User talk:KingStrato

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello KingStrato, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

some General guidance.
Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
Use the Show preview button
Provide an Edit summary
Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
Take a look at Consensus of standards
Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, -- Alf ^melmac 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

~Linuxerist E/L/T has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}} or {{subst:smile2}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Cricket Quiz

Just got an edit conflict trying to post Q187. Which was you wondering where the next question was! Well, it's there now. :-) Johnlp 21:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my turn to ask Q.189. So if you are interested in asking a question, you can do it now. Tintin (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is getting late, I'll ask one myself this time. Sorry. Tintin (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine vs Catherine Parr

I noted that you changed the spelling of Katherine/Catherine Parr's name in the article on Jane Grey. You stated that the "correct" spelling is with a C. I am just curious what your source is for that claim? Susan E. James, one of Parr's most recent academic biographers, has actually pointed out that neither spelling is actually correct, since Parr herself consistently signed her name "Kateryn" in all of the documents of the period. See Susan E. James, Kateryn Parr: The Making of a Queen (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1999). Having done considerable archival research on Jane Grey, research that included examining firsthand many documents actually signed by Parr's own hand, I can attest that James is correct. So unless modern "authorities" are prepared to argue that Parr did not know how to spell her own name, I prefer to spell her name as she spelled it herself: Kateryn. Of course, that would not be "popular" on Wikipedia, where convenience and popular tradition usually outweigh historical fact. Better we should continue to misspell her name (whether Katherine or Catherine) than suffer the difficulty of adjusting our brains to the correct spelling, right? PhD Historian 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is a virtue, and should definitely be striven for by Wikipedia. For purely personal reasons, I pay close attention to spelling names exactly as the individual identified spelled it. I concede, however, that modern scholarly historians are often far less meticulous, preferring convenience over accuracy. Changing "Katherine" to "Kateryn" would no doubt prove a nightmare in an open-source format such as Wikipedia, especially since most historians use the modernized form. However, since it can clearly be demonstrated that Ms Parr spelled her name with an initial "K," I am inclined to favor "Katherine" over "Catherine," if we must bow to convenience and accept a modernized spelling. Just for fun, I will point out that referring to her as Katherine "Parr" is similarly a convenience at odds with actuality. Her last husband was a Seymour; the penultimate was a Tudor. She is properly Kateryn Parr Seymour. The maiden name Parr is used largely to distinguish her from Henry VIII's two other wives named Katherine (of Aragon and Howard, both also, like Parr, spelled with initial K's), though she did, in an ironically proto-feminist fashion, often sign her name "Kateryn P" while married to Henry VIII. PhD Historian 02:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guildford vs Guilford

On the subject of variant spellings of Guildford Dudley's name (Guilford, Guilford, Gylford, Dudley, Duddley, Duddeley, Dudly), you might check my entry on the Talk: Lady Jane Grey page. The subject was discussed at some length in the past. I stand by my assertion that since we have no extant copy of Guildford's complete autograph signature (all I've ever been able to find is a signature that uses only the initial G), and since we can be fairly certain that his name is derived from his mother's maiden name, the correct modernized spelling should be "GuilDford." But that's just my opinion. PhD Historian 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Clattenburg

Hi. I would like to raise two points regarding your attempt to retain NPOV in the above article. It includes much that is not, such as "Hibbert's was controversial" (opinion) and "some feel" (who exactly? Me? You? Andy Gray of Sky?) regarding Dirk Kuyt. These incidents are almost impossible to keep NPOV, which is why my original edit did not mention them. In fact, the only incident which seemed to inflame the senses of the many unregistered editors (and some registered) who flooded the article with bias and outrage on Saturday and Sunday was the failure to award a penalty to Joleon Lescott of Everton in the dying seconds. The article became semi-protected for that reason. I managed to create an account of the match which seemed to satisfy the editors who posted to the article talk page. Events today have muddied the waters somewhat, and the article as it exists does not conform to consensus reached so far. I would advise you to visit the talk page, and preferably post to join the consensus-building, which appears to say that if Clattenburg does not receive censure because of his performance, the incident should be removed from the article. That censure is not yet forthcoming, which brings me to my second point.

It relates to the "not officiating next weekend" subject. As you will see from the BBC Sport source which refers, this is because of a planned holiday and not as a result of a sanction from the PGMOL. Therefore the inclusion of this part is not relevant, as the criteria for a statement of this kind is clearly the possibility of a punishment being handed out, such as that suffered by Rob Styles after the famous Chelsea penalty incident. Inclusion of this particular version with this particular source reference is mere trivia, as it does not relate at all to the Everton v. Liverpool match.

The article does not need chapter and verse about every single decision of note which was made by Clattenburg that day. I am therefore (once more) being bold and rolling the article back to where it was after the last post to the talk page, which seemed to be favourable to interested editors there. I would prefer you to post to the article talk page if you have aproblem with this, rather than here or at my user talk page. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for patrolling it again, re: "November 24 Bolton v. Man. United" POV edit. Well done. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amdy Faye

The BBC states he has been arrested, but doesn't really claim it to be in connection with fraud. Should this be mentioned? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rounding-up of career stats

Hi. As you seem to have decided that absolute accuracy is required in referee "Career statistics" sections, perhaps you would like to continue onward past Mark Clattenburg to all the other pages with stats (all current, and two most recently retired, Premiership referees), and correct them? Because I do not round up on two decimal places, due to it not being a matter of life or death, and as it is subject to a round-off error - and also due to there being no discernible guideline or rule regarding this (Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia, not a statistical reference centre, and I have only bowed to consensus in maintaining these lists, one particular IP having been on a recent campaign in order to include all Premier League referees - my own opinion would be that all stats be removed in the articles, but I don't intend to try this).

Please note that the next time I calculate their stats, probably midweek, I will still not be rounding up on two decimal places, so perhaps you will need to keep checking. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CricketQuizPage

Thanks for Recreating the Quiz page, can you tell me what actually happened? and thanks for Fixing This i asked Tintin sir to do that but he seems offline! Bharath628 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KingStrato we need your help Again, Ovshake have Messed up 737 again Please Re:Create . Thanks Bharath628 (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Fixed it , Thanks anyway :-) Bharath628 (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

&ndash

Why would I type in &ndash, when I can simply go below the edit box and click on the exact same thing, which takes 1/10 the time. Second, it is much easier to read when editing. Sorry if your browser doesn't work, but i'm not going to type in ndash when it takes longer and is harder to read when editing. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leamington Spa

Hi KingStrato! An article you have been concerned with has now been significantly overhauled to bring it in line with Wiki policy, guidelines, and prose style. However, without first-hand subject knowledge, the copyeditor may have left some items or citations for further clarification. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Leamington Spa, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there. Thanks.

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Replied on my page

45sixtyone (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]