Jump to content

User talk:Cap'n Refsmmat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Cap'n Refsmmat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date. -- Jreferee

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

MBisanzBot (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wikipedia

[edit]

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 17:43, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re:

[edit]

Comment @ Sam [Spade] 18:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Electronic counter-measures and Electronic countermeasures

[edit]

I've put a merger template on these two pages and listed them at Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Lacrimosus 22:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Cap'n Refsmmat 00:59, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
[edit]

Please don't link to the same site from so many articles. It looks like spamming. The site you've added appears to be a general programmers' forum; it doesn't seem sufficiently relevant to any of the articles on specific programming languages and environments.-gadfium 21:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How's that? I was thinking that the forum was supposed to be for programming, and that's what the articles are about... in any case, which articles should it be linked from? It's got to fit in at least one, I suppose. I mean, I could narrow each link down to the specific part of the forum for that as well, which would mean they'd see only the C++ section (as an example). What do you think? Cap'n Refsmmat 21:42, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Specifying the section dealing with the specific programming language or environment would certainly be an improvement. In my opinion, you should probably link to the most well-populated / authoritative forum for each language, not to the one you may have an interest in. In many cases, that might be the usenet forum. For example, link to Usenet C++ discussion -gadfium 22:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could I link to both? Cap'n Refsmmat 22:19, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I can't give you an authoritative answer on that. I'm just an ordinary user here, same as you are. I'd say that if you link to both, and the ComputerGeek link has an active and relevant discussion, and if the links are after other links (should they exist), that's probably fine, but there's a chance other Wikipedians might have other attitudes. Perhaps the best policy is to add both links to one of the articles, such as the C++ one, and wait 24 hours to get a reaction. In your comment when adding the link, or on the article's talk page, ask people to join this discussion. You could also post something on the Village pump (policy) page.

The best link I can give you for policy is External links and the temp page within that, but they don't really address the issue of forum sites.-gadfium 22:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll try the village pump... see what others think, rather than have them get mad at me for it.


PS: Did you like my forums? Cap'n Refsmmat 23:28, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the C and Java forums. The forums seem nice enough, but the traffic is low. Compare with the Usenet forum linked to above for what I consider substantial traffic: several dozen messages a day, plus more on the moderated forum, plus more on compiler-specific topics such as Visual C++. I don't frequent these groups any more; about ten years ago they were about ten times bigger, and keeping up with them was a lot of effort. There may well be bigger, html-based programming forums which I don't know about. There is a danger that someone posting a question on a large forum such as these will be overlooked. On a smaller forum such as yours I'm sure every effort will be made to help, but you don't appear to have the pool of expertise that the usenet groups attract.
My advice would be to focus on a small area where you have significant expertise, which might be the TI calculator programming, for example, and to try contributing to the larger forums in those areas as well to increase the breadth of your knowledge. I don't know anything about TI calculators, and there don't seem to be high-traffic usenet forums for them, but you probably know about other forums in this area.-gadfium 22:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion at the Village Pump has come to an end, and at least we have the linking to forum policy clarified. I'd just like to comment that I think you have acted honourably throughout the discussion, and any suggestion made that you were spamming is incorrect. My own comment at the top of this section that your initial behaviour "looked like spamming" may have been correct, but your subsequent willingness to discuss the issues and accept an outcome that doesn't benefit you proves otherwise. I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia.-gadfium 22:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much. TroelsArvin seems to have taken things rather harshly. Perhaps he's seen too many spammers. :-p Cap'n Refsmmat 00:15, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Visual Basic Clasic Wikibook

[edit]

I see you have contributed to the Visual Basic article on Wikipedia. Any chance you would like to join in editing the wikibook: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Visual_Basic_Classic? --Kjwhitefoot 08:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Paul Yoder

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Paul Yoder, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Yoder. Thank you. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel and MOS:CAPS

[edit]

I disagree with your assessment of the MoS, so I reverted your change of gospel to Gospel. There is no clear cut deciding factor, but what I see is However, the words for types of institutions (church, university, college, hospital, high school, bank, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name. So "The University of Toronto will be closed" would be fine, but "the University is closed" is not acceptable. Similarly, I see gospel the same way. Inside a title of a work, like Gospel of Matthew, it's fine, but when used by itself "the Gospel was written" it shouldn't be capitalized. I couple that example with Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia and I get the conclusion we shouldn't capitalize Gospel in articles. What is your reading of the MoS? -Andrew c [talk] 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I based my choice on the dictionary definition of gospel; my Kindle's New Oxford American Dictionary specifies that the meaning "the record of Jesus' life and teaching in the first four books of the New Testament" is capitalized. Dictionary.com agrees. I don't know if there's a Manual of Style entry specific enough to cover this particular case, but I thought the dictionary definition would make sense. Also, I just flipped open my copy of Bart Ehrman's A Brief Introduction to the New Testament and it capitalizes Gospel as well. Cap'n Refsmmat (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion on the talk page now, so let's finish this there. Cap'n Refsmmat (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review Request

[edit]

There is an on-going discussion on Talk:Gospel of Matthew between Ret.Prof and In ictu oculi that you may have been following over the past 2-3 weeks. As it has gotten to somewhat of an impass, I and another editor (PiCo) would like your official input. Please go to the referenced page and scroll down to the thread entitled "This needs other Wikipedia editors", read lead to this section and then scroll down to the two drafts that have been proposed. Thanks much for your help! Ckruschke (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

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) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Cap'n Refsmmat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Cap'n Refsmmat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Cap'n Refsmmat. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Cap'n Refsmmat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mole Day!

[edit]

Hello! Wishing you a Happy Mole Day on the behalf of WikiProject Science.

Sent by Path slopu on behalf of WikiProject Science and its related projects.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cap%27n_Refsmmat&oldid=1140718328"