User talk:Loadmaster/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Loadmaster. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
|
This is an archive (Jan — Dec 2013) |
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. |
Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Will Lyman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WGBH (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Tillicum
Just FYI. Your photo of a killer whale here claims that it is Tilikim in San Antonio. The GPS coordinates definitely place the photo in San Antonio, but as far as I have been able to figure out, Tilikum was never there. User WikedAngry just removed the photo from the Tilikum article with the note "the whale in this photo is not tillikum. that is kyuquot at seaworld san antonio". I don't claim to be a whale ID expert, and can't identify the whale in the picture, but thought I should just let you know in case you have information that I don't. Thanks. Don Lammers (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your notes. I was not entirely sure that it was Tilikum, so I've updated the description of the photo. BTW, I had added the (approximate) image GPS coordinates by hand, but I did indeed take the photo at SeaWorld San Antonio. I also have photos (1, 2) of Tilikum at SeaWorld Orlando; both orcas have very similar markings and dorsal fins. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I like your recent edits to defensive gun use, I just wondered what you would think about moving your second sentence up about 2 sentences into the discussion of estimates. Obviously the main controversy revolves around the various estimates, and obviously those on both sides of that scale have a particular slant to their numbers. I am just concerned that the vagueness of "other social scientists". It's much easier to be NPOV if we attribute the studies to their authors and lay them out in that context. Shadowjams (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, whatever makes the text flow better. I added the cite to support the estimate made by Hemenway; the original text was not clear about his estimates. So the two should probably be combined into a single train of thought. As to the "other social scientists", I was just quoting what the cited article states. This part could be tagged with {{cn}} or simply just removed. Either way, the text should make clear that there is a range of estimates (100,000 to 2,500,000 incidents) made by different experts, mostly derived from different interpretations of the same sources. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I wouldn't tag it with CN because I think it's probably substantiated within those studies. Not to say any one of those studies had any specific advantage over the others. But there's no point in tagging something where X says x and Y says y. If they're already tagged. In my opinion, there's a lot of range in those debates (I didn't create the article but I redid it from a kinda incomprehensible stub) and I suggest the "range" option because I think that's the most npov way to state stuff like this. Statistics of all sorts have certain people reporting on them, and assuming they're honest, they'll probably come up with similar estimates, and if they don't, it's because there's some difference in something. In sociological studies that's almost expected. So, I think in a new article like this it's best to just report the ranges of estimates from various authors, and then to discuss criticisms a paragraph or two below.
- I'm sorry if you didn't want this much response from your small, but excellent edit :). But you seem to have a good sense so I wondered your opinion. Shadowjams (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
File:AshleighBrilliant3c.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AshleighBrilliant3c.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 10:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, I've noticed your interest in articles relating to C/C++ and would like to invite you to join the WikiProject C/C++, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to C and C++. If you're interested, please consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. --—Sowlos
Please participate. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Half-carry flag, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Accumulator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Peer-to-peer advice
Dear Loadmaster,
We are working on a group project for our “Online Communities” class at Cornell University, where we are aiming to become active contributors to the Wikipedia community. We have picked the “Peer to Peer” page and saw that you have been a contributor in the past. We would like to propose the following restructuring of the article and would appreciate any feedback/advice you have for us:
1. Historical Development 2. Current Applications a. Communications
Other P2P Applications
b. Content Delivery c. File Sharing Networks
i. Streaming Media
3. Architecture
a. Routing and Resource Recovery
i. Hybrid Models
ii. Structured Networks
iii. Unstructured Networks
b. Security and Trust
i. Routing Attacks
ii. Corrupted Data and Malware
c. Creating more resilient and scalable computer networks
d. Distributed storage and search
4. Social Implications a. Demographics and Usage stats b. Incentivizing resource sharing and cooperation c. Privacy and Anonymity d. Economic Implications
i. Music/Film
5. Political Implications
a. Network Politics b. Network neutrality c. Intellectual Property law and illegal sharing
6. Current Research
a. Future Trends
Please let us know what you think about this restructuring as a way to improve the article. We will also be looking to add sources and information. We welcome any feedback! Thank you!
AlyssaG92 (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Looks good. See my response on the peer-to-peer talk page. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Merging Social Peer-to-peer Processes
Hi Loadmaster,
I am working with AlyssaG92 on this course project. I was making some edits and I came across this page Social peer-to-peer processes, which I feel there is sufficient grounds for including in our Peer-to-peer article. What are your thoughts on this, and what is the Wikipedia protocol for this action? I have created a section about this on the peer-to-peer talk page. Thank you! CBCompton (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- My response is on the talk page. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank You
|
The Helping Hand Barnstar | |
| We wanted to present you with a Barnstar to show our appreciation of your assistance in helping us with our course project. As new editors in the Wikipedia community, your feedback was greatly appreciated and instrumental in helping us contribute to the Peer-to-peer article. We also wanted to say thanks for your prompt responses and patience as we made our first contributions to Wikipedia. CBCompton (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC) |