User talk:Kenny Ewing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi there, Chris! Welcome to Wikipedia. When you get a chance, drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

You should also feel free to drop me a question on my talk page.

Happy editing, LUDRAMAN | T 19:30, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your note on the new user log. Glad to have you here. If you want ideas for what to write on, you can always check out Wikipedia:Requested articles. There's a big collection of ideas there.

By the way, I'm merging your info from Munfordville into Munfordville, Kentucky. Yes, amazingly, we did have an article on it already, thanks to a 'bot that automatically generated a ton of articles on US towns from US census data a couple years ago. There's no real user-entered information there yet, so yours will be the first. Isomorphic 04:28, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

sig[edit]

Hey, how's it going - actually, I just found out about that a few weeks ago... I found the info on some random metawiki site, but anyway, here's how it works. First, you change your sig in your preferences. The sig I have is Spangineer]] [[User talk:Spangineer|∞. The software fills in the rest... so you just have to type in your user name, and then the link to your talk page, and the symbol you want. You can play around with it too - add symbols between your user page and your talk page, for example. Let me know if you have more questions, and have a good one! Spangineer ∞ 01:24, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

number of contributions[edit]

There's really no way to easily check the number of edits. The way I do it and the way I've seen people do it is to change the link for contributions. For example, when I click "my contributions," the link I go to is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Spangineer. To see my edits at 500 per page, the link is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&namespace=&target=Spangineer&limit=500&offset=0 . But to see if I have made 1000 edits, for example, I change that link to reflect an offset of 900 and a limit of 100 - that is, I want the offset and the limit to add up to 1000. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&namespace=&target=Spangineer&limit=100&offset=900) If there is a "next page" link at the top of that list, then I know that I have made over 1000 edits. So then I go in and change the offset to 125 or something and keep changing it until I find the number where I don't have a "next page" link. Sorry if that's a bit confusing. I'm pretty sure that that is the only way to calculate it... I remember seeing an explanation somewhere, but of course I don't remember where. --Spangineer ∞ 04:08, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I found something while looking over the village pump - it's an easy to use edit counter. Enjoy! --Spangineer ∞ 03:04, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

In all seriousness, I understand the point you were attempting to make (and please see my response). However, I would encourage you to direct your efforts towards improving Wikipedia, and not create further work for others. The goals of Wikipedia are positive, and thus are best served by positive efforts. Mackensen (talk) 05:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are four mechanisms for detecting vandalism on Wikipedia, that I am aware of:
  1. Recent changes patrol consists of many users, including some anons, who take a break from their normal activities by looking at the Special:Recent changes page. There isn't an organised roster, and not enough people do this, so not every edit gets scrutinised. If an edit is made by a logged in user, it is less likely to be checked, and more so if the user has something on their user page (so their name doesn't appear as a red link). If a user makes a doubtful edit which isn't obviously vandalism, then I check the user history; if they've made lots of good efforts in the past, then I'll let the edit go. I have been known to revert perfectly good edits (as it turned out) because I didn't understand them, and I've apologised to the user when appropriate. Your edit to carrot got past either because it wasn't checked or the checker decided you seemed genuine.
  2. Most vandals go on to edit more pages, and the chances of being picked up by RC patrol increases with each edit. When vandalism is picked up, it's standard practice to check other recent edits for vandalism. I've noticed that some people start with very subtle vandalism, then get more blatent. I've reverted even seemingly innocuous edits when they've been closely followed by blatent vandalism by the same user or ip. Since you only made the one bad edit, this mechanism didn't apply to you.
  3. Some proportion of articles, possibly most of them, are on someone's watchlist, and that someone probably knows a fair bit about that subject (not always, I have pages on my watchlist solely because I saw someone vandalise them in RC patrol, saw that they've been vandalised before, and so watch them in case of any recurrence). It's possible that no one is watching Carrot, but it's also quite likely that they were asleep or on holiday (especially at this time of year in the Southern hemisphere) when you made your edit. If you'd waited 24 hours, maybe they'd have checked their watchlist.
  4. Finally, other people will eventually read the article, possibly in the process of editing it. I've very rarely come across month-old vandalism because I'm adding a category to an article. I note that someone did exactly that after your edit, but they either didn't read the article in detail or didn't realise that your edit was false. I see that Evil Monkey has edited it since, possibly because of your post on Village pump, but possibly because he's active on New Zealand topics. He's a sensible user; the chances are good that he'd have noticed your edit. Indeed, his edit is correcting false information added earlier to the article, probably not with bad intentions but by someone who didn't express themselves well.
Wikipedia gets a couple of dozen edits a minute, and less than 10 percent are destructive edits. Almost all of these are easy to detect vandalism/user tests. I think it's most unlikely that we have many users who have gone to the trouble of building up a decent edit history and then used that credibility to slip a false fact in. There are greater problems with POV pushers and people who don't understand the subject they're writing about.
I hope this puts things in better perspective, and maybe even inspires you to do some RC patrol yourself.-gadfium 23:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Calcutta -> Kolkata name change[edit]

Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 13:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Grey Yoghurt[edit]

I suggest that you modify your request on both WP:RM and mirror of the words on Talk:Yoghurt to include a mention of how the "Primary Author" spelt it. I think you will summon more +ve interest from WP:RM readers.

