User talk:Bushytails

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

My father passed away yesterday, and as he was the person I was most close to, I'm going on a wikibreak until I'm no longer crying all day... Bushytails 01:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm slightly back. Bushytails 02:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] DYK

Did you know has been updated
and a fact from the article hose clamp, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

You've found an underrepresented area of Wikipedia. :) 68.81.231.127 10:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcoming newcomers

A reminder: When welcoming newcomers with an anonymous IP address, please use a message similar to {{anon}} as it is specifically designed to invite the person to register a new account. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Good plan.  :) Bushytails 05:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woodworking/metalworking wikiproject

Hi Bushy,

Argh! my computer just locked up as I was about to preview the rather long message I was writing and I had to restart it by turning it off and on a few times. I hate Microsoft! Anyway, I will try to remember what I wrote.

Thanks for cleaning up the layout of pictures I put up on the Drill bit article, looks much better. If you will look at the pictures, you will note they have sawdust on them. I am not very familiar with metalworking other than what I need for wooddorking]. However, I am prepared to participate in a woodworking/metalworking wikiproject if you want to start up the page. I agree with you that much clean-up is required, stubs need to be expanded, new articles written, duplicate articles removed and a whole bunch of stuff categorised. I have been trying to do some clean-up on woodworking articles (and metalworking ones when I run across them). The big task will be to set up a to-do list. We would also need to invite other people who have worked on articles. Also, it might be a good idea to post the existence of our project on the rec.woodworking and rec.crafts.metalworking usenet newsgroups. I am a long-time participant in rec,woodworking and stopped posting only because I got addicted to wikipedia. Anyway, go ahead, start the project & I will certainly participate.207.189.233.198 06:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC) Ooops that was me. Forgot to log in again after the crash.Luigizanasi 06:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

*evil laugh*. I like the anti-faq.  :)
Metalworking and woodworking have a lot in common, so many pages will be part of both... as to a to-do list, that was the second step I was thinking of... the first being to create a list of all metalworking and related pages so we know what we have (for example, I only found endmill by searching for random terms and seeing what came back, as it wasn't linked from anywhere or in any categories), then creating the to-do list of what pages we should have, categories to create, what needs to be written, etc.
I have to stay off usenet. recovering from serious usenet addiction. At least I only have mild wikipedia addiction.  :)
I'll look at creating the project tomorrow; need sleep now! also see if anyone else has input on what to do...
Thanks! Bushytails 07:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject

I tinkered with the idea of a materials science wikiproject: metalworking falls neatly into that category, but materials science has quite a broad scope. Metallurgy is also quite bad on this site; I just noticed the lack of a spring steel, and liked it to martensite for want of a better article.

I'm kind of overwhelmed with thesis work at the moment, but I'd be happy to give some input in a month or two.

I see you wrote hose clamp...heh, I wrote cotter pin. Perhaps there should also be a fastener wikiproject? But no, that's for someone else.--Joel 06:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I too noticed the lack of spring steel... but "materials science" is a bit broad of a project, might be better to break it down into separate projects that collaborate. Plastics? Metals? Carbon composites? Advanced polymers? Masonary? Semiconductors? Crystals? Fluid properties? All the things I can't think of? No sane person could keep track of it all.  :) (and a fastener project might be a bit narrow...)
I don't have too much spare time these days (and trying to find another job isn't helping), but should be able to contribute a bit (ugh, bad pun, given how much I've worked on drill bit lately)...
I'll look at starting the project tomorrow... need sleep! was going to go to bed after the last response I wrote, then saw yours, and now reaaaaly need to sleep.  :)
Thanks! Bushytails 07:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject, how broad?

Their seems to be general support for a wikiproject, but from the above two comments (Luigizanasi and Joel) my only concern would be how broad. As Joel notes materials science is a huge area, as I feel both metalworking and woodworking are. While combining them may well work, keeping them seperate should keep them better focused. Looking at the Category pages for both woodworking and metalworking shows a lot of coverage, and that's only the pages that have been tagged (found).

I feel a Metalworking Wikiproject as a start and if that proves a success with suitable support/enthusaism being shown, ie: it works! then a sister wikiproject - woodworking could soon be created with co-operation/overlap between the two member bases.

I've also found the existing material a 'little' disorganized, in fact I'm suprised you found endmill as I did a search for it before creating milling cutter, thing is I would've searched for [[End mill]] (7,000,000 hits according to google, vs 17000). That just confirms that the project need some co-ordinating.

