User talk:Commander Keane

Commander Keane
New message
Email
Archives
1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5 \| 6 \| 7 \| 8
Commander Keane bot (inactive)

Thank You

Thank you for your help @ Teahouse. I was bold and made a topic there. Please allow a question: Would the page Wikiversity:Chess/Board Configurations be allowed on Wikipedia? Mind you that it is ALL WP:OR. I could rework it maybe but the I need someeone to help me. Thanks again. Cheers Harold Foppele (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harold Foppele. Indeed Wikipedia:Original research applies. That subject could only be incorporated into Wikipedia if it has been published by a reliable source. There is Shannon number and if there was an equivalent article or section (I haven't looked) about board configurations, you could look up sources and add that information to that location. If the published sources aligned with your Wikiversity findings you would be effectively reworking them into Wikipedia.

The SSDs in a cargo ships was an interesting, if scary, scenario to illustrate combinations. Recently I discovered the number of combinations in a deck of cards and I was wondering if every person on earth (8 billion?) could shuffle a deck perfectly and uniquely in one minute, how many minutes would it take for a duplicate deck to be made. Maybe there is a Wikipedia article on historical ways large numbers have been communicated to the public? Commander Keane (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page has more then one meaning :) First figure out how large the number could be (max. 13^64), second to make such a number understandable, third start shrinking it to electrons and at last shrinking it to Quantum Computing.

Maybe if link numbers to ref's? Do i need to prove 13^64? Like the #of tons/vessel? #of electrons/Earth ect?

As for your question: even with every human producing a unique different shuffle every minute, you’d need on the order of 10^52 years to run out of unique 52-card decks. If shuffles are random, a duplicate is appears sooner but still in the magnitude of 10^18 years, still far longer than the age of the universe. Would you like to see the calculations ? (I am a freak with numbers) Cheers Harold Foppele (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Foppele: I like your enthusiasm, but Wikipedia can only report on stuff. I think you want to be creative, share your ideas, teach, and expand minds - Wikiversity is better suited to that. The way to write an article is to gather all of the sources and summarise what they say. It is not a case of proving 13^64 (or #tons/vessel) but finding sources that discuss the topic and summarising what they say.

About the deck of cards: what about if every person in the world could shuffle a deck at at 6.2 GHz (apparently the highest boost clock rate on a production processor). Can you work some numbers so duplicate occurrence is something conceivable? I also wasn't sure how random is defined. I should find a Wikipedia article to explain it, but for now I must sleep. Commander Keane (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnight :) Harold Foppele (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At 6.2 GHz per person with 8 billion people, a duplicate deck becomes likely (≈50% chance) after ~6.8 million years. To actually generate every possible deck even once would take ~5.2×10⁴⁰ years utterly impossible.

So yes: pushing everyone to 6.2 GHz drops the duplicate-timescale from huge (with one shuffle/minute) down to millions of years. Remember this 10^71 / 1 million comes to 10^65 and is still unimaginable. Unless you use "Harolds Trick" 😄😄 Pleasant dreams. Harold Foppele (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Solaxa (19:12, 14 November 2025)

Hiya, how do I cite sources properly? Can I site YouTube as a source, if from an official company, or does it have to be a news source? --Solaxa (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solaxa. I see you have added a citation, so I can see you know how to get the technical things right!

YouTube can be used for minor information if it is an official Youtube channel (definitely not a regular Youtuber's channel though), this is discussed at WP:ABOUTSELF. You will find that nearly all information that is of interest to Wikipedia will be published in a reliable source eventually. I would guess that on 27 November 2025 there will be coverage on Synthesizer V Studio 2 and those sources will end up replacing your citation. Wikipedia articles evolve, and that is not a bad thing :-) Commander Keane (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Arinteriors2 (10:33, 16 November 2025)

Our company is known as a top company which is running since 2002. We started from Uttar Pradesh, now I am from Bengaluru. At least 10 to 12 people are working regularly with the company. As I want to tell you, we mostly do interior work which includes offices, independent houses, apartment work, small shops, big shops and showrooms in which everyone also does interior design. --Arinteriors2 (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arinteriors2: I am not sure what your question is but I will give you the advice do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, or in the interests of your external relationships. Paid editing must be disclosed.

