User talk:Nø

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

I've recently changed my wikipedia name from Noe to NØ, so see user talk:Noe too.

contact[edit]

Hi. I just sent you an e-mail using the "e-mail this user" feature. I've not used this before, and don't know how well it works, so I'm giving you a heads-up here. Phil wink (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Four Temperaments image[edit]

Hi. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Four Temperaments image about an image that you uploaded years ago. Possibly you can help clarify the origin of the image? Much thanks. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes to "Template:Numeral systems".[edit]

You made change to Template:Numeral systems: your change.
Even if you think that "Unary does not belong in the "by culture" section" it doesn't mean that you should simply remove it!
Please read this.
--StanContributor (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Mongolian numerals
Boutonneuse fever
Duell (chess)
Ugolki
Brian Kowitz
Isola (board game)
Inuit numerals
Monterrico, Guatemala
Shim (computing)
Aegean numerals
Shigella boydii
Eccellenza Abruzzo 2008–09
Etruscan numerals
Tympanoplasty
Shigella sonnei
Ergocalciferol
Dao (game)
Jul-Gonu
Cyrillic numerals
Cleanup
Danish phonology
Audi
Bendomino
Merge
Enterohemorrhagic
Hindu–Arabic numeral system
Landmark
Add Sources
Rob Kardashian
History of Japan
Padua
Wikify
Alex Wade
Crosstrack
Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act (Singapore)
Expand
Square One (puzzle)
Shigella flexneri
Battleship (video game)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Level of English[edit]

I was surprised to see {{User en-3}} on your userpage. Native English speaker thinks you are at {{User en-4}} level. That's all. :) ~ Kimelea (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've now changed that.-- (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Ingen årsak. :) ~ Kimelea (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
That's Norwegian...
I suppose you know that, as you declare nb-1!
(I would declare nb-½, se-½, de-½ and fr-½, if they existed - indicating passive language skills.)
Danish: "Ingen årsag" - so, as I suppose you guessed, it's close.-- (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I reckoned you'd probably have no trouble understanding :D
By the way, a user on the tai chi debate seems to have misread our conversation, thinks we are working against each other not together, and has declared that you oppose my suggestions. It would be great if you could comment on the RfD (whatever your opinion may be) as he is trying to speak for you. ~ Kimelea (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I've seen it, and he(?) is certainly not very civil. However, I'm as happy letting all the slightly odd and unnecessary redirects live as I would be deleting the most obscure ones, so I won't get involved.-- (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
My current proposal involves letting everything live, but retargeting the Wade-Giles spellings of t'ai chi to the martial art, and the weird typos (like Tao Chi) to the disambig. Even if you don't want to comment on the RfD, I would value your opinion on what I proposed. But if you'd rather stay quiet, I'll make like John Lennon. :) ~ Kimelea (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion[edit]

Hello, Nø. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding User:Machine Elf 1735's behaviour in a current RfD. I'm sorry to involve you in this, but as your words have been quoted on both sides, I have to inform you as an innocent bystander. Thank you. ~ Kimelea (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for info. I think your suggestion (wadegilesish short versions redir to martial art; pinyinish short versions redir to philosophical concept; wrongish short versions redir to dab page; all long versions redir to martial art) makes sense. (Here, "short" means spellings of the two syllables taiji, and "long" means spellings of taijiquan.)
As for wikiquette, like Machine Elf I initially though you were proposing mass deletion, which seems not to be the right thing to do - but like you, I found his intervention rather uncivil.-- (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, I appreciate it. I'm glad I didn't misread you.
I'm pleased to say there is now some civil and constructive discussion going on with User:InferKNOX on the RfD. It would be great if you could drop in your opinion, but if you just don't want to get involved I promise I won't nag again. I hope we work together again in the future - maybe when one of us nominates a bunch of the weird long version redirs ;) ~ Kimelea (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised to hear you don't mind redirecting the same the words to different articles based on pinyin vs. wg. It would be better to move Taiji to Taiji (concept), make T'ai chi ch'uan the WP:PRIME, and make sure a hat note stays there.
Although I'd prefer no further response, I'd encourage you to personally reconsider whether or not whatever comments you happen to be thinking of were WP:INCIVIL, as Kimelea got no response from her copious efforts at WQA and at long last, Kimelea and I have established that I never claimed you were hostile towards her in any way whatsoever. Cheery-bye Machine Elf 1735 00:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ludo and Uckers[edit]

