User talk:Avengingbandit

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

The template is[edit]

{{message}} Skier Dude (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

OK thank you. Kartsy 17:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sig[edit]

Hi. Your signature needs to include at least one link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page. Please see WP:SIGLINK. Killiondude (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ok. Kartsy 23:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Triple-elimination tournament[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Triple-elimination tournament has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability is not demonstrated.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Matchup(+4).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Matchup(+4).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Matchup(+3).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Matchup(+3).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Matchup(+2).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Matchup(+2).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Matchup(+1).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Matchup(+1).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Matchup(-4).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Matchup(-4).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Matchup(-3).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Matchup(-3).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Matchup(-2).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Matchup(-2).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Matchup(-1).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Matchup(-1).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Matchup(0).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Matchup(0).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Forum:Base 12 is better than Base 10[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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. →Στc. 22:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to create a forum. Avengingbandit 22:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have a forum namespace. This is not so in Wikia, though. →Στc. 22:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
OK sorry. I'm kinda new to this wiki so... Avengingbandit 22:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing to be sorry about, you were not aware of it and almost everything can be undone if necessary.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia,and may they long continue. →Στc. 22:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey[edit]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Done. Avengingbandit 00:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Cuong.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cuong.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Hey there. When reverting vandalism, you should probably just leave a neutral edit summary and move on. All the they want is recognition, and when you give summaries like these, you're feeding the trolls. Cheers! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. I just wanted to have a little fun. Avengingbandit 19:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem, here's a cookie. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Yay! *eats* Avengingbandit 19:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Duodecimal advocate, eh?[edit]

