User talk:User9669/archive5

Archive 2004-2005 Archive 2006 Archive 2007 Archive 2008 Archive 2009 Archive 2010 Archive 2011 Current 2012

HTML help!

Matt suggett (talk)Hi Kainaw! I'm basically an internet/computer novice. One day, out of nowhere I became curious about html, so using wikiversity as my reference I began to tinker. Now I have made a html file that I would like to use as a homepage for my website (which contains a link to my blog and to my social network profiles). I have a godaddy account, and want to upload my html page as the homepage, but have no idea how to do this. GoDaddy's customer service told me to go away and create an 'index' or 'directory' file. Given that I have the html code I want to use, can you tell me how I can make it work as a webpage? mattsuggett@gmail.com. Thanks! —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

What you need to do is rather simple. Change the name of your HTML file to "index.html" and upload it to your website's directory. The specifics of how that is done is dependent on how GoDaddy has their file transfer service set up. I don't use GoDaddy at all, so I have no way to know how their service is set up. -- kainaw ™ 16:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Freewayguy

Clerk note: I've formatted the case for you. For future cases, please use the buttons on WP:SPI to preload a case template when reporting sockpuppets. Mayalld (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- kainaw ™ 13:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User9669. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ACID issues

Thanks for your explanation on my talk page. I haven't had time to look at it properly for outside reasons (upcoming work) and it may be a week or two before I can sit down with it properly, though hopefully it'll be much sooner. I've taken back my unflattering comments on both thread & npov noticeboard, as you've doubtless seen. Thanks again for taking the time to do this. Water pepper (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've heard worse - even in the classroom. I think you understand enough to quickly step up to ACID transaction management in distributed systems, which is mainly a bunch of theories about how to lock distributed data and how to commit across multiple databases. I'm working on distributed mobile databases right now. Imagine working with data that is both distributed and mobile. By "mobile", I mean that it may show up at one network address one moment, then another the next moment, the drop out of the network all together, then show up again tomorrow... Painful. -- kainaw ™ 13:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: First aid

Kainaw, I appreciate you taking the discussion to my talk page, but I'm not interested in conversing with someone who calls me names and assumes bad faith about my intentions. Since you've now also accused me of lying, I assume you're not ready to apologize, so I think the best course would be for us "agree to disagree" and move on. Matt Deres (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you tell a blatant lie, it is difficult to not refer to you as a liar. I feel it is best to just consider you too immature to handle conversations with adults. Try again in a few years. -- kainaw ™ 02:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point

Regarding this edit: That's pretty much a textbook example of WP:POINT. Please remove your comment. Thank you. – 74 16:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you remove it as you did with all my other comments? It is obvious that you rule the RD and decide who can and cannot make comments. -- kainaw ™ 16:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "remove" any comments; I moved those which were focused on discussing the appropriateness of the question to the Reference Desk discussion page. I'm sorry if you feel that modification was improper; my intent was to improve the Reference Desk, not hide your comments. Regardless of your opinion of my actions, your subsequent post to the question clearly violates WP:POINT in my opinion, but I'm willing to let someone else handle it to avoid any appearance of impropriety. – 74 17:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that you replaced a discussion of the consensus that we do not answer requests for opinions with a wishy-washy "Please give your opinion" message that is worded just right so you can claim that it isn't actually asking for opinions. If you had replaced it with "Please do not answer this question because it is clearly asking for opinions," then I wouldn't have any issues with the removal of the discussion from the RD. The end result is that you are are turning the RD into a discussion forum which, in my opinion, makes it worse. -- kainaw ™ 19:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire

Yes, I know what it means, thanks. It was a loose, vaguely humorous (to me, not to you) interjection intended to signal that there was another way of answering the OP's question from the way you answered it. He asked for "a list of all upcoming major movies", which is exactly what I gave him. He mentioned his local cinema, sure, but nowhere did he give the impression that he was seeking detailed information on upcoming showtimes there. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 06:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that it is pointless to explain once again that showtimes are required to know what movies will be playing at a local theater since many theaters have less screens than movies in release. Apparently, it is best to answer part of a question instead of answering the whole question. Who would possibly want a complete answer anyway? -- kainaw ™ 13:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I feel obliged to point out once again that he was not asking for "what movies will be playing at a local theater", hence knowledge of showtimes would not be necessary. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 18:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm certain you would claim that "ones that would be shown at my local theatre" means "ones that may or may not be shown at my local theatre," just as you claimed that the statement "IMDB has upcoming release dates and showtimes" is incorrect. -- kainaw ™ 19:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are wrong about eagles

Sorry, but your figgures are all wrong, eagles never won a superbowl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandrillen (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table says "NFL Titles", which include Super Bowls. They won 3 of them: 1948, 1949, and 1960. -- kainaw ™ 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but what about packers

packers won 12 titles overall, why does it only show their superbowl wins?