The gameboard is precisely the same. They are identical gameboards. Doesn't that provide basis enough, that Uckers is closely related to Ludo enough, that Uckers would qualify as a 'See also' item, at the Ludo article? (Looking at the same question from a different perspective, if Uckers is not included as a 'See also' item at the Ludo article, when their gameboards are precisely the same and identical ... wouldn't that cause a bit of confusion to an average reader ... seeing that there is no link whatever or connection or mention of game of Uckers, at the Ludo article?)

I could understand disclusion without a criteria for comparing the closeness of their relationship, if there were, say, multiple games that use the same board, that have their own articles. Maybe there are. (Do you know if their are? My assumption is that Uckers is the only other game, that has its own article, using that precise gameboard. Maybe that is wrong. Do you know if there are any others?)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have replied here.-- (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nø. You have new messages at Talk:Willy warmer.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mabalu (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Overline #Vinculum (symbol)[edit]

I recorded your opposition. May I point out, in turn, that Wikipedia” shall be capitalized your attempts to discredit my person are counter-productive? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion at Talk:Overline.-- (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
For the record, Incis Mrsi deleted my properly identified copy of his above post from Talk:Overline, with the edit summary "I didn’t express my consent to insert here my postings (with my signature) from other pages. feel free to restore, but without making an appearance of Incnis Mrsi engaged in off-topical flamewars here)". I have nothing to add, so I'll leave it at that.-- (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Noe[edit]

Hi,

Sorry for writing in English. I am trying to change my account name from Eölen to User:Noé and it appears to create a conflict with your old account User:Noe (too similar). I contact you to let you know the page where to ask for an account merging: meta:Steward requests/Username changes

I'll be glad if you ask there to merge you account to liberate your old account name. You don't have to, I don't have any right for asking you to do that, so it's only if it please you. If not, I may think to ask for a longer nickname, it's not such a big deal. I only let you know the process. Eölen (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Hi user:Eölen! Thanks for your notice. I've now editet the request page to confirm that Noe and Nø are both me - hope I've done it right!-- (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That's great! Thank you a lot! Eölen (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


Links to ocastudios[edit]

Just a response about adding links to print and play board game sets. Thanks for the politeness, but I do not agree with you. I've seen such links on practically every article with "External Links", and they are indeed useful. Such links include online game versions, sites from organizations, championships, communities and so forth. Ocastudios' links offered people a chance to play the games, and I wouldn't discard it as non-educational. Of course, I won't insist. Isacvale (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2015 (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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Probability in running-fight board games[edit]

Hi. I've been doing some work on sáhkku, and I've noted that the articles on daldøs and tâb have listed the probabilities of various dice combinations. Am I right to assume this is your work? It would be interesting to have a similar probability breakdown for the sáhkku article. The most normal sáhkku rules have three dices marked X-2-3-0, where X has the value 5 when used to move, but it can alternately be used to activate pieces. I have no idea how to calculate the probability for different combinations of three X-2-3-0 dices. If you're not interested in doing this (or don't have the time to do it), is there any program or website which can be used to calculate the probability of different combinations? I've found some places where you can calculate odds for normal 6d dice, but obviously not for sáhkku/daldøs dice... Misha bb (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree it would be nice - but actually it is against wikipedia policy; I would not be able to contest it if someone deleted it (e.g. from the Daldøs article) as "original research". Nice work on Sahkku!!! - I may (or may not) find time to study it in detail, and perhaps come up with some probabilities, like next week.-- (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! A shame that presenting probability calculations is considered to be against policy. Misha bb (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not probability calculations that are against policy - but Wikipedia editors (in this case, me) are by definition NOT a reliable sources - one must (or at least must be able to) refenrece an independently published reliable source, and in this case that does not exist. Now, one might say that what REALLY matters is that the information is verifiable, and simple maths is always verifiable, but that is not enough on Wikipedia. However, luckily, no_one has challenged the calculations, demanding a source, partly because the artcles are low-profile.-- (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)