Please try to convince me. I'm wavering between 6, 10, 12, 60, and 120 for now. Mostly the middle three. And I would indeed like some resolution to this. Double sharp (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Base 6 is problematic for the same reasons as base 2 is, though to a lesser extent. Too small, meaning digits increase in quantity rather quickly compared to other bases. It's radix (6) also lacks a useful factor in 4. For base ten, the fact that it's ubiquitous means nothing to it's versatility. The only reason base ten emerged as the universal counting system is because we have ten fingers. 10, like 6, also lacks 4 as a factor. It doesn't have the problem of it's digit expansion expanding quickly like bases 2 and 6 does, but at least 6 has 3 as a factor, which I (and probably everyone had base 10 didn't become universal) think is much more useful than having 5 as a factor. For base 60, while it's rich in factors and can handle extreme values (big or small), it doesn't nearly make up for it's super-sized set of symbols to memorize nor does it make up for the amount of totatives it has (7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 49, 53, 59). The flaws of base 120 are basically the same as base 60, just to a more severe degree. For both bases, a sub-base (6/10 or 12/10) can be used, but I can't see that being accepted if it were to ever be proposed to the globe. Base 12 works best because it isn't too big nor too small and has a nice factor set (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, all of which have heavy usage compared to 5 and it's multiples). I find it nice to have 1/3 equal to 0.4 and 1/4 = 0.3. It's square, 144, has factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 18, 24, 36, 48, 72, 144 (Keep in mind that while 60's square, 3600, has a plethora of factors, it's addition to the factors of 144 are all multiples and powers of 5 which isn't very useful to have as a factor). Arithmetic in dozenal is also much easier and more intuitive than all the other bases you're wavering between. I can definitely see the world prospering and advancing much faster had dozenal won out as the main counting system rather than decimal. Avengingbandit 04:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
You are very close to convincing me that 12 is the best base. I do have a couple more questions, though, before I'll be fully convinced. ;-) (1) Why do we need a clean quarter? (2) Why do you think five isn't important?
I've now given up on everything but {10, 12} for global use. 60 and 120 will never work with their size or alternating arithmetic globally, and 6 is too small indeed.
I have nothing to complain about how dozenal treats its regular numbers. That is beautiful, and far better than 10. I don't dispute that. The multiplication table in base 12 is beautiful except 5x and 7x. Why I waver is because 5 is not too uncommon, and not all its occurrences are from decimal: viz. pentagonal symmetry, common in geometry, that adds richness like the golden ratio. I am fine with any primes above 5 getting terrible treatment, but I do think five deserves some recognition, if not the well-deserved VIP status of two and three.
My main argument for ten was always (1) {3, 6, 9} being transparent, making 10% opacity only, more than dozenal's 16.666...%. It may be infinitely recurring but at least it's omega recurrence, making it wieldable. I can manage single-digit recurrence periods without becoming utterly confused mentally when I try to manipulate 1/7 (which doesn't happen very often). And (2) its auxiliary bases are good. Dozenal is too good in itself and has serious problems finding good auxiliary bases: it cannot use an SHCN because those will blunt the thirds for fifths if you use 5/12 sexagesimal or 10/12 centovigesimal. But it is of a small enough size that for fineness an auxiliary base is actually needed, unlike sexagesimal. Decimal can. Bases 8, 9, 14, and 16 have too much of 2, 3, and 7 as factors and are hurt just like dozenal when finding auxiliaries, except that they are worse than even decimal. I think in the human scale, decimal and quindecimal have the best auxiliary bases: they can both use 60, 120, and 360. But quindecimal is odd and hence won't work, so I think the argument is mainly between {10, 12}. And also memorizing the expansions of fractions from 1/1 to 1/10 (decimal or dozenal) is a little easier for me in decimal because 1/3 and 1/9 are just omega single-digit recurrent and aren't really harder than 0.5 or 0.2. (And also, do we need a clean single-place quarter? I'm actually not sure. We must have it in the auxiliary, but the base? If so senary might get a bonus for cleaning up fifths and sevenths at the expense of a totally clean quarter. Not that that'll help its small size, but still, it's an advantage in using it as a stepping stone to pure dozenal: forgetting 5×7=2E, so using senary 5×11=55=dozenal 2E.)
TL;DR: Yes, I now agree with you that 6, 60 and 120 are too extreme in size. Decimal's main advantage, to my mind, is that the auxiliary bases are good and it has the lowest digit opacity of any human-wieldable base. Sexagesimal has 12's advantages plus the incorporation of five, but good luck getting the world to use it! Twelve's alienation of five and difficulty in finding good auxiliaries is why I waver a little. The way it handles its regular numbers, I have no complaints about. Double sharp (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
All non-terminating expansions (I say non-terminating because pi doesn't recur but applies to the this statement) regardless of how ugly or elegant its expansion is are equally bad outside of memorization. Terminating expansions are always better than non-terminating expansions. To answer your main questions:
"Why do we need a clean quarter?"
