just mean "to preserve the status quo of what randomly was the last entry in a revert war". Although it -is- in a way intended to stop revert warring, I grant you that.

Almost all of the articles which -I- reverted were originally written with "KB", (because thats what is in -all- the textbooks about these systems, so obviously the article was first written with the KB notation style), or should have been written with the KB notation because they are about systems that came to market several decennials ago. And then to then come to such an article, and change all KB's to KiB's, (a term almost nobody knows or uses) simply to push an agenda is downright -wrong-!

Okay. I mainly wanted to discourage you from changing "KiB" to "KB" in articles such as floppy disk, where the distinction is more important. OTOH, it does cut both ways. I don't think you can honestly claim to be "reverting" an edit, nine months and 30 edits after it was made. I think it's a pretty safe bet that you were looking at the "what links here" page for kibibyte.

So, the -real- reason why the particular wording of this paragraph was put in, (if you look at who made the change, it's obvious) was that it was especially written to deter users like user:sarenne. That is, those users which were rampantly changing the original KB's of articles to KiB's, simply to push their agenda of forcing the implementation of an unwanted Binary prefixes style.

An act for, (as you must know all to well) which Sarenne was ultimately banned.

For you to then use this paragraph as a "weapon" to push your particular view in your revert war is simply disingenuous.

Please refrain from making personal attacks. I reverted your edit for two reasons. Your edit did, in my view, decrease the quality of the article. I also noticed that what you did goes against the MOS, and I wanted to discourage you from persisting in this behaviour.

But... For all purposes, with Sarenne banned and a clear consensus in place, the edit war is now over!

And the consensus now -is- that KiB should -not- be used in articles that at their creation did not use it!

Then perhaps you should try to get WP:MOSNUM updated so that it actually says that?

I am -not- trying to re-start a revert war! I only try to follow WP:MOSNUM, and to slowly repair the damage that Sarenne has made to articles which definitively did NOT use the KiB notation when first written, and which are clearly about a "retro-computing" subject.

By the way, I don't give one iota about articles about "modern IT subjects", it's not worth fighting over them, (others are fighting over them already) but articles about computer systems that have used the KB notation for 10 ,20, 25 years should -not- be polluted with a silly new notation that nobody expects to see in these articles.

Mahjongg 02:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't worth fighting over them, but I do hope that you will respect the manual of style in future. --StuartBrady (Talk) 20:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ZX Rebelstar 1.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:ZX Rebelstar 1.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your changes to Amstrad

Please do not revert changes being made by User:Wgungfu to the Amstrad article that are being made to revert the changes made by the banned user User:Sarenne who is infamous for bulk changing binary prefixes in hundreds of articles. WP:MOSNUM#Binary_prefixes states "There is no consensus to use the newer IEC-recommended prefixes in Wikipedia articles to represent binary units. There is consensus that editors should not change prefixes from one style to the other" and "When in doubt, stay with established usage in the article, and follow the lead of the first major contributor.". In this article the first major contributor is this revision and as you can clearly see the style is to not use IEC. The binary prefixes were changed by the banned user in this later diff. Fnagaton 20:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Wgungfu's edits were wrong. Please stop wasting my time. --StuartBrady (Talk) 20:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Sarenne's edits are wrong and the user was banned for her behaviour in pushing those edits while using sock puppets. If you want to tidy up the edits to make them KB and MB then do so but do not change them to be KiB or MiB because that is against the binary prefixes policy cited above. Fnagaton 20:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarenne's edits were six months ago and in accordance with the MOS at that time. Please, please try to understand that "established usage" is not the same thing as "original usage". Perhaps reading wikt:establish might help you. --StuartBrady (Talk) 20:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarenne's edits were against consensus and numbered in the hundreds so the clean up operation for all of her bad edits is taking some time. Consensus now means that all of her edits are being reverted and the articles restored to their established use before her changes. Fnagaton 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then why don't you just fix it properly, instead of pestering me? --StuartBrady (Talk) 20:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking you to correct your edits because you are the one who has reverted. You wouldn't want to fall foul of 3RR. Fnagaton 20:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. I corrected the case, since you asked the question. Fnagaton 20:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but my edit was correct — my main intention was to revert Wgungfu's nonsensical use of "mB", but as KiB was already the established usage, there was in fact no merit in his "revert" of Sarenne's edit. You will not change my mind in this matter, although unlike you, I am prepared to let such things go. If you really feel so strongly about this, could you please try to push for a change in the MOS that favours KB, MB, etc. so that you don't need to deliberately misinterpret it in future? --StuartBrady (Talk) 20:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong as already explained your edit is against policy and consensus. Also as already explained Sarenne's edit is not established usage and as shown as per the policy follow the lead of the first major contributor which is also as already explained established usage is shown by the previous edit. You are also wrong because you are the one who is deliberately misrepresenting what the policy and consensus actually is. Fnagaton 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanamania!

