User talk:NYKevin/Archive 14

If you must contact me and it's important, please use Special:EmailUser/NYKevin in addition to or in place of this page. I have Wikipedia set up to notify me of changes here via email, but I don't 100% trust it.

A pie for you!

 * Thanks. I have multiple papers due soon, though, so I might not be very responsive for the next week or so.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @688, i.e. 15:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Template nomination
Thanks very much. I'm afraid I made the same mistake with Template:User morefart, nominated for deletion on the same day. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that you may withdraw your own nomination as long as it has not received any commentary. Just follow the instructions (yes it says "administrator instructions," but you don't have to be an administrator) and give an outcome of nomination withdrawn or something like that.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @812, i.e. 18:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will, thanks. Have already nominated for MfD and withdrawn it, but I'll complete those steps. ScottyBerg (talk)

Significand copy edit
Hello NYKevin. This is in response to your request on the GOCE drive page. I thought you copy edit of Significand did improve the article quite a bit, and you caught all the major things, but there are a few things you could reconsider: Hope this is useful. Best regards, --Stfg (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Opening sentence was: "The significand (also coefficient or mantissa) is the part of a floating-point number that contains its significant digits." You changed it to "The significand (also coefficient or mantissa) is part of a floating-point number, consisting of its significant digits." The original definition is clear that the significand is the one and only part of the FP number that contains ..., while your change loses this.
 * (By the way, in the next sentence, although a change along your lines is needed, shouldn't it say "be represented by"?)
 * You changed some expressions of the form "with integer significand 12345" into the form "with an integer significand of 12345". This is a pity: in the original, "integer significand" and "12345" are in apposition, and that seems ideal for this purpose. "and" and "of" are redundant and a bit clunky.
 * Original: "In describing binary floating-point types, the significand is characterised by a certain width in bits (binary digits)." Removing the opening clause from this cuts the reader loose from the context. Significands are not so characterised in other contexts than this one.
 * Thank you very much for your advice, but I don't think I will make most of those changes:
 * I think that's still clear, since it states that the significand consists of the significant digits, which presumably don't need to be stored twice.
 * No, the whole point of floating point types is to represent fractional values (as well as very large/small integers). Using a fractional value in representing one would be a non-starter.  The significand itself is always represented internally as an integer (well, if you want to get really technical, everything is represented as a string of bits... at least in practical computing); it represents a fraction if it's defined by the floating point type to have a decimal point at a specific place.
 * Personally, I think my way is easier to read. The original felt overly technical.
 * This information is also present at the end of the paragraph, so it hasn't been lost. However, it may be helpful to have it at the beginning as well, so I'll go and add it back now.
 * I do appreciate the time you spent on reviewing my edit, and if you disagree with me, please feel free to implement these changes yourself. -- N  Y  Kevin  @778, i.e. 17:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 00:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus
Hello. Please visit this section of the Ra.One talk page, and provide a consensus so as to decide the future of my proposition. I will be glad if you also mention some comments regarding how to approach this (undoubtedly) longer and more detailed review. Thank you.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF  Ankit Bhatt  WDF  16:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Help desk
Kevin, I'm sorry if I ruffled your feathers by coming across incorrectly on the help desk yesterday. I'm perfectly aware that HARM isn't policy, and have read COMPREHENSIVE; I know how the encyclopedia works. I agree with you 100% that the removal isn't supported by policy. What I was trying to say is that, when someone who claims to be (and we have little reason to doubt them) the sibling of a recent suicide victim posts a thread and asks for a small favour to ease their grief, words to the effect of "well, your brother's dead now so we can say what we like" aren't the most tactful. I hope that this clears things up. Regards, Brammers (talk/c) 17:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry for snapping at you, I shouldn't have done so. I misinterpreted your comment as an appeal to offense ("your position is offensive, so it's wrong"), which irked me.  I'll go and strike the rude parts of the comment now.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @795, i.e. 18:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That kind of argument crops up a lot, I find, and they bug me too. Have a good evening, and see you around on the wiki. Brammers (talk/c) 18:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I really appreciate what you just did. Thank you. Von Restorff (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Rescue Template
Hey; as you'll now see from the tag at the top, I'm closing this TfD. Please do not make any more edits to it. Ironholds (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice the tag immediately, and at any rate, canvassing is a serious allegation, and I'm glad that we were able to resolve it so quickly. Hopefully this will mean less work for you as the closer, since you won't need to worry about that allegation (which, according to history, was present when the closing tag was added).  I will, of course, refrain from editing it again.  Thanks for closing, I know it won't be easy.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @273, i.e. 05:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's okay; it's a big discussion, I understand how changes to individual bits of it can be missed :). Yeah, I'm probably going to spend half an hour sitting here scribbling with a bit o'paper. Ironholds (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Stable, stability
Hi NYKevin,

thanks for your answer to my question. I think rather of a computer algorithm that reads the history of the article (i.e. the last 500 edits) and watch for the last 6 weeks the growth, the number of edits per week, the number of reverts, a minimal age of the article (others?). Then we give the factors a weight according to simple criteria and calculate a "stability"-meter. Has someone ever done such experiment?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of such a thing. There might be something on the Toolserver, but that's having problems right now...  -- N  Y  Kevin  @655, i.e. 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire#Request for comment
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Page appears to have gone? Is that per the rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinman (talk • contribs) 23:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about AFD, no, the page is not "gone". It will not be "gone" for five days, unless the community so obviously wants to get rid of it that it's not worth discussing for that long.  If you want it kept, I recommend commenting at the AFD discussion.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @034, i.e. 23:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No - I don't want to get involved in this, thanks. isfutile:P (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: RfD about redirect you changed
Thanks for the heads-up. I have no idea about what I was thinking, or why I sloppily only changed one of the possible redirs if it made sense. -- Kendrick7talk 10:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)