User talk:CosineKitty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Phoenix[edit]

Thanks for the work on Phoenix, it's shaping up nicely! I replied to your comment with a new section. It might be worth splitting the info box, if we don't split it then I think adding the field is a good idea, in fact we should add a whole section for landers. -Ravedave (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Mercury & its Lobate-ness[edit]

Thanks for the link; didn't think to check Wiktionary for a def of this term. You can link to other projects by adding a prefix to the article title (such as [[fr:John Fitzgerald Kennedy]], which produces fr:John Fitzgerald Kennedy). I don't know how to do that for wiktionary, though. I'll see what I can dig up. Again, thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. You do it thus: lobate. But do we really need to link standard English words to their dictionary definitions? Best wishes. --RobertGtalk 13:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I had the same concern that maybe I was going overboard. The only reason I wanted to link in this instance was because I didn't know the word. I looked it up in Wikipedia, but there was no such article. I then tried Wiktionary and it wasn't there either. Finally I consulted the Merriam Webster online dictionary and found the definition. It was a duh moment, but I went ahead and added the term to Wiktionary. I figured if I had to go out of my way to understand the sentence because of this one word, maybe other college-educated, native English speakers would appreciate a handy definition. Another possibility in this instance would be to replace lobate with its synonym lobed. I appreciate the concern about the overuse of links to define words; if used at all, it should be used with restraint. If possible, unusual terms should be linked to other encyclopedia articles. If a Lobate article existed, I would have linked to it, but I certainly didn't see the point of creating one. CosineKitty (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL[edit]

I've done it 2-3 times myself :) Vishnava talk 21:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism, June 28[edit]

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. here. Cindy Flynn (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That edit wasn't mine... I was trying to revert that vandalism myself! For the record, see the following diffs:
CosineKitty (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I see. I'm sorry. I've reviewed the changes and clearly see you where reverting vandalism. Sorry. Cindy Flynn (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't take it personally. I figured it was a mistake, which I know is very easy to make when one is fighting the tide of stupid vandalism here. :) I just wanted to set the record straight on my talk page lest others read here and think I'm one of those idiots. Thanks for taking the time to reply. CosineKitty (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Explorer Articles[edit]

Thanks for updating the Explorer 33 article, I was trying to figure out how to do it myself after I ran across the additional documentation on NASA's Technical reports server. I also tried to find additional information on Explorer 49 but there does not seem to be much online about that one. FYI I plan to run down anything the NTRS has on Explorer 35 in a few days. Graham1973 (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you like what I did. It's funny, I stumbled across Explorer 33 because of a link from the Joan Feynman article. Explorer 33 was in bad shape when I found it. It also left the impression that the mission was a total failure, but when I read the references, it was anything but. So now I'm getting more interested in the whole Explorer series of missions. I will leave Explorer 35 to you. I will look through the others and pick one to adopt for myself! :) I think it would be nice to use the Template:Infobox Spacecraft in all of these articles for a consistent look. What do you think about that? CosineKitty (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be a good idea to edit the entire Explorer series of articles for consistency of appearance and to have all of the series listed there is currently a huge gap between Explorer 17 and Explorer 30 . I've done a preliminary search through the NASA Technical Reports Server for information on Explorer 35 but it looks like the online material is almost entirely composed of Mission results with little in the way of technical documentation. The same situation seems to apply for Explorer 49, aside from the launching plans there is little available. That said a title search using 'Explorer' as the keyword should bring up a lot of useful information.Graham1973 (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Reference[edit]

Thanks, I've fixed it. I'd copied the content from another article, and the reference, without the full citation was carried along. PS I also noticed you added the &nsbp; entity. It's already there as the unicode character. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Care to report on journalist?[edit]

Cyber-security journalist Brian Krebs is being credited with some impressive accomplishments in making the Internet a safer place. Would you or someone you know like to look into improving his article? --74.177.69.215 (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

is are agreement in number[edit]

You changed none of these are discussed to none of these is discussed. Are you sure that's right? SpinningSpark 23:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Spinningspark. Now that you brought it up, I wasn't so sure. I looked it up in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage. To summarize, it says that either singular or plural is correct, and is more a matter of style than grammar. The sentence in question, "None of these is (are) discussed in detail here ...", could be read as "Not one of these ...". In that case, we would have to select "is" to modify the subject of the sentence, "one". But Merriam-Webster's usage research shows no such mechanical strictness on the part of authoritative users of the English language. I'm still leaning toward "is" as sounding better in this case, but either way should be fine. CosineKitty (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I can only say "is" sounds utterly wrong to me. "Not one of these..." is clearly singular (from the word one) and therefore requires "is". "None of these..." to my mind is the same construction as "all of these..." and requires "are". SpinningSpark 19:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It is one of those gray areas in English, and I don't think it's a big deal either way. You have definitely done the bulk of the work on that article, so I would say you deserve the right of the tie-breaker on this!  :) CosineKitty (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll change it back, although I wasn't so much wanting to fight you over it - it was more that I was intrigued that something that sounds "obviously" wrong to me could be considered correct by others. SpinningSpark 22:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Naziism[edit]