Not needed in the sense that society would collapse without it, but the fraction 1/4 (and its multiples) is ubiquitous and seemingly the second most used fraction in life, winning out to only 1/2. Base ten for example has 5 as the halfway point, but it lacks quarterway points, which I think is nice. Dozenal has 3, 6, and 9 as it's quarterway points. One job that has heavy use with 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. is electronic engineering (or programming). Due to the computer relying on binary and its bases, a numer system whose radix can be divided evenly into two more than once is very useful. The number system in this case (dozenal) is more closely related to binary than decimal because of its extra factor of two. As such, it is much easier to convert numbers binary, hexadecimal, octal, etc. to dozenal and vice versa. Switching society to hexadecimal would make such conversion practically non-existant/useless, but the number 16 lacks 3 as a factor, which has good usage outside of programming, both in daily life and jobs such as engineering.
"Why do you think five isn't important?"
I don't think five isn't important, I just think it isn't useful enough to have as a factor to push aside the much more useful 3 and 4 because of its powers, multiples, and reciprocals having rather sparse usage compared to 2, 3, 4. Even as someone who uses dozenal arithmetic for my own purposes, I have a bit of interest in the number 5. Avengingbandit 22:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
OK about the clean quarter (so now almost set on 12). Yet dozenal treats five pretty poorly, even worse than three in decimal. Of course terminating is better, but 0.249724972497... just irritates me a lot more than 0.333333..., perhaps because it's longer. And the latter is easier to handle, if only marginally. This is why I always wanted sexagesimal, but it's not really a great solution for the public. ;-)
While I am now pretty convinced that 12 is the optimum radix for general human use, are there solutions for making five treated better overall (that aren't just a shift to sexagesimal)? SPD only fixes recognition of multiples of five; it doesn't really make it any easier to deal with fractions where the denominator has a factor of 5.
And about the auxiliaries, I'm now coming to think that *500 is actually fine for dozenal (though it is slightly inconvenient that no smaller number will work well. Do you think we would still have *50 minutes in an hour?) Double sharp (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
"are there solutions for making five treated better overall?"
You are right in that dozenal isn't very easy on five, but I can hardly think of any solutions to make 5 an easy number to deal with. If finding a good divisibility test for 5 counts as a solution, then yes. I can't think of anything else. I presume you've already found one, so I won't type it down.
"Do you think we would still have *50 minutes in an hour?"
I have no issue with having 50doz. minutes in an hour. I'm unsure if it would be accepted however. Avengingbandit 12:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I asked the *50 min = 1 h question because you can't use a 5/12 representation of sexagesimal without making all the fractions but the fifths look terrible, which is precisely the opposite of what you want. ;-) This is why I don't think it would be accepted. Fractional parts of an hour might be used instead, or perhaps a minute of *100 seconds.
Yes, an easy divisibility test for 5 is just splitting the number into two-digit blocks, and then taking the alternating sum. Hence *X92X is divisible by 5 because *X9 − *2X = *7E, a multiple of 5. For *X, you can test for 2 and 5. It's about as easy as the decimal test for *E, because it's possible to memorize all the multiples of 5 below *100. But that doesn't really help 1/5 = 0.(2497) from being supremely annoying, forcing me to use the same despicable strategy I use for decimal 1/7: rounding! Whereas for decimal 1/3, 1/6, and 1/9 I don't really need to round: I just imagine that the digits with overlines are actual digits: 3 means "a third of ten" just as 5 means "half of ten".
The only reason why I kept looking around from dozenal was because I wanted 5 to be treated in the new base no worse than 3 is in decimal. I don't think 3 deserves omega recurrence: it deserves a divisor relationship. Dozenal gives me that. But I think 5 merits at least the omega recurrence, which dozenal doesn't give me (it doesn't even give me the alpha recurrence, or anything beyond a nice divisibility test). You explain perfectly though why those others are bad choices. So far the only bases I could be said to be really fluent in are decimal, dozenal, and sexagesimal (pure base 60, not 6 on 10!), because I can't always be sure I've gotten the alternating bases right for 120 or have the digits right for 6. Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Despite me saying 1/3 is OK in decimal, I am profoundly irritated whenever it turns up in a physical (not pure mathematical) context when I then have to round it. And I then fall in love with dozenal for giving me a nice pure 4 s.f. "*4.400" instead of an inaccurate decimal "4.333". Double sharp (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Re:[edit]

WP:FANCRUFT

I'm trying to double up on how I got the article on Dick Clark's certain special to GA last year by getting the article on the event itself to GA as well. However, its all unsourced, and irrelevant. I'm focusing more on the details that I can find in sources (and there have been some unique ones, nonetheless.) ViperSnake151  Talk  01:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Narutolovehinata5. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Haruhi Suzumiya, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Avengingbandit. 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)

Re: umaru discussion[edit]

I can only guess it's because they have a different title, but I'm not sure. I think it's something worth talking here. I'm just adapting to the recent edits the members of the project have done in such cases, merging infoboxes and leaving only the first category.--Sakretsu (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, meanwhile someone else has started a related discussion here. The situation doesn't change until it can't be reached a new consensus.--Sakretsu (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you assumed right. That's why I pointed you the project in the first place :-) --Sakretsu (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Avengingbandit. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)