Vandalism. People who like/dislike teams change the numbers every day. It is impossible to keep up with them. -- kainaw ™ 19:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

haha lol

yah its not because i dont like eagles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandrillen (talk • contribs) 19:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical questions on the refdesk

Hello Kainaw, TenOfAllTrades and Scray,

Please take a look at this thread, along with my response on SteveBaker's talk page , and my response and Tango's answer on Tango's talk page. I'm asking the three of you directly instead of raising the issue directly on the refdesk's talk page, because I feel the discussions there on such matters lately have been rather predictable and unproductive. Your opinions would be greatly valued. If two of the three of you feel that the OP is asking for medical advice, I'll remove it myself, with a note on the refdesk talk page. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, --NorwegianBlue^talk 07:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I realize now that it was naïve of me not to move this to the talk page in the first place, since the meta-discussion started building up on the refdesk itself. I've moved the meta-discussion now. I'd appreciate if you took the trouble of copying your response on my talk page to the refdesk talk page. --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

WikiThanks

Thanks for showing me the hekla results of the "down for everyone or just me" site. I'll be sure to use the site in the future. --I dream of horses (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- kainaw ™ 17:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

two creation stories

What two creation stories are there? Bubba73 (talk), 18:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Book of Genesis. It covers the creation twice - with two apparently contradictory stories. -- kainaw ™ 18:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of Awesome

Just wanted to say you are fucking awesome. Usually I do not swear on wikipedia but I feel the word is warrented. Well played sir. well played Ivtv (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and thanks for the tip on the mobile SSH client. -- kainaw ™ 13:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RD Bumping

Hi, have a look what I answered on my talk page. I would be really happy to know what the situation is now... Is it allowed or not? What is considered bumping and what not? Thanks for your help :) --Tilmanb (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insuation

No, the link is there for people to click on. It is not necessary for them to click on it.174.3.103.39 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You provide a link to a picture and ask people who the person in the picture is. You label it as "safe for work". It is a picture of a nude man holding his penis. You obviously want people to think that the image is safe for work when it is not in any way safe for work. You are simply a troll and a rather pathetic one at that. -- kainaw ™ 22:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my Rosencratz and Guildenstern question on the Humanities Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Desk Talk Page

Hi there: Did you intend to delete most of the Ref Desk Talk page? Your edit summary mentions a revert of one IP, but many other sections also went. Just checking. // BL \\ (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP reverted an archiving of the RD Talk page. Archivings should be reverted. So, I reverted that reversion. -- kainaw ™ 20:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. It's all back again anyway, or was when I checked a moment ago. I've just never seen RD Talk before with so little on it. // BL \\ (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted question on Ref Desk

Ooh, sorry about that - I got an edit conflict screen, and maybe tried to be too clever, and ended up overwriting one question with another. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I'll try to be more careful in future! - IMSoP (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Papale whalberg.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Papale whalberg.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.107.31 (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:La Belle Epoque

Hey. I saw you recently left a comment on this talk page. One of the users has undone the redirect. Would you mind leaving your thoughts on Talk:La Belle Epoque#Redirect discussion so we can get some consensus going? Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was already taken care of. -- kainaw ™ 13:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk archiving interval

There's a discussion running on the RD talk page about decreasing the archiving and transclusion thresholds to reduce the page size, perhaps to as few as four days. I don't care one way or the other, but I'd like to make sure any consensus includes input from some long-time regulars, so I'm dropping this note on the talk pages of a few that pop to mind. (I hope no one feels this is improper canvassing.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Like you, I don't care either way either. I always page-down to the bottom of the page regardless. -- kainaw ™ 01:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALU Slides

In numerous computer architecture classes I have taken, I have seen dozens of variants on ALU multipliers, FMAs, ripple carry adders... but I think I have never seen the inner workings of an integer divider in a class lecture slide. It has always been "an exercise left to the reader." I think it's great that you're showing the internal workings of the integer divider to your students. I'll dig through some notes to see what I have, if anything might be useful for your purposes... but I doubt I have anything! Good luck with your presentation. Nimur (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's exactly why I'm making a division presentation. Even our textbook doesn't show how integer division works. It just does a half-assed description of restoring and non-restoring division (just like the Wikipedia article here). -- kainaw ™ 16:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]