Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mark Kim (talk | contribs) at 04:23, 11 June 2007 (Problem with the Intellexual link and your criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Emory Logo

Hey, I think you understand the current (and old) debate going on over Emory logo and would appreciate it if you left your thoughts on the Emory talk page :-). Nrbelex 06:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Go

The problem with trying to describe how many possible go games there are is that there is no natural number that comes close. The invented number googolplex is both meaningless to the average person and absurdly too great, while a googol is closer to the number of atoms or protons in the universe, it is absurdly too small. Do you not know how to square a number? Does that not imply to you something bigger? How about to the fourth power? Do you know what that is, regardless of whether you know the chain rule or not? Does it not allow you to realize that this must be a really really big number? As I point out in my discussion, atoms squared to the fourth only gets you to 10^640, but since the closest competition, Chess, is down around 10^50, or by some sources 10^123 it clearly makes the point. Do you have a better suggestion? If not, use it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.125.109.73 (talk • contribs).

It's obviously a really, really big number. Simply stating that it is greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe is both accurate and sufficient. Tacking on piles of exponents does not give the reader a better idea of the scale of the number. It merely makes the sentence more difficult to read. —ptk✰fgs 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

NEDM

PTKFGS,

Thank you for letting me off with a warning. I was not trying to "Joke Edit" the British Longhair article. While YTMND is still unbeknownst to the general public, I figured that such information would nonetheless benefit the page. Although, I suppose you know better than I do about these sort of things.

Have a splendid day, MistahFOUR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.199.154.85 (talk • contribs). —ptk✰fgs 23:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Here is something for you, for all your contributions to game related articles on wikipeida. Regards -Angelbo 01:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

×××HOLiC / XXXholic

Hi, sorry to bother you with this, but would you mind to formally repeat your endorsement of "XXXholic" in the move discussion at Talk:×××HOLiC? With all the recent fuss around WP:MOS-TM, I'm sure we'd all hate to have another precedent in favor of stylized typography go down, because enough fans of the manga happened to show up. Regards - Cyrus XIII 12:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

AWB

If you can't pay attention to what you're doing, then stop using AWB. You changed the capitalization on the name attribute of a ref tag in Backgammon. This does not help anyone, and it has only the potential to break further ref tags that use the same name. —ptk✰fgs 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt anyone either. If AWB changes one ref tag, it will change all ref tags using that name. I don't see what's the big deal about simple capitalization. I've redone the edit, this time without changing the capitalization. Harryboyles 00:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

TNA Impact!

Is there any way that we can get the page unprotected, and just let him violate the 3rr and get himself blocked as usual? -- The Hybrid 23:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please dont

Please dont mess with my sig again, i'll do it myself --User:Atomic Religione

...yeah, it's still enormous. —ptk✰fgs 07:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it this way and you are the first to complain --User:Atomic Religione

ok. —ptk✰fgs 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Backgammon softrware using AI

Who are you and why to you think you have the right to decide which software gets promoted or used as examples under backgammon. There are several promoted there. My games have as much right to be included under artificial intelligence as the others to under neural nets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Backgammonexpert (talk • contribs) 18:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

(worse than BKG9.8, in my estimation)

How have you determined this?

Who are you?

Backgammon page

You've been doing a great job on Backgammon. I think I'll just go ahead and change all "he"s to "she"s. I guess if anyone gets upset (and I doubt it), they can revert. As I change the pronouns, I'll copy-edit anything else I think I can improve. There's a fair bit of room for taste in issues of "style", I usually don't like to interfere too much, but since you ask so nicely ... ;)

Cheers (and good dice if you're a backgammon player :)

Alastair Haines 14:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

NOW YET

Okay I changed my signature to a short one line. The New Mikemoral

BgBlitz

Hi Ptkfgs,

I regulary scan the net with search engines for websites mentioning BGBlitz or BGBlitz2go, so I stumbled over: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Backgammonexpert. You made my day ;) In a private communication I can tell you why. May I cite you from this page, the last sentence, beginning with "The software packages we have linked..."?

BTW I visit the BG page from time to time and the page gets better and better. Very good job!

ciao Frank Berger (frank at bgblitz dot com )

I would prefer that you not. Thanks! —ptk✰fgs 16:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Pokeman image deletion review

You recently voted on a templates for deletion discussion on Template:PokeImageNR and several other templates. The result was for deletion. The matter is now before deletion review. Please comment if you would like, one way or the other. The users of the Pokeman Wikiproject believe that their case was not fully heard the first time the matter was up for deletion. So please review the situation if you would like. --Woohookitty 21:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the Intellexual link and your criticism

Your criticism and the fact that you favor the Intellexual link into the Bose article has come to the point where I declare it a dispute for a couple of reasons: the link is outdated, Number one, it tests out a product that Bose no longer makes, number two; Bose's quality policies and manufacturing mistakes might have been rectified since then, number three; has a very strong anti-Bose bias, number four; promotes trolling and personal attacks in Misplaced Pages, number five; you used the link to attack UKPhoenix79 on a Bose article, number six.

From my point-of-view, that link needs to be denounced completely to alleviate the trolling, but if you want the link to stay and/or remain in the article, then it will be marked as a disputed link and this dispute needs to be brought up to the Bose corporation article's discussion.

And do NOT give me any harsh criticism anymore because if you do, then you will pay. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 04:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)