Kibiusa

Welcome

Hello Kibiusa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Neo-Jay 01:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Same name -- different article?

I want to create a page about The Children's Aid Society, a large, historically important charitable organization in the US. There is already an article by this name, mentioning that this is what Depts of Family Services are called in Ontario. How do I creat my article with the same name? Or, how can I suggest changing the name of the other page to, i.e., "children's Aid Society -- canada"?

Kibiusa 19:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:DISAMBIG should have some help... Why don't you create Children's Aid Society (United States), or something similar. Then a disambiguation link can be added to each to direct from the other. You can always place {{helpme}} on your user talk page for more assistance. -- Scientizzle 19:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying create a page or The Chidren's Aid Society, a historic charitable organization in the US. There is such a page, referring to family Services in Ontario. User scientizzle suggested creating "Children's Aid Sciety -- United States". However, although I may be off base, that doesn't seem to solve the problem. The American organization was founded in 1853; created many of the child-based social programs we now take for granted; promulgated a controversial program in the 1800's where 100,000 children were sent west on trains to work on farms; and has a current operating budget of >$70 million. It seems to me it deserves the title "Children's Aid Society' and the other article should be titled "Children's Aid Society -- Canada". Does it have to stay this way just because they got there first? It's as if some had entered an obscure definition of, say, "football", and then the sport had to become a subsidiary definition -- "football - sport". What is the stabdard porocedure here in such a case?

thanks in advance for helping a noob!

Kibiusa 20:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the Canadian one to Children's Aid Society (Canada). You now have a few options:

1. Create the US article at Children's Aid Society (it is currently a redirect to the Canadian one) and place at the top "For the Canadian version, see Children's Aid Society (Canada)."
2. At Children's Aid Society create a disambiguation page pointing to the US and Canadian articles, and thus write your article at Children's Aid Society (United States)
3. Have a discussion about this somewhere (I'm not really sure where, but maybe at the Canadian article's talk page)--Commander Keane 20:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for a disambiguation page now, the "See also Children's Aid Society (Canada)" at the top of the article is fine.

By the way, you can sign your name on talk pages using ~~~~, which also places the date and links to your username so it is easy for people to contact you (more extensive instructions are at {{tilde}}). If you want to sign as "Kibi" rather that "Kibiusa", you can go to your preferences and put "Kibi" in the Signature: field (do not tick Raw signature).--Commander Keane 23:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Go (board game)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

-- St.isaac 20:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to inform you that the traditional method for picking up a stone is being discussed in the article's talk page(Talk:Go_(board_game)#Stone_Etiquette). Please discuss there before changing the article. Phelan 14:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't be sure if the photos you removed from Go equipment were really that bad, but the differences in grain of the clamshell stones and the yellowing of the yunzi stones are well illustrated by the examples. I added them back; if you have any problems please contact me. Also, if you have access to any such stones and feel that you can provide better photos, it would be really helpful: all I have are cheap plastic and glass ones.  ;-) Kelvinc 19:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Go: Compenstation points

I reverted some of your changes to the section Go_ranks_and_ratings#Compensation_points and explained why on the talk page there. I watch the talk page so you can reply there. Pete St.John 20:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of rating graph image

You removed the image Image:GoRatingComparison.png from Go ranks and ratings with the edit summary "Graph is meaningless; all beginners should start at the bottom; chess doesn't belong at all". I strongly disagree with this.

• The graph is not meaningless, it is based on actual data.
• Because different rating systems are not aligned, all beginner should not start at the bottom, "bottom" is system dependent.
• The chess data illustrates to anyone familiar with Chess Elo ratings how go ratings compare, which is a much larger group than those already familiar with go ratings.

Furthermore, the image illustrates several points made in the text, amongst others the second half of the "Rating Base" section and most of the "Winning Probabilities" section.

Could you either give a better reason for removal, or refute the points I made? Otherwise, please reinstate the image. HermanHiddema (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I restored the graph, and opened the discussion about it at the talk page there. Pete St.John (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have repeated the above comment on Talk:Go_ranks_and_ratings#Graph_or_ratings_statistics.2C_comparing_Go_and_Chess HermanHiddema (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rules of Go

Hello, I have been making many edits to this page recently. My hope is to state a simple set of rules, and to make only brief reference to other rule sets in the section explaining the basic rules, referring the reader to later sections of the page.

You changed one of the definitions, saying you were removing "cryptic and meaningless phrases". Although finding better wording is always an option, simply deleting these is not. Let me tell you why.

First, the definition concerning connected empty intersections is used in the definition of "territory":

Definition. In the final position, an empty intersection is said to be a point of a player's territory if it is not connected to any empty intersection adjacent to a stone of his opponent's color.

If you remove the definition of connected empty points, the definition of territory becomes meaningless. This is signaled to readers by the inclusion of the sentence "The concept of connected empty points is used only at the end of the game, to define a player's score." There are examples to show what is meant by connected empty points.

You also removed the sentence "Any stone (resp. empty intersection) is understood to be connected to itself." This is pointed out because otherwise, the following definition becomes incorrect:

Definition. In a given position, a liberty of a stone is an empty intersection adjacent to at least one stone to which that stone is connected.

For example, look at the following position:

According to the definition of "liberty", a is a liberty of Black 1 only because it is adjacent to a stone connected to Black 1. That stone is Black 1 itself.

By "understood" I mean "agreed by convention". It could be argued that it is not necessary to point this out, because in the definition of "connected", we could take the "succession" of stones to consist of a single stone. However, because this is open to interpretation, it is best to say flat out that a stone is connected to itself.

If you'd like to suggest better wording, feel free to, but before making changes, please consider the effect on the coherence of the rules taken as a whole. 136.152.224.31 (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Kibi, I agree that the front page shows one possible way to use "respectively", but I think you missed my response on the talk page. I gave a reference to a page where another way of correctly using "resp." is explained. In any case, simply deleting this information is not an option because connected empty intersections are used to define "territory". Please respond on the talk page of "Rules of Go" where "resp." is discussed. 67.150.255.123 (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you misunderstood when I said there were three people editing the page. I meant you, me, and Herman. 136, 67 and 128 are all me. I wasn't trying to hide it, but I realize now I should have been clearer about it for your sake. 67.150.246.169 (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to The Beatles. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

English variations

In a recent edit to the page T. E. Lawrence, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you.  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bay Point Schools

You left out a step when filing this at AFD. I fixed it for you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

From one MFT to another, thank you for trying to help out the article on Family Therapy. The power editors of that article seem relentless to listen, but I agree with everything you mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbakerreach (talk • contribs) 08:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Abbie Betinis article

Hello! It appears that the title has been unprotected and an article placed there. Thanks for alerting me to this. Regards, PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kibiusa. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kibiusa. 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)