User talk:Cernen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The talk page has been archived,
Once again, I say to you, Leave new stuff by clicking this link. But no nastygrams accrue. |
Birth to 03:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
03:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC) to 11:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Pastatutes
Your pastatutes links have scrolled. Can you convert the links to those in an archived/history version of Ref Desk misc? -- SGBailey 07:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Another user has fixed the links in your Ref Desk page. The explanations make as much sense as the topic deserves. Thanks all. -- SGBailey 21:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] possible in-joke
Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#June_17
hilarious :D
--Froth 17:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with June 17, but I remember someone answering to a date banner back in May, so it's not the first time it happened. I would prefer it if the first occurance was used as in-joke or at least referred to on your injoke archive. - Mgm|(talk) 07:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'll let you know if I find an earlier link. - Mgm|(talk) 09:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Have a barnstar
 |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| I, Michaelas10, award you this good humour barnstar just for being so damn funny Michaelas10 20:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC) |
When reading a constitution that demands a two-thirds majority vote, we are having some discussion as to the meaning. Because in some other spots, it refers to a mere two thirds vote, there is some debate, as to whether or not the extra word was necessary or meaningful. Now we know that there are some clear areas where the constitution must be re-written, but we would like to follow it until a new one passes.
Person 1 says, "A simple or 50% majority vote means that you need more than 50%, so a two thirds majority vote means that you need a majority more than 2/3."
Person 2 says, "Two thirds just describes the type of majority you seek, so an amount equal to two-thirds would be sufficient."
Person 1 replies, "Then why is the word majority inserted? There is clearly no such thing as a two-third minority."
Person 2 replies, "It is a poorly worded document, but that does not mean we should take an inane interpretation."
Now, I clearly understand that this only matters if the number of voters is exactly divisible by three, so there is a two-thirds (or is it two-third majority) chance that it will not matter. Nevertheless, what would your interpretation be?
Matt West
[edit] No.
I have removed your "question" from the reference desk. Please remember that wikipedia is not a chat room. The reference desk is for users who are seeking information, not for chatting. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you're really wondering what's happening at the reference desk, have a look at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk- this is the intended place for talking about the reference desk. Ned Wilbury 16:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Returned?
Good to see you back. I hardly ever go to the reference desk these days but I'm still around. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Have fun. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stuff
Yes, yes I have - for now. What's up? --HappyCamper 15:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just to fill you in, this is the last significant conversation I had [1] [2]. Keep your Wikipedian soul healthy, hm? After the holidays, I might come by for some tea with you myself and catch up :-) --HappyCamper 15:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yup. Me too. --HappyCamper 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
