User talk:Kmccoy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello! Please place new messages at the bottom of my page. I will generally respond on your page, unless you request that I respond here. Thanks!
Archive 01 -- 2004-06-21 through 2005-08-14
Archive 02 -- 2005-08-14 through 2007-01-05
Archive 03 -- 2007-01-05 through present
[edit] Signpost updated for October 03, 2007
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
[edit] RFA
Yeah, I'm editing in a response at the present moment. Sorry for the delay, I just wrote and held a presentation within a space of 12 hours that, unfortunately, started at midnight. --Kizor 18:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reminder
Reminder for this. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My recent RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 01:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] request
Kmccoy, I will leave it alone, but as far as what I wanted from you was simple. I wanted you to enforce the WP policy of consensus and good faith. I would expect you to remove their personal attacks and undocumented accusations off the DISCUSSION page, just as you deleted others even though the ones you deleted were proven with referrences provided. Now...I will be done with it and HOPE you will do what is right instead of having a double standard of the WP good faith policy. I would hope that you would enforce the consensus policy to allow some compromise (such as allowing the publishications in some way even if that meant also stating that not all programs agreed with it). What I wanted was fair applications of the WP policies to all editors. I hope you go back and at least delete the accusational statements. Take care.SSDA 05:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bandog
HELP? It says at the top of the page that we post new messages at the bottom of this page. Is this where we type a message to you? If not, please go to "my talk" page and explain it to me. I am not that familiar with the way wikipedia works and apologize for any inconveniences that are out of the normal "wikipedia" procedures. I would appreciate discussing a problem pertaining to inaccurate information on one of the topics (Bandog topic) as its editing is very one sided and continually removes accurate information. I have worked with the information and included many "compromises" which I can outline if need be. Lee / SSDA (added to this page by User:SSDA at 2007-10-17 01:46 UTC
- Hi Ken, my name is Barbara Erdman and I own this blog on bandogs:
http://bandogmastiffs.blogspot.com/
As you can see, at the top of my blog is a copy of the original Wikipedia article. I chose to place it there, with input at the bottom from a knowledgeable breed historian, rather than here because the SSDA (IMO, a commercial puppy seller with a litter on the ground at almost any given time) keeps editing out the important information and spamming his website with his puppies available. I felt the original article, which I've never edited, had some important information, and rather than deal with the switching to the bastardized version and all the editing issues, I posted it there with a link back to this site. I've already been subtly threatened by Lee Robinson because I don't have his kennel in my blog and because I chose to post some information about Swinford from people who actually knew him. If you'd like I can send you a copy of that email.
I've chosen not to post my bandog blog link on wikipedia because it contains modern day bandog breeders and I felt that would be tactless for a encyclopedia article. However, the blog contains far more information than this article does. If you look in my links section on the right of my page, you'll see breeders who have been carefully screened. They must exemplify integrity, dedication, seriousness, accomplishment, and testing of breeding stock by acceptable means to name some qualifications necessary. Notice the SSDA is NOT in the list.
I have nothing to gain by putting that blog together. I'm not a breeder, and I don't profit from that blog in anyway. I've been approached from time to time to sell ad space, and I've declined every time.
I don't see the relevance of posting the SSDA on this wikipedia article. The owner and operator of this organization has an atrocious reputation, and several trainers have posted scathing reviews after testing his dogs. Posting a commercial link such as that is detrimental to all the work that serious and respected breeders are trying to, and accomplishing. The SSDA is not considered a reputable organization in the bandog community, quite the contrary. Breeding dogs like bandogs with a protective nature is a serious thing and should only be attempted by professionals who are willing to spend the time and effort having their dogs evaluated by experts. We're talking about dogs here that can be a serious liability if not in the right hands.
If there needs to be any mention of modern bandog breeders, the breeder who's accomplished the most is Mr. Joseph Lucero of California. His bandogs have been on Fear Factor, in the movie The Hulk, and he's titled several in reputable and recognized dog sport venues. The SSDA is nothing but a person who stalks message boards, threatens, slanders and creates havoc wherever he goes. He's banned from just about every message board on the internet. There are serious reasons for this.
Honestly, I don't think any breeders should be listed in the article, but the one who's accomplished the most and has the best reputation is Joseph Lucero, NOT the SSDA.