Read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and/or Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

If your intent was for an article on your company, I thoroughly recommend patiently waiting for someone else to write it. Wikipedia articles need to meet "notability", see Wikipedia:Notability.

You are more than welcome to edit other articles, we have millions. Everything from astronomy to Transport in Bengaluru. Commander Keane (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed 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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sally Widdershins (11:31, 18 November 2025)

Hi Commander- I see lots of help around here, but most of it is way over my head at this point. (I looked up "Dab", disambiguation page, right?) I'm undereducated but over-curious; I meander broadly in the Wiki-wilds. Errors niggle me, so I have newly registered and am assigned you as my mentor. Glory be! I have the impression you're a biological entity, not a chat bot? I just wanted to say Hello- I will try not to be a pest. On my user page I see that any edits will appear, but I am wondering about Talk Topics added? Today on article East Florida (the British colony of short existence) I noted an erroneous link to be undo-ed. Undid? Undone? and added the topic. I have perused a few talk pages, and I worry that if I edit something, some bot will come along and undo me. Cooperatively yours, Sally Widdershins --Sally Widdershins (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sally Widdershins! Yes I am human :-)

I think fixing that John Tobler link in East Florida could be a great first edit for you to make. There is a culture of fix it yourself around here. From the article's Media section, click [edit], then select Tobler's blue link. From there, you can either Edit the link to something like John Tobler (author), or if you think the author is highly unlikely to require a Wikipedia article, remove the link. This is an application of disambiguation.

That method is the VisualEditor. Alternatively you could click [edit source] and change the wikimarkup to [[John Tobler (author)|John Tobler]]. Either way it will look like John Tobler; a red link ready for someone to create a new article. I think my explanation is as clear as mud but the documentation at Help:Introduction_to_editing_with_VisualEditor/3 doesn't seem much better. Just ask me if needed.

You can't break anything on Wikipedia and should not live in fear of bots. An amusing story is that when the first anti-vandalism bot was introduced back in about 2009 it reverted (essentially undid-ited) Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales three times for a perfectly good edit. He was confused :-P. I see below you have figured out that any contributions you make, including to articles or talk pages, will be recorded in your user contributions. Commander Keane (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It took me a minute to recognize the red chain thing as "remove link" and not "report mental health concern" but mission accomplished. Sally Widdershins (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sally Widdershins (11:37, 18 November 2025)

Me again- I found my East Florida Topic in User Contributions. Baby steps ; ) --Sally Widdershins (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Studying revision histories.

I've been looking at the history of Sonam Kapoor article. Well that's an education. I'm learning about bots and how some people (210.49.14.130) seem to think this is Facebook? I'll have to print a cheat sheet for where all the different kinds of brackets go and the lingo. "Revert vandalism". And I managed to put a link in this message :-) Sally Widdershins (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sally Widdershins, looking at Special:Contributions/210.49.14.130 you are delving into ancient history with 2007 edits!

How are you defining bots? They will typically "bot" in their username. Otherwise, human editors will frequently use gadgets or tools to easily revert vandalism. These tools will generate edit summaries like "Reverted 2 edits by ..." or "Restored revision 1317943504 by ...".

By using the technique of going to url bar and putting "WP:CHEATSHEET" after the /wiki/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHEATSHEET) I came up with Help:Cheatsheet for wikitext markup, and Wikipedia:Glossary for lingo. Commander Keane (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dude: you rock! Sally Widdershins (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hollingsworth v Perry edited

Hey Coach- can you let me know if my nitpicking was appropriate? The third sentence began with a pronoun but referred to the person in the first sentence, not the person in the adjacent second sentence. Sally Widdershins (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sally Widdershins: it looks good to me. If it makes sense to you, it is probably an improvement, and a welcome edit. Be bold is our motto! If you are wrong or overstep, it is trivial for someone to undo.

By the way, if you want a challenge, next time you refer to a specific edit like you did with Hollingsworth v. Perry, you can link to it in the discussion - this makes it easier for others to see the exact change you are talking about. It is called a diff.

You visit the edit history of an article, use the radio buttons to select the modification period (it can be more than one edit), display the diff, and copy the url.

Then in a discussion you insert an external link, using that url and some relevant display text. Clear as mud? An example: your recent edit. Tada. Commander Keane (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]