User talk:CosineKitty

Apologies

I mistakenly hit the wrong button and a warning was placed on this page. I have removed it & would like to offer my sincere apologies. kind regards, ^(talk) 15:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix

Thanks for the work on Phoenix, it's shaping up nicely! I replied to your comment with a new section. It might be worth splitting the info box, if we don't split it then I think adding the field is a good idea, in fact we should add a whole section for landers. -Ravedave (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Mercury & its Lobate-ness

Thanks for the link; didn't think to check Wiktionary for a def of this term. You can link to other projects by adding a prefix to the article title (such as [[fr:John Fitzgerald Kennedy]], which produces fr:John Fitzgerald Kennedy). I don't know how to do that for wiktionary, though. I'll see what I can dig up. Again, thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. You do it thus: lobate. But do we really need to link standard English words to their dictionary definitions? Best wishes. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I had the same concern that maybe I was going overboard. The only reason I wanted to link in this instance was because I didn't know the word. I looked it up in Wikipedia, but there was no such article. I then tried Wiktionary and it wasn't there either. Finally I consulted the Merriam Webster online dictionary and found the definition. It was a duh moment, but I went ahead and added the term to Wiktionary. I figured if I had to go out of my way to understand the sentence because of this one word, maybe other college-educated, native English speakers would appreciate a handy definition. Another possibility in this instance would be to replace lobate with its synonym lobed. I appreciate the concern about the overuse of links to define words; if used at all, it should be used with restraint. If possible, unusual terms should be linked to other encyclopedia articles. If a Lobate article existed, I would have linked to it, but I certainly didn't see the point of creating one. CosineKitty (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

SineBot

Dear CosineKitty,

I find it mathematically amusing that both CosineKitty and SineBot are posting to the same article.

I starting writing this note in response to something you said at Talk:War_on_Terrorism#Where_are_the_Terrorist_Casualties.3F.

I thought you were mistakenly attributing intention to User:SineBot, calling that bot "uncivil" and "silly". But now I see you were responding to something someone said much earlier.

Umm... sorry. You are right. Nevermind.

--68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I would not say such a thing about SineBot! I am one of SineBot's biggest fans! :) Seriously, I see what you mean, because my comments do seem literally out of place. It made sense when I wrote it, but now I can see that it's not obvious what I was talking about. I just added a clarification. So, are you the author of SineBot? If so, that's pretty cool. I am a software engineer myself and out of curiosity I looked into what was involved with writing a bot. It looks interesting! CosineKitty (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a fan of SineBot, like you. I also think it would be cool to write a bot.

Although I worry that I might make one teensy little typo that would cause my bot do lots of damage.

Talking about wiki-related software, could you help me build a distributed wiki?

--68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like an ambitious undertaking! I'm afraid my day job consumes most of my desire for hard-core development effort, but I may be able to offer advice every now and then. Are you trying to build a specific wiki, or wiki software that would be used by others? CosineKitty (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for being the Wikipedia police here... I guess you decide who should post on wiki? social list! or should I say socialist?

And building a DoD Sharepoint portal in Baghdad is notable, or at least that what my medal says..

But thanks for taking the time to clean up everybodies messes and making corrections as you see fit... I have a life, or had one until you erase it..

I bet you have a cat... fat, old retired ex-military with a wife who knits as you surf the unternet with one hand and... with the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.15.249 (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can see you're not happy. I could try to guess what you are talking about, but I'm not sure. I have so far nominated 3 pages for deletion, 2 of which were agreed to by administrators. In both of those cases, the pages were obviously self-promotional in nature. Note that I am not an administrator, so I have no special privileges here, which means I cannot delete pages myself. In general, it is stated in Wikipedia guidelines that if you are writing about yourself, your own corporation, etc., you are probably not the best source of neutral, impartial information for that topic. If something is important enough to be included in Wikipedia, somebody else not directly connected with the topic will create the content. Please know that I meant no personal offense, but was merely using my best attempt at editorial judgment, right or wrong. CosineKitty (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

When you revert an editor's vandalism, especially across several articles, such as you recently did to Spam29 (talk · contribs),it's usually a good idea to leave them vandalism warnings on their Talk page. That way, other users can keep track of their edits, and also so that if the user has done a lot of vandalism, they can be reported at WP:AIV. In general, if a user hasn't been warned, even if they've committed a lot of vandalism, admins at AIV won't block. But the vandal hunting is a good thing, keep it up.  :) 22:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I am using a tool called Twinkle. It has a vandalism button that seems to sometimes leave warnings on the talk page, and other times doesn't. I am not sure how it chooses that. Maybe I need to read more about it. I do want to leave the warnings. Thanks for stopping by and saying hi! CosineKitty (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You see, us oldtimers don't use those fancy newfangled things like Twinkle, we do it the old fashioned way -- by hand.  :) 23:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL

I've done it 2-3 times myself :) 21:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism, June 28

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. here. Cindy Flynn (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That edit wasn't mine... I was trying to revert that vandalism myself! For the record, see the following diffs:

• diff #1
• diff #2

CosineKitty (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I see. I'm sorry. I've reviewed the changes and clearly see you where reverting vandalism. Sorry. Cindy Flynn (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't take it personally. I figured it was a mistake, which I know is very easy to make when one is fighting the tide of stupid vandalism here. :) I just wanted to set the record straight on my talk page lest others read here and think I'm one of those idiots. Thanks for taking the time to reply. CosineKitty (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Explorer Articles

Thanks for updating the Explorer 33 article, I was trying to figure out how to do it myself after I ran across the additional documentation on NASA's Technical reports server. I also tried to find additional information on Explorer 49 but there does not seem to be much online about that one. FYI I plan to run down anything the NTRS has on Explorer 35 in a few days. Graham1973 (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you like what I did. It's funny, I stumbled across Explorer 33 because of a link from the Joan Feynman article. Explorer 33 was in bad shape when I found it. It also left the impression that the mission was a total failure, but when I read the references, it was anything but. So now I'm getting more interested in the whole Explorer series of missions. I will leave Explorer 35 to you. I will look through the others and pick one to adopt for myself! :) I think it would be nice to use the Template:Infobox Spacecraft in all of these articles for a consistent look. What do you think about that? CosineKitty (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be a good idea to edit the entire Explorer series of articles for consistency of appearance and to have all of the series listed there is currently a huge gap between Explorer 17 and Explorer 30 . I've done a preliminary search through the NASA Technical Reports Server for information on Explorer 35 but it looks like the online material is almost entirely composed of Mission results with little in the way of technical documentation. The same situation seems to apply for Explorer 49, aside from the launching plans there is little available. That said a title search using 'Explorer' as the keyword should bring up a lot of useful information.Graham1973 (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Reference

Thanks, I've fixed it. I'd copied the content from another article, and the reference, without the full citation was carried along. PS I also noticed you added the &nsbp; entity. It's already there as the unicode character. 13:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)