User talk:Kyle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
I will respond here when the conversation is started here and I will respond on your talk page to anything started there. |
Contents |
[edit] Alright!
Hello, fellow wikipedian! From your contributions, I see you are from Colorado, most likely Boulder. I just want to say hi! (RTD is the best, ain't it?) --Jimbo Herndan 03:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A120
A120 road does have a trivia section, sort of -- it's called "other information". It's very small though and I doubt anyone cares, so I'm fine with leaving the trivia tag out.
[edit] Trivia
Could you please spend a moment to add your 2 cents to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Sections vs. collections and also Wikipedia:Requested moves#September 12, 2007? There seems to be a continued campaign to remove any mention of Trivia sections, but no real attempt to get alternative viewpoints to the table. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your recent RfA
I'm sorry, but I've closed your Request for adminship prematurely. Simply put, you've only got 507 edits on Wikipedia; while edit count isn't the only determining factor, and numerous people have their own personal standards that they judge RfA candidates by, there was no chance that the RfA was going to pass.
I'm sorry about this, and hope you don't take it personally. If you continue to contribute to the project in a positive fashion, I'm confident that you could possibly run a successful RfA in the future. You may want to consider submitting yourself to Wikipedia:Editor review for feedback on where to get some good experience, and when you're ready for RfA again, there's a great Wikipedia:Admin coaching program for you to use, as well as a guide to requests for adminship.
If you have any other questions about becoming an administrator, please don't hesitate to ask me. Good luck! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, that is weird. I have never seen that RfA. I have also never heard of Sethkin35, who seems to have nominated me all by himself. --Kyle(talk) 04:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
==Sockpuppetry case==
 |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kyle for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Allow me to apologize. I should have investigated that RfA more closely. You have to think, it was pretty clever for someone to forge an RfA. Happy editing! J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] History of video game consoles
Well you are going to need to try to find some new numbers, because those are so widely out of date it's not even funny. Charles 14:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I found one to update the Wii, but the numbers are just not that readily available.--Kyle(talk) 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] why i changed it
i changed it because someone had the numbers for ps3 all the way to 8 million or something like that? and they also increased the slaes of the wii and 360. so i changed it back to the previous amount —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crymetyme1000 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] oh i did?
oh sorry. i didn't remember what the numbers were so i just estimated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crymetyme1000 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Help!
{{helpme}} I was recently looking at my userpage in firefox and I noticed that some of my userboxes look a little crazy and outside of the page when they look fine in IE7. I am a complete novice at programming and I only made my userboxes by replacing some of the code of another userbox with some new stuff. I have no idea how to fix the userboxes so I decided to ask for some help. Thank you. --Kyle(talk) 18:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, I've fixed your problem, you should now be able to customize it to your liking. If you require further help, feel free to leave me a message. —— Ryan (talk/contribs) 18:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Norwegian Gem and Norwegian Jewel
Thanks for the Norwegian Gem photo. The page did not have a photo until you contributed, and it's a great shot! I reinstated the trivia section of that page as many of the cruise ship pages contain this, and the material that was therein is consistent with the other pages. I reverted back to the Istanbul pic for Norwegian Jewel, as it does show entire ship, from bow to stern, and shows her actually out on the water, in service as it were. I moved the pic of her taken at Meyer Werft further down the page, and added a link to Meyer Werft's page on the Jewel. Their link now appears directly to the left of the pic you added. Thanks for your contributions. If you have an interest in cruise ships, or nautical ships in general, please have a look at WP:SHIPS. Thanks! --OneCyclone 21:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- That is fine, I just liked the angle of the Meyer Werft picture better, but I can see why you like the other. About the trivia on Norwegian Gem; there is a guideline at WP:TRIVIA that states that trivia sections should be reorganized so that information is integrated into the rest of the article and should not be in sections specifically for Trivia. I am unaware about any policies Wikiproject Ships has about trivia, but just going off of the guideline means that my edit should stay. I'll leave it up to you since I am not really a fan of the policy. I just change sections that seem like they would be easy to integrate. Oh, and just so you know, I will be going on a cruise with the Jewel soon (next week!) so I will probably have an even better picture in a little while. --Kyle(talk) 21:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the trivia section. I have been editing and writing cruise ship pages for some time and nobody every brought it to my attention. I'll try to be more careful in the future and will pull the trivia section from that page, as well as others that I come across. --OneCyclone 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] F/V Northwestern
Hi Kyle. I'm not here to get in an edit war with you. And I'm also not trying to muck your articles up. I'm trying to pull them into an easy navigation system that means far more people will get to see them. The navigation panel and fishing industry templates connect your boat articles with hundred of other articles. You can see this if you click "What links here". The navigation panel pulls your articles into a navigation system that runs across all the fishing articles. This means that anybody browsing fishing articles are likely to come across your articles. If you are going to tuck the navigation panel out of sight then there is no point having it there at all - it has to appear in the same place on every article so it doesn't break the flow, and throw people out of the system , as it were.
I agree it's annoying if the boat info box can't be displayed at the top. For the navigation system to work, fishing boats should maybe not use info boxes. So that's a problem. So you see I'm of two minds about it myself, and I'll leave it for you to choose. If you pull the navigation panels then I will pull the other individual boats out of the fishing navigation system (since we have this info box problem anyway). But that will mean that your boat articles will then return to being somewhat orphaned, with nobody much knowing they are there at all. If you decide to keep the navigation panels, then maybe we could raise the issue of the ship info box problem on WikiProject Ships. Cheers --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize if I appeared confrontational in my earlier edits, but there is just something that annoys me about a navigation box above an info box. To me it seems like the info box is basically the intro to an article/ topic and it is always the place I look first on an article. As such, it is just really annoying to me when the info box is beneath some other box, especially a navigation box. I have nothing against your nav box, in fact, I applaud the effort to organize fishing articles. I would prefer to move the nav box below the info box on all the articles, simply because I think it looks better. I can see the desire for uniformity across the articles, but I don't think it is really all that necessary. Just by the code, the navigation will work even if the box is not in the same place and, really, I think people can see the box just as well below the info box as above. Also, in regards to the info box itself, I definitely think it should stay and I would actually like to add them to all articles as an easy place to look for information. I love organization through navigation boxes, but I also like organizing information on articles through info boxes. --Kyle(talk) 23:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- So I've asked for a discussion on WikiProject Ships which you might like to participate in. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
