User talk:Cybercobra

Behold, the glory of Wikipedia!

Archiveify

E-mail spam relayed by country in Q2-2007.png

Hey friend, you probably want to save yourself this next time. Outdated is no reason for removal. Do not waste work of others.--Kozuch (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For myself to make a chart later: [1] --Cybercobra (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

PowerShell

Would you be willing to go into further detail why you reverted my edit here? Thanks. Fran Rogers (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If you don't explain your objections, I am going to assume you're OK with me reverting back to my version. Fran Rogers (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Newfoundland Disambiguation Links

Hi. I've just reverted the "two other uses" templates on Newfoundland and Labrador and Newfoundland (island) again. The problem with the Newfoundland Island linkage is that Newfoundland Island is actually Ukasiksalik Island on Davis Inlet, Labrador; it is an apparently unpopulated island of limited notability, and "Newfoundland Island" is apparently an alternate name for it. I'm not sure where this came from, but it has created a huge amount of confusion (I have just reverted a whole bunch of links from historical articles linking to an unpopulated Labrador island when they actually meant the island of Newfoundland - some of these were particularly obvious cases and in a few the article actually linked to both Newfoundland (island) and Ukasiksalik Island under the old name). It isn't even on Groswater Bay, but a few hundred kilometers north of it, on Davis Inlet.

The "two other uses" templates on Newfoundland and Labrador and Newfoundland (island) were put there because those are the two most common uses of the term Newfoundland; they link to each other so that anyone searching for the one but getting the other can easily shift between them. The Newfoundland disambiguation page links to both of those plus the half-dozen or so other possible meanings, and is linked from each of them using the "two other uses" template in case the searching user actually meant something else.

The existence of the Ukasiksalik Island article (renamed from the old Newfoundland Island) has already created a second disambiguation page at Newfoundland Island, which is making matters worse. I have a WP:PROD tag on Ukasiksalik Island for notability reasons and assuming that goes through I'm going to request a speedy delete of the 2nd disambiguation page as a duplicate.

I'm not trying to edit war with you; I'm just trying to make sure the distinction between the island of Newfoundland and the province it is party of remains clear. The newfoundland Island article should (in my opinion) never have been created in the first place.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, the province's official name changed only recently to Newfoundland and Labrador - until only a few years ago it was the Province of Newfoundland (hence the confusion). There was a fairly extensive debate bordering on 3RR about where Newfoundland should redirect to (province vs island) a few years ago - see here for details. The eventual result was to tag both pages with the "two other uses" tag linking each other and the disambiguation page, which has served fairly well until recently (although I'm not sure it was ever formally agreed upon). I think this provides a reasonable response to the problem of identity, and gives the user a shortcut to the most likely alternative they were looking for (and I have to admit, it make for easier maintenance jumping back and forth between the two articles as well). Speaking as a Canadian and a Newfoundlander, I can also tell you that in colloquial usage it is generally referred to as Newfoundland (meaning the province, not the island), with a few notable exceptions.

If you really don't like it, we can bring it to the article talk page for discussion. I think, though, that there's enough grounds here to treat this as an exception to the WP:NAMB guidelines and leave it in.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

TODO

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Citing_sources&curid=49698&diff=395483452&oldid=395481720 Flavored water Fibre supplements Health effects of caffeine

• Ref-ify Emily Rosa
• Screwy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=404623949&oldid=404501976
• suffix: Assignment (computer programming) vs. Operator (programming)
• EC number (chemistry)

NOW

• FIX: File:Python add5 syntax.svg
• rm WP:SYN of "blue planet" alias of Earth
• questionable: Common operator notation
• rename 56 kbit/s modem

Black_Names_and_Racism_in_the_Hiring_Process —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.29.136 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Three more quiries (part b)

As to, the “inappropriate caption” that said, “opening phrase, inspires friends, provokes opponents” changed to “’We the people’ as it appears in an original copy of the Constitution”.

(a) >> Did that quote-in-quote above come out right? >> Is it still good style?

(b) If I am writing a quote, it makes sense to use the new convention putting the last punctuation inside the quote. That shows I did not impose my own question mark to change the meaning.

But if I end a sentence with a term or phrase in quotes, >> Do we now nest the period inside the quotation mark? Once upon a time and long ago, it was, The debate was not “for real”.

I think I had the ratification debate in mind, with Patrick Henry’s denunciation ringing in my ears. A little “transference” I suppose. If the section text relates to the phrase’s controversy the edited caption might be appropriate. But I agree, WP:CAP nixes the previous caption. As the section now stands, it was an “inappropriate caption”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

TODO

United States Constitution

Cobra (recent move)

Hi, can you fix the move here and here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricvelozo (talk • contribs) 17:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I know. I asked you because you edited the article and have voted in elimination of the other article, and I didn't know where to ask for help from administrators. Sorry if I went an opportunist. :) --Ricvelozo (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Human article

Hi. Will you take a look at the Talk:Human#Possibly section about an objection I have concerning a recent edit? 193.169.145.43 (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)