User talk:Andareed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Thx

I was trying to figure out a better way to phrase the SC county-by-county results, but it was late and I'm tired. Your version is better. Only Zuul (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Florida primary article and template "current"

When there are 50 to 100 editors stepping on each other with edits, then it's appropriate to tag the article. There have been a grand total of six editors on the article in the last 24 hours; obviously not an issue yet.
Yellowdesk (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ubuntu

Hi Andareed

The changes I made to Ubuntu (Linux distribution) were a reversion - another editor had removed three unofficial Ubuntu variants, Jewbuntu, Jubuntu and a Satanist (!) distro. These three distros all exist. There has been a request on the talk page not to remove unofficial variants without discussion.

I've not reverted your reversion as I'd welcome your input before adding these distros back.

Note that I am neither Jewish nor a Satanist, and have little interest in these 3 distros - just a desire *not* to see information removed unecessarily.

Best wishes  This flag once was red  05:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the update. I *cough* didn't *cough* check the link, as I remembered having seen both Jubuntu and Jewbuntu before. A more thorough check reveals that Jubuntu is a work-in-progress, and Jewbuntu is a parody. I'm surprised the only valid one was the Satanist distro! As a Gentoo user I'll resist the temptation to make a "more appropriate for Windows" joke... ;-)

 This flag once was red  05:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] question

Hello! I need to learn haw to make infoboxes and templates. Is there a page on wikipedia, or is there any web site teaches wiki language? Thanks!--78.180.30.33 (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Talk:DNS

Hi. I thought I had moved the talk page after you posted the second notice, but for some reason, the talk page didn't actually move. It's been fixed. Thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ok for Texas

Ok. However I think it is much better firstly to update the single state result page and then the general pages. Sorry for my previous revert. Cheers. --Subver (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding relevant, fair or free use pictures to articles is not vandalism

Please stop filling my talk page with baseless accusations and warnings.

Thanks! 24.146.16.150 (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't add Batman (the comic book) graphics to the article on the city of Batman. Andareed (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Gravel

Is there a point where you think we could consider him withdrawn if he never declares as such? Also, should the list perhaps be resorted, maybe by delegates, and then alphabetically for clarity? I'm guessing you've probably encountered this issue before, but with only two candidates left, it may be a good time to revisit it. --Kallahan (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You're best to post on the talk page of Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Andareed (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows

Thanks for your past comments and contributions at Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Right now there is a significant vote taking place at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows about whether or not to overturn a previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should represent individual nominating events. The vote ends at the close of March 19, 2008 (UTC). The vote contains the negative-option that if there is a tie or fewer than 4 total signatures the previous consensus will prevail. I invite you to visit the talk page and submit your vote on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The vote has completed. The result was to uphold the previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should summarize nomination events, not aggregate state results. Thanks for your participation in the vote! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coprocessor tuning

I realize you might believe that knob to be a coprocessor tuning knob, but Google (and other search engines, including IBM's own) claim otherwise: you would think, that with this relatively strange attribute of such a popular system (the RS/6000 is, as claimed, a popular system for scientific research), that surely *someone* would have written about it? Also, the assertions about the Linux kernel and the cotune application are completely unfounded. Finally, the original author(s) seem to have simply left, without completing the article. If they heard it by word-of-mouth, as you did, then this article should be removed until someone can find real evidence -- there is no reason to perpetuate potentially false information with zero sources on Wikipedia. I see no evidence that this is real. Please prove me wrong. nneonneo (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Math_coprocessor_tuning_knob.jpg

Since the associated article has been deleted (per AfD), I have also raised this image for deletion, since it is now orphaned and highly unlikely to be used in any other articles. You may contest this deletion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_March_30#Image:Math_coprocessor_tuning_knob.jpg. nneonneo (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theo de Raadt

Apologies. I didn't realise he was commonly known just as "Theo". --Jameboy (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ubuntu talk, Thanks

I love your math! :-) Thanks! Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008, your compromise

It wassn't my intention to take the whole thing out. Yust a little mistake of mine. Look at Northwesterner1 talk under "Another oops for your talk page...". But I like your version better. --Floridianed (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your help in attempting a compromise, but I don't really think it's needed. The only people who have objected to the declarative sentence "one of the biggest upsets" have been drive-by anonymous IPs who have declined invitation to discuss it on the talk page. I think it weakens the article (slightly) when we waffle about clear facts: Washington Post, Associated Press, MSNBC, Chris Cillizza (The Fix). I think anybody who disagrees with that statement would have a hard time making the case. I don't have a huge problem with the "what some have called" phrase, but I do think it falls into the category of weasel words to avoid. If in your judgment we need to qualify the fact, I'll abide by it, but I'd prefer something less vague, like "what political analysts called" or "what the political news media deemed" or "what the Washington Post called." Thanks for all your work on the article.Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I see Northwesterner1's point and in my view "what the political news media deemed" sounds best to me. If you guys agree just make the change and we'll see if there will be a consense with other users. Sounds good to you? Regards --Floridianed (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This seems fine to me. Andareed (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)