See Talk:Grey#Requested Move: (There and back again...) for the type of wording I mean. BTW I had written the article I would have spelt it Yoghurt, but I pronounce it Yoghurt just as I do not use a hard C when saying "schedule" but do when saying "school". Philip Baird Shearer 09:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:Chris Ducat - I see where you participated in the matter concerning Abraham Lincoln's sexuality that was discussed and voted upon on Talk:Abraham Lincoln. There has been a lengthy and exhausting discussion surrounding this exact same issue at Talk:Elvis Presley and the archived Talk pages as well. Because this has the potential to create a new standard for what is acceptable sources, I thought that you might want to be aware of it.

If the policy consensus you and others arrived at on the Abraham Lincoln issue is set aside in the Presley article it will result in new ones for countless others. I think your group discussion that arrived at a determination of what constituted a proper source should be defined by the Wikipedia community and set as firm policy which would go a long way in helping to substantially reduce the tiresome and repeated edit wars. Thank you for your interest. Please note I have left the same message for others who worked on this matter. Ted Wilkes 20:24, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ddrmax2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ddrmax2.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 14:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of webcomics[edit]

We do not list deleted articles here, so you should remove the links to deleted articles that you have added. If those deleted articles are recreated, then you can add the link back. As it is, links to deleted and/or nonexistant articles make the list less useful. -- Dragonfiend 05:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanide and Happiness[edit]

I think I could support a Cyanide and Happiness article, but before I unprotect it, it will have to go through deletion review. If that doesn't happen, another admin will just come along and delete it as recreated material (frequently abbreviated CSD G4 in edit summaries). If you do bring it to deletion review, I suggest working on the Comixpedia version at Comixpedia:Cyanide and Happiness. That version is a good start, and if you present a solid example of an article, it has a much greater chance of being revived. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree you could mostly likely make better article than me. But the Comixpedia version is a good start. It would crazy not to say that Cyanide and Happiness isnt notable, so try to convince them not to bias against it,again. When your done or whatever show me what you have and i'll see if i can help.--Nimrod1234 18:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the new Cyanide and Happiness article. You added the fact that it was removed from TopWebComics because of allegations of fraud. It would be much appreciated if you could find a Reliable Source for this, as it would add substantial notability to the article, which is especially important given it's AfD debate. Thanks! --TexasDex 15:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yogurt move[edit]

I wonder if you would consider striking out the reason you gave for moving yoghurt to yogurt, and putting a different one in place. The fact that "yogurt" is more common is not a valid reason to move the page, and it puts off the voters who are aware of that fact. If you changed it to something like the following, people would be less likely to vote against the move in my opinion:

The article was improperly moved from its original spelling, "yogurt", to "yoghurt". The manual of style states that in the absence of specific reasons to prefer one dialect, the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor should be used. The first version used "yogurt".

--Yath 15:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - I was looking at the old move from May. Ok, I've left this message at Koavf's page... please disregard... have a nice day --Yath 16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gerber[edit]

Hey there, I noticed that you created the article for Michael Gerber. I've moved the article to be at Michael Gerber (fiction) because of the confusion with a prominent nonfiction writer also named Michael Gerber, and I created Michael Gerber (nonfiction) to lead people to the other writer by that name. "Michael Gerber" now leads to the disambiguation page. I've moved all the "what links here" links to the appropriate Barry Trotter creator where necessary. Just thought you should know! Cheers, Keeper | 76 20:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message regarding your use of the No Multi License Template[edit]

In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect.
You currently have {{NoMultiLicense}} on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NoMultiLicense template if you have any comments.

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here. [reply]

Nomination of Michael Gerber (parodist) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Gerber (parodist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gerber (parodist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Chris Ducat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Chris Ducat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert Ducat[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Robert Ducat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Low-carbohydrate diet. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chris: I got the same warning sign with the section name "September 2022" six days ago by a user named "Zefr". In my case because of talking against deletions in the article myocarditis (guess by whom).--Myosci (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kenny_Ewing&oldid=1145994770"