Anyway, that's my two cents. Take care :) 24.45.232.201 04:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gift
 |
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
| For helping me fix the Kimi ga Yo recordings. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Thank you!
 |
| Use the light from the sun to find your way back from the distant past where you had to travel to retrieve that template. Thank you! - LA @ 12:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC) |
| Ribbon |
|---|
 |
[edit] Thanks
Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait till someone nominates me next time. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 Chat 05:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Question for you
Hi! I saw a comment of yours on Calltech's talk page. I have tangled with this individual before and won a mediation case. While I have been on here for some time, I am not the world's expert on Wikipedia. Lately, I have done more on Commons, than Wikipedia. I am seeing a pattern that certain editors, the aforementioned, and also Fireproeng tend to just delete and tag and question other people's work without contributing anything of substance, like pictures, new articles, etc. I tend to see such people as leaches, because even when given full proof, they still bellyache and carry on, quoting chapter and verse, whilst purposely avoiding direct questions and, of course maintaining strict anonymity. Protocol on here prohibits me from using more descriptive language about my disgust for these people and their abilities to garner support from others, who basically protect a right-wing status quo, as in "everything is fine, under all circumstances....". I can't imagine I'm the only one who has picked up on this sort of thing. Is there any sort of consensus about this phenomenon of that type of editor? Thanks in advance for your opinion. --Achim 03:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- From one "leach" to another, I appreciated your comments. :-) Fireproeng 04:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Aren't you funny?? :-) :-) --Achim 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fire extinguisher
Likely, it's a Carbon Dioxide (CO2) extinguisher. They work by displacing oxygen, and on a class A fire it may not be able to displace enough oxygen long enough to put the fire out, so the fire might re-ignite. But if I had one at hand and there was a Class A fire, I'd try it, as you have a good chance with a small fire. Fireproeng 04:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, it's likely a siliconized sodium bicarbonate media, which works on smothering. As this is like CO2, in that it removes Oxygen from the fire triangle, it isn't that it won;t put out a fire, it's more that you probably will need a lot. Fireproeng 05:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Do you have a point?
What exactly is your argument on Talk:Oink's Pink Palace ? You have added nothing to the discussion yet, nor have you made any concrete point. Please explain yourself. Thanks. J4ne0315 (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I addressed the alteration/deletion of other editors' comments on talk pages with clear references to Wikipedia policy while detailing the inappropriate/irrelevant nature of the Talk page content. As such, I have addressed why I consider the Talk page content "subject to deletion". You, however, still have not addressed why you consider such deletion "improper". A talk page is not a place for any editor to publish their personal information or viewpoint -- it especially isn't a place for such things to exist in perpetuity.
-
- The essence of that section is Q: Why was content deleted from the article. A: It was irrelevant trivia and un-sourced. Anything more is unnecessary verbiage that detracts from the talk page. Including irrelevant, un-sourced trivia not fit for the article (which all seem to agree at this point) into the Talk page and expecting it to be permanently archived there is equally inappropriate.
