Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Niteshift36 (talk | contribs) at 17:16, 15 January 2008 (→double digits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is a member of WikiProject Firearms.

This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Misplaced Pages.

US Subs

You quoted Hazegray.org when claiming the US has no more than 5 non-nuclear subs. Instead of just listing the number, I'd suggest adding this as a source to accompany the US' nuclear subs source.--DMCer™ 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, actually, but it's hard to tell which of the other countries' subs are used for research/rescue, and which are used for military. Except maybe in the case of N. Korea, which I'm sure doesn't sure the 20 subs they have listed here for rescue/research missions, considering they have not nuclear technology employed yet.--DMCer™ 02:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

double digits

I noticed on User_talk:Terjen that you insisted on rounding down rather than up despite that the number to be rounded had a "6" in the insignificant figure; is there any valid reason for doing so? I'm not a Ron Paul fan, but I do know how rounding and significant figures work, and I think you're reading more into that "10%" than is actually there. —Random832 19:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually used the real number, 9.96%. It was him who started the whole "rounding up" thing. I don't see any rule requiring a number be rounded off. 2 decimal places isn't exactly excessive and can be found on other articles about the election. If you read some of the other Paul articles, you can see evidence that it is important to Paul supporters to get "double digits" and from looking at his edits, it appears to me that terjen may be a Paul supporter on a mission. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The first recent edit to the number was Niteshift36 changing 10 to 9.96, with no explanation. I rounded it to 10.0, stating that "one decimal precision is sufficient". Note that the other percentages in this section has no decimals, so that's an attempted compromise. Niteshift36 then changed my edit to 9.9, arguing that "Ok, one decimal point. 9.96% is 9.9 with only one decimal place." he later argued that there is "No rule requiring we round up to make it look like Paul got double digits." Terjen (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I dropped the second one off, not rounded up. (This is all a ploy to try to make your guy look like he got double digits, which has been a point on another Paul article I read stating that he "finally" got into double digits in a poll.) I finally made it read "almost 10%". That is accurate. It is factual. You can't argue it, so let it drop terjen. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Although it is pathetic, I haven't argued the "nearly 10%", so stop pretending I have. Dropping digits of a decimal number is called truncation. Terjen (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say you argued it? I haven't, so please refrain from fabricating things. Nor is accuracy "pathetic". Considering that we had a national election decided by a few hundred votes less than 8 years ago, this isn't exactly a moot point. Now please take your Paul advocacy, fabrications and aversion to accuracy to someone else's page and stop littering mine with your stalking and graffiti. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)