You are very perceptive for a man who has lived only one lifetime.Lestrade (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Thank you, Lestrade. I would hope to convince others not to take things so seriously, but as another Mark Twain quote reports, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It won't work, and it annoys the pig." CosineKitty (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...[edit]

...for your attempt to help cooler heads prevail and return the discussion to actual improvements. Hopefully we can avoid a resumption of hostilities while the good edits are being restored to the lede. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This means a lot to me that you would come here and say that. After 5 years editing on Wikipedia, this is, as far as I can remember, the first time I have been thanked for trying to make peace. Something about the culture here, perhaps constantly arguing with aggressive personalities and fighting vandalism takes the fun out of it, so knowing I'm not alone trying to create some harmony helps me want to stick around and keep improving articles I care about. Thank you again for your kind words of encouragement. CosineKitty (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm very glad I took a moment to say it, in that case. You're right about the atmosphere: I consider myself an extremely non-combative editor, but there are still times when it's easy to fall into a pattern of arguing over the minutia of what the Other Editor says in each post rather than actually working towards consensus. So thanks again, keep up the good work and happy editing! Olaf Davis (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Peace Barnstar 6.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Because five years without thanks is far too long for peacekeeping on this site. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Olaf! I am truly honored! CosineKitty (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! By the way, I meant to mention: when I claimed in an edit summary to disagree with part of what you said, I think I'd mistaken your description of what was sufficient for what was necessary and sufficient. That misunderstanding aside, I agree with what you said as the most productive way forward. Olaf Davis (insecure) (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Modification of Brews' sanctions[edit]

Hi CosineKitty:

Thanks for your support during the recent consideration of my sanctions. Unfortunately, no action appears likely. More unfortunately the process itself did not lead to any assessment of careful suggestions, nor evidence, but simply a blank knee-jerk support of the status quo. IMO, that bodes ill for such arbitration processes, which seem unable to come to grips with issues, or to evolve during the process to a stance based upon what has transpired. All we get from admins is tired repetition of unchanged views. Brews ohare (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Brews. Sorry things aren't going so well for you here. I hope the admins will change their minds and at least give you the ability to edit your user space. I would think that would be uncontroversial. I have to say I wasn't a fan of some of your past edits in Speed of light and Second, but I do think you deserve a chance to demonstrate a willingness to work with other editors on the consensus process. You obviously bring a lot of specialized knowledge to the table, and it would be a shame to completely lose that potential contribution. CosineKitty (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Chess[edit]

I reverted some of your edit. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree with your edit. The grammar has a problem: "There are also source-available proprietary software." You say "are", but the noun "software" is singular. It should be "there is ... software" (just like "there is a boy"). You would not say "there are a boy", so "there are ... software" is wrong. Also, the "proprietary" has a meaning of "hidden" or "trade secret". That word means that the workings of the software is obscured somehow. This is not true, because it is open source. The web page for the software says it is "copyrighted", which does not mean the same thing: it just means that the author retains the right to control who copies the work. I hope you will reconsider this edit. CosineKitty (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Per the OSI definition and the definition on wikt:open-source derivatives of the source must be allowed. Therefore I used the word "proprietary" as in proprietary software to convey that it is not open source. You were right about the uncountable noun software; I changed "are" to "is". The term "source-available proprietary software" is used on the Proprietary software article. The term "source-available" is used on Open-source software and Open-source license. Derivatives are clearly disallowed on http://www.tckerrigan.com/Chess/TSCP . --Ysangkok (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, that sounds fine to me. That makes sense about "proprietary" versus "open source". Thank you for taking the time to reply! CosineKitty (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics[edit]

Thank you for joining WikiProject physics. As you know, there have been some disputes lately, and I was hoping to clarify the way in which we choose leadership roles in the project. If you would like to comment, the discussion is here.Likebox (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

e2 origins[edit]

You should be more careful. Discussion of your edit here. The user thefez is one those founders btw. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I acted too hastily here. Sorry about that. It would be nice to have a citation for something like this, but I admit the combination of an IP edit with a claim about a particular high school caused me to be unfairly prejudiced against the edit. (This is the sort of pattern that is almost always vandalism.) So in the future I will try to research more and maybe just stick a "citation needed" on it if I can't find anything. CosineKitty (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Well you don't need to research. Just looking at the IP user's contribution history usually tells the story. This used to be more of a problem than it is now, I think that's why. IP editing is kina a halmark of Wiki, capital W which is why although many would like to eliminate it, it remains and probably will remain. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)