User talk:Tayana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] National Yacht Club

What is wrong with saying that the National Yacht Club is a member of the Dublin Bay Sailing Club? It is a member of the Dublin Bay Sailing Club and the NYC article could do with enhancement / more detail. rejoyce1976 10:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

    • It is factually incorrect to date that a Club is a member of another Club.

By definition a Club is a collective grouping of individuals with a common purpose. Individuals can hold membership of one or many clubs, but that does not make one Club a member of another. Seperately your erroneous assertion is not backed up by any reference in suport, and could be considered POV Tayana 12:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • If such a relation is not membership, what would you call such a relation? Over here, we have been saying Explorers Club is a member of Moraine Sailing Club. The president of Explorers Club has filled out a membership application in the club's name (not his own) and paid dues. This basically gives membership priviledges to the Explorers Club as a single entity (not individually to all its constituent members).

Your attention is drawn to Wikipedia:Copyrights, in particular Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others. Djegan 19:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


There is no assertion of copyright in the Disclaimer of www.nyc.ie. Also fair use implies that portions of a publication including a web page may be reproduced. Accordingly I consider that the original posting is justified. Neither is there a commercial element involved. If I can find a contact page on nyc.ie, I will seek permission to reproduce the information if you think that is needed!. Tayana 22:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Even supposing for the sake of argument that the material in question is fair use, that's still not satisfactory. Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids "fair use" material in cases when a free alternative can readily be created — Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. (The lack of a copyright notice on www.nyc.ie does not mean that the material on the site is not copyrighted.) Demiurge 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please

remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. Accusing other good faith editors of vandalism is against Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks.

I have explained releatedly why I have removed those paragaphs from Pat Kenny (weasel words, unsourced) and I'll thank you not to refer to my good-faith edits as vandalism. If you want these paragraphs to stay in, then you need to provide sources for them. Phrases like "some critics" "is seen to have" "many saw" are not acceptable substitutes for proper citations. Demiurge 10:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Demiurge 10:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Demiurge 10:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of policy. It applies to all including you.

You have reverted twice in two hours. Expect to be blocked.

Your editing of this page leaves non-sequiters. If you don't like my edits, edit and enhance them.

Your edits are crude and leave a meaningless paragraph heading, whiich disimproves the article. To bluntly do as you are doing disimproves and is against the spirit of wiki and must be considered vandalism.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayana (talk • contribs)

  • If you believe I have violated WP:3RR (hint: I haven't) feel free to report me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and see what the administrators think. Also, "vandalism" in the context of Wikipedia has a very specific definition -- it is not an all-purpose accusation to be thrown around whenever you disagree with someone else's edits -- WP:VAND#What_vandalism_is_not Demiurge 11:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've removed the orphaned section header by the way, thank you for pointing that out. Demiurge 11:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of "ref"

I have raised your usage of the "ref" formating at Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board#Inappropriate use of .22ref.22 formatting.3F. Feel free to comment. Djegan 21:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Éamon de Valera/Irish Free State

Regarding your recent edits to Éamon de Valera, I do not know if it dawned on you but the Irish Free State ceased to exist in December 1937 and was long gone by the time of Ireland's exit from the Commonwealth with the declaration of the Republic of Ireland in 1949.

You might edit the text to reflect that fact. Regards. Djegan 10:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorisation

I notice you have just changed the categorisation of Éamon de Valera from A to B. Why have you done this? It's been A since the article was first assessed on 10th August, apart from a short period of vandalism by an anon user today. -- Arwel (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actuary

Please do not deliberately introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Actuary. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Avi 04:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bookmakers

I can see the logic of placing bookmakers as practicioners of outcomes of games of chance, as being appropriate in the context of actuaries' development as a profession. You seem to delete such references. Why? Many professions have evolved from different backgrounds, and the reference to mathematicians' involvement in chance outcomes seems to be proof that gambling practicioners preceeded the actuarial professionals. Tayana 03:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The actuarial profession evolved from the study of human mortality and morbidity. While statistics as a whole does benefit greatly from the study of games of chance, actuaries in soecific do not, and the connection to bookmaking is tenuous and misleading. Any reference to bookmaking actually belongs, if at all, in the main statistics articles, not actuary. Thanks. -- Avi 14:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Because it is a long stretch between ACTUARIES and BOOKMAKERS and it adds nothing to the article about ACTUARIES. The only connection is that they both use statistics. Well, so do epidemiologists, census takers, and biochemists. -- Avi 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MOB procedures

The MOB procedures section was redundant with an entire article on MOB. What I did was to remove that section from Sailing because Sailing is way too long and detailed, and insert a link to Man overboard, which had almost exactly the same information. Please take a look at the comments in the last three sections of Talk:Sailing and see if we can agree on an approach. Mrees1997 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sprotected

Hello. YOur taking the template off does not change the protected status of the article, it needs an administrator to remove the protection. The template just informs IP's why they cannot edit the template. -- Avi 05:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] April 2007

Please do not violate Wikipedia policy by introducing inappropriate pages, such as Royal StGeorge Yacht Club, to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Coren 22:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Imperial unit, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --BrokenSphere 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page refactoring

I reverted your edits to the talk page because I noticed that you edited other users' comments, which is generally considered a bad practice. See here. --BrokenSphere 04:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sailing upwind

I mostly reverted one of your edits on Sailing. I removed "None of the above theoretical concepts have moved from paper concepts to physically existing boats on the water and the physics described must be carefuly examined for accuracy," but left "purportedly."

Please do carefully examine the physics for accuracy. I agree that it seems counterintuitive that you could sail upwind, but I can make no good arguments to say it is physically impossible. (And in fact if you consider that a traditional sailboat can sail from point A to a point B directly upwind of point A, it does seem very possible.) BTW, I do agree that the references aren't very good, but I am more inclined to believe them, unless you can find something to back your claims. Aij 20:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] relative velocity

Hi I saw some remarks by you about relative velocity, and I think that you merely scratched the surface of the problem. Which textbook do you use, and what reference frame (or frames) does it relate the definition to? Harald88 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I now improved the first definition and included clarifications on the Talk page by myself and by you. Hope you will like it. Harald88 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)