Hi! Glancing at your user page once I saw that we were both stomping on the same Women's World Cup article, I saw where you mentioned having gone insane by linking to Japanese articles despite not knowing Japanese.

I thought you might feel comforted by my revelation of what must surely be an even more desperate (though related) form of madness: I have actually signed up for, and edited articles on, the Japanese Wikipedia, despite being similarly unable to speak, read, or even type the language.

Fortunately, they used Arabic numerals for Homare Sawa's caps and goals totals. :-) — Ray Radlein 11:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! *grin* — that's made my day! :-) --StuartBrady (Talk) 12:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

handball templates

Dude, are you wikistalking me?  ;) I tried to document those templates but had an edit conflict as you beat me to it! Thanks for all your help these past few days. Andrwsc 18:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Er... a little. :) I will stop soon, now that the national team referencing templates seem pretty much sorted out — once again, thanks for the great work you've done with the new templates! :) --StuartBrady (Talk) 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries!! It has been a peeve of mine that we have had thousands of flag templates created for all those sports, and I have wanted to consolidate this into the main flag template system for months. I'm pleased to see that work virtually finished now! Andrwsc 18:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Six Nations moves

You're welcome. While I was merging the histories, I was wondering whether they should be at page names like 2002 Women's Six Nations Championship (at a minimum, it seems to me that Six Nations should be capitalized a proper noun), but admittedly I'm not familiar with the topic at all, and step one was to take care of the cut-and-paste moves. — TKD::Talk 22:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Montchav for adminship

Hi Stu, I'm considering running for adminship, but would like some users' view on this. You may or may not know who I am, but I'm quite a quiet editor, who gets about the "job" with little fuss. I wasn't sure who to ask about my potential being a candidate, as I've not really got any "wikifriends", but I seem to have overlapped with you on more than one occassion, and you seem pretty respected here. Would now be a good time to run - I think I have had enough edits and enough experience with AFD and the like, but am worried that my lack of "user interaction" (and maybe my lack of Featured Articles) may cause a problem. Do you have any suggestions? Do you know me well enough to perhaps nominate me? If you do, let me know before the vote starts. How important is having an FA to running for adminship? Thanks, --Montchav 11:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I have noticed you, and you do seem reliable, so I'd definitely like to see you succeed. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I know you well enough to nominate you — I'm a fairly quiet editor myself, tbh. Bringing a few articles to FA status certainly can't be a bad thing, though! Best of luck, anyway! —StuartBrady (Talk) 20:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

{{User:Roosterrulez/WikiProject Football/Women's task force}} You may be intersted in this userbox. mattypc 20:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Japanese N64 games

I noticed your one of the people that wished there to be a list of Japanese games online for Wikipedia which I tried to make for the Nintendo 64 a few months ago, but just like when they where added to the orginal List of Nintendo 64 games they are trying to delete the new page List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games here's a link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games to the discussion, how about giving your view. (Floppydog66 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Hmm. Could you show me where I expressed such a view? I must have forgotten this. —StuartBrady (Talk) 18:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fuse (emulator)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Fuse (emulator), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Fuse (emulator). Gavin Collins (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland

The articles, which I believe you have contributed to, about the results of the Republic of Ireland national team have been nominated for deletion. I have spoken up for keeping them. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ireland national football team (IFA)

The above article which you have contributed to has been nominted for deletion. Djln--Djln (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Another QWERTY layout

It seems that you're the man for the keyboard layouts in SVG. If you have the time, could you provide an image for the Maltese QWERTY layout? It was introduced in Windows XP SP2. Microsoft have it explained here: http://www.microsoft.com/globaldev/keyboards/kbdmlt47.htm (hover on Shift, AltGr etc to see their effects), while noting that there is a mistake - " and @ are swapped, on a Maltese layour Shift+2 gives " and Shift+' gives @. To note also that the decimal point is a comma which is completely stupid since a period is used in Malta! It is basically a UK (standard) layout with the following adjustments:

Keystroke	UK	MT
[	[	ġ
Shift+[	{	Ġ
AltGr+[		[
AltGr+Shift+[		{
]	]	ħ
Shift+]	}	Ħ
AltGr+]		]
AltGr+Shift+]		}
`	`	ċ
Shift+`	¬	Ċ
AltGr+`	¦	`
AltGr+Shift+`		¬
\	\	ż
Shift+\	|	Ż
AltGr+\		\
AltGr+Shift+\		|
AltGr+a	á	à
AltGr+e	é	è
AltGr+i	í	ì
AltGr+o	ó	ò
AltGr+u	ú	ù
AltGr+Shift+A	Á	À
AltGr+Shift+e	É	È
AltGr+Shift+i	Í	Ì
AltGr+Shift+o	Ó	Ò
AltGr+Shift+u	Ú	Ù
Shift+3	£	€
AltGr+3		£
NumPad "."	.	,

_└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 18:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

SVG Editor?

What software did you use to create all those SVG files? Just curious. --Isaac R (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)