-
- Including the long-winded discussion, peppered with inappropriate content, on the Talk page abuses the nature of the Talk page. It makes it a soapbox for the personal research/viewpoint of a editor. Such content should be deleted. If you disagree, please explain WHY. Thanks, J4ne0315 (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Temperature calculations
You removed the piece where the calculation is made for electric motors. This is very usefull, because it addresses the fact that resistance and magnet strenght are not constant. Explained is how this works and what the consequences are. So being usefull this is not spam. Can you come with more relevant arguments of why you do not want engineers to know about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.120.80 (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Concerning "Your images"
Dear kmccoy, thank you for your message. As for the photograph of Brian Josephson, he is a friend of mine for the past 20 years, so please remove the tag from the photograph; "private collection" means "private collection" and I feel unable to understand what may have led you to add that tag to Josephson's photograph. As for other three images, they come from an Iranian website with no indication, whether explicit or implicit, that the images in question were copy-righted. Moreover, the objects shown on these photographs, as their names correctly indicate, are "National" buildings, as opposed to private buildings; in other words, they belong to all. You may not believe it, but I have tens, if not hundreds, of unanswered e-mails in my e-mail box, all concerning requests for permission to use photographs on Wikipedia. You cannot just penalise me for other people not responding to my e-mail requests. In general, I suspect, people in Iran do not respond to e-mails from unknown people coming from abroad (I do not live in Iran), fearing perhaps that they might be accused of being "foreign agents". To make a long story short, I sincerely believe that it serves no one, in fact it wastes my time and efforts, to remove the above-mentioned photographs, for reasons of not having "appropriate" sources mentioned. You should also realise that these sources often have very short lifetimes: people just lose their interest in their blogs and consequently fail to renew their subscriptions to their domain names so that over time their blogs get lost in the cyberspace. I emphasise, the website from where I copied the three photographs (Bank-e Melli, etc.) carried no sign indicating that these photographs were copyrighted. In conclusion, may I hereby request you kindly to remove those tags that you have added to my uploaded images? I think there is still such a thing as personal responsibility, and I do take full responsibility for the images that I upload to Wikipedia. With kind regards, --BF 14:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
P.s.) I have just made a thorough search of the internet, the site from which I copied (already sometimes ago --- I had only yesterday the time to upload them to Wikipedia) the images of Bank-e Melli, etc., no longer is there. Please have a go at it yourself: use Google Images, and search for any combination of "Bank-e Melli" and "Ferdowsi Street", etc., and nothing relevant comes up. This just confirms what I wrote above earlier, that some blogs have a very short lifetime. --BF 14:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please keep Wikipedia "free" as diligently as you wish, but I am afraid that any dogmatic approach, as you, as well as many of your colleagues, are adopting, will ultimately deplete any organisation of any individual of even modest ability. Let me make one thing clear: I do not wish to be pushed around. I do my very best to do things on Wikipedia as responsibly as possible and consequently do not wish to be interrogated on such issues as, for instance, "Where did the BSD license on Image:Shokooh Mirzadegi.jpg come from?" I would not have uploaded Ms Mirzadegi's photograph to Wikipedia if I had not had her explicit permission to do so. Consequently, I am inclined to see your question as a question concerning my integrity. I also believe that I have been for long enough on Wikipedia to have earned some measure of trust on the part of the editors. If you believe that I am unreasonable, you have two choices: either you keep insisting, or you pass the work to someone else who does not approach the work as dogmatically as you do. If you decide to choose the former, then I am afraid that I will just leave Wikipedia; I am not in here for arguing with people. I saw that you have left a message on the talk page of User:Carnildo, just below my message, so you must be aware that in the past 24 hours some of the images uploaded by me have disappeared without any reason. I have already told Carnildo that should the problem remain unresolved by the end of today, early tomorrow morning I will clean up my page and leave Wikipedia for good. This should suffice to show that I am serious in my consideration to leave Wikipedia, aborting my plans of doing some serious work on some entries concerning condensed-matter physics and mathematical physics (in its present form, the entry concerning the BCS theory borders on being utterly wrong, to name but an example). Please check my page tomorrow and see whether I am still around (I will leave a message if I leave); in the case that I have left, please feel free and delete as much of my contributions as you desire, including any image that you might fancy to delete; I will no longer care. --BF 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
I reviewed and corrected User:NumaNumaDud's contribs, but the older vandalism was subtle and clever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I got them all, so you don't have to. I was sorta biding my time until an admin noticed :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cobi's RfA
I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate you stepping up and volunteering that you were one of the admins Cobi spoke to about adding the RfA to his edit summary. Your explanation at the RfA is fully acceptable to me and I can easily see how it would happen. I'm afraid it is often the norm to duck and run when one's advice comes under a challenge. You showed character in speaking out and not allowing the nom to dangle. I did not oppose based on the canvassing comment so your comment doesn't affect my vote, but I did want you to know I appreciated your transparency. -JodyB talk 00:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Franz Josef Strauß
Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Kyle?
No, but I am someone close to him (who you know!). Hope you are well KM! Littledog (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kevin...I need your Wiki advice
Hi Kevin. Can you please email me? I need to ask you a private question concerning Wiki. Thanks a bunch. Jon Stewart jonalanstewart@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertrooney (talk • contribs) 02:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RE: Edit Summaries
I believe you have it wrong, I simply reverted the biased vandalism. Mr. Raptor (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RFA
If that open offer of a nomination is still open, I want to try and take the plunge :) Q T C 04:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
