User talk:Lonaowna

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

RE question on vandals[edit]

Hello fellow Lonaowna! :) Yes, there is a solution to the vandalism problem. You can report persistent vandals to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. But before reporting, the user must have been given enough warnings on their talkpage, escalating from the mildest to the strongest. To give warnings on the talkpage of the vandal, you can use the predefined templates {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}, {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}, {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} and {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} secuentially (you use first 1, then 2, then 3, then 4). After the fourth warning has been given, you can go to "Administrator intervention against vandalism" and say for example:

  • {{IPvandal|IP address}} vandalized after final warning ~~~~
  • {{Vandal|username}} vandalized after final warning ~~~~

You use IPvandal or Vandal depending on if the user is anonymous (e.g. 123.123.123.123) or a registered user. You can find the complete list of warnings at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. The list is huge but the most important messages are the "uw-vandalism" ones.

To summarize:

  • You find somebody vandalized a page. You post {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article}} on their talkpage ("Article" is the name of the vandalized article).
  • The user continues to vandalize the same or other article(s). You post {{subst:uw-vandalism2|Article}} on their talkpage.
  • The user vandalizes again. You post {{subst:uw-vandalism3|Article}} on their talkpage.
  • The user continues vandalizing. You post {{subst:uw-vandalism4|Article}} on their talkpage.
  • The user vandalizes for the fifth time. You post a report to "Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism". An admin will come around to block him.

See for example the talkpage of a user that was warned several times, then a report was issued, and then the user was blocked: User_talk:131.109.81.223.

I hope all this helps you. Ask me again if you have doubts. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

extusb[edit]

hey, sorry about the links that redirected to the same page, I was trying to start a separate page for ExtUSB, but people seem to like having a ridiculously long page.

BF3 Wii U version[edit]

Any particular reason you decided to remove a section of the page? Muskeato 15:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not explaining. I thought this was not much more than speculation. I just reread the source and it looks like it's actually quite concrete about the Wii U. Looks like I misread it! I'm really sorry for removing the section without any further research. Lonaowna (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of A-Trust[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 A-Trust 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 an organization or company, but it does not 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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Fiddle Faddle 22:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(CrossFit) Thanks for kicking me in the butt[edit]

Thanks for having the courage to stand up and tell me that my references were crap. Sometimes it's difficult to be bold like that. The article has been significantly improved thanks to your tags. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks so much for your new references! They improve the article a lot. Sorry if I was a bit rude when removing the old ones, I didn't really look in to who placed them and I assumed it had been someone with a commercial incentive.
Thanks again for your work! Lonaowna (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I completely understand. I must admit that at first I was a little offended, but creating a better Wikipedia is much more important than maintaining my ego. I think it's good to be blunt with each other when accuracy is on the line. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. Keep up the good work! Lonaowna (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of discussion on WP:AN/I regarding disruptive edits by IP-hopper on Nvidia-related articles[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding to discuss a disruptive IP-hopping editor that edits Nvidia-related articles. The thread is Disruptive edits by IP-hopper on Nvidia-related articles. Thank you. —Jesse Viviano (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Windows Server 2008 support[edit]

Hi.

Actually, the sentence that you reverted was half-correct. RTM is unsupported, per your own source. Support for service pack levels before SP2 ended 29 April 2011. Except, there is no SP1, am I right?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you're completely right. Thanks for noticing! Lonaowna (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

in re: your question[edit]

Your question here can be answered here. Helpsome (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I understand. Next time please leave a short comment in the edit description, so everyone knows why you undid it (I could not immediately see that it was vandalism). Thanks again! Lonaowna (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. I was undoing a lot of additions and I didn't take the time to add edit summaries for each one. My mistake. Helpsome (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to rain on your parade...[edit]

Re. "free rein" vs. "free reign": It's true that "reign" means "rule" or "dominion" or the like; but the expression "free rein" comes from the days when horse transportation was the rule. If you kept the reins tight, you had a lot of control over the horse; if you held them loosely or let go of them altogether, then the horse could do whatever it wanted. Thus giving someone "free rein" meant giving them lots of autonomy; keeping them on a "tight rein" meant that you were keeping close control.

The phrase's spelling is discussed at Grammarist, at Oxford Dictionaries, and at the NYT's newsroom blog. — Ammodramus (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not properly researching! Thanks for the lesson! :) Lonaowna (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
No problem! I only wish I could write in Dutch (or any other non-English language) half as well as you can in English. — Ammodramus (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. My English is okay... but like you showed me, there is always more to learn! And trust me, it is much more useful to know English than Dutch nowadays. ;) Lonaowna (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

LNB and Noise Figure[edit]

I tweaked the LNB section on Noise Figures. The main problem seemed to have been that the article was less than clear. It is basically the input signal to noise ratio divided by the output signal to noise ratio (Noise Factor) and is expressed as a dB value if it is the Noise Figure. It is a ratio of ratios but without that point, the article didn't make much sense. Jmccormac (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! This makes it much clearer.
I edited the section because I misread it the first time and thought it was wrong, but when I read the Noise Figure article I found out that it was right.
With your edit it is immediately clear, even without reading the other article! Lonaowna (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Windows 10[edit]

None of the sources support your claim that Windows 10 only runs on systems with UEFI firmware and forbids use on BIOS firmware. OEMs making officially licensed Windows 10 devices must build them to Microsoft's standards, which include the requirement for use of UEFI firmware with Secure Boot enabled, as with Windows 8. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This source clearly says:

The presentation (via Venture Beat), named "Minimum System HW Requirements & Compatibility for Windows Platforms", states the screen size, RAM, storage, graphics and firmware mentioned to run Windows 10. For PCs, the OS would need the UEFI 2.3.1 firmware, ...

It does not say anything about only being valid for OEMs or new pcs. So either this source is incorrect (which it can surely be), but in that case you will need to replace it with another one that says that UEFI is not required. Lonaowna (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)