Graibeard| talk 07:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest that you plan for doing it all but deal with one thing at a time? If you arrange it as a tree structure with say, technology as the trunk and cotter pin and mortise and tenon as twigs you could see how the material already available, would fit the scheme and concentrate on filling in the structure of one branch at a time so as not to be overwhelmed. Perhaps the categories already existing, might suggest what constitutes a branch. (RJP 09:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC))

That's about what I was thinking... metalworking and woodworking should be separate projects, but try to follow the same goals. As to a tree, right now we only have one blanket category of "metalworking" for most of it (with the exception of welding and metallurgy)... perhaps, after building a comprehensive list of metalworking pages, the first step would be to create a category system? (both a conceptual one, i.e. "how the heck do we organize this?", and article categories)

Something like...

  • Metalworking
  • Metalworking hand tools
(center punches, hammers, pliers, etc go here)
  • Machining
  • Milling Machines and tools
(milling machine types, 3 axis, 5 axis, cutters, etc go here)
  • Lathes and tools
(everything lathe related)
  • CNC
(g-code, tool path generation, 2.5d, CAM, maybe the main CAD article just to relate it, etc)
  • etc
  • Measuring tools
(rulers, squares, calipers, dial gauges, prussian blue, etc go here)
  • Cutting tools
(saws, plasma cutters, guillotines, etc go here)
  • Drilling and threading
(all the drill bit articles, tapes and dies, etc)
  • Finishing
(polishing, powder coating, shot peening, annodizing, etc, although this might overlap metallurgy)
  • Fabricating
  • Smithing
(forging, casting, drawing, etc goes here)
  • Welding
(a very well-developed article and category already; needs almost no work save a few links.)
  • Metallurgy
(might be better to make a sub-project, or at least do last, as it's very large, and doesn't coincide too much with metalworking)


Oh well, you see where I'm going. I've already found problems with the above list, and it's by no means complete, but it conveys the idea.  :)

Of course, this reeks of excessive bureaucratic planning, something I try to avoid...

Perhaps each article should have a navigation footer, giving the place(s) it is in the category tree, links to the main Metalworking page, links to the top-level metalworking category pages, and links to main articles in the same category? And the main metalworking page would be a brief summary of each main category, with nice alternating left/right thumbnail pictures (i.e. person using a mill, person welding, person forging, etc), and the like... oooh, shiny!

Woodworking seems to be in a lot better shape than metalworking... though I haven't looked at it nearly as much. (my skills (or lack thereof) being more with metal than wood).

But that's all for now... have to go help someone. Unless there's comments on not doing it, I'll create the wikiproject when I get back, as so far it sounds like people like the idea. Bushytails 19:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


Ok, a crappy draftish project page is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Metalworking -- feel free to fix and modify it in any way.

Also probably best to move this off my talk page and onto the project's talk page.  :)

Probably tonight I'll create the uber-huge-list-of-articles to paw through...

Bushytails 23:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit]  :o!

Image:Barnstar-rotating.gif

Don't forget to wind this barnstar daily. --Phroziac (talk) 03:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I consent

Please accept this Barnstar of Diligence as you always take out the trash in Wikipedia!

Image:Barnstar3.png

Take care, Molotov (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflicts, I am so sick of people adding crap.

Meep meep!
Enlarge
Meep meep!

Take care, meep! Molotov (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


'Tis ok. And thankies again. and I'll keep the roadrunner picture here, too.  :) Bushytails 22:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] borrowed text

well, I didn't have any idea where it might have been from. If I see something I can verify as copyvio, I do it! Thanks. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

In that case, even though I couldn't find a source, is was so blatently copied it didn't matter... probably out of a journal or something google isn't allowed to index. Bushytails 05:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Need to find a fastener now

Well, how about that! :) Accepted and appreciated. Graibeard 05:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Was just noticing how remarkably good Cutting speed and the other recent articles you've written were... Not only are they well-written articles, but you obviously know a lot more about what you're talking about than I do.  :) Bushytails 05:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metalworking

  • Grins and hugs, on general furry principle* Sadly changing it's' to it is is about the extent of my knowledge on this matter! Unless there's some form of metalworking that involves cricket, that is... =;) Loganberry (Talk) 23:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Furry lifestyler

Hello, me again! =;) I notice that you've edited the section of the furry lifestyler article concerning furs' sexualities. That part of the article was originally written by me at a time when Rust's statistics [1] (which gave figures of 25% heterosexual, 48% bisexual and 19% homosexual) were still cited as a reference, so I certainly don't have a problem with an edit now that said reference is no longer used.

Actually, though, I personally don't think Rust was as far out as all that, though I'd probably reduce the "bisexual" figure a bit. I'm heterosexual, but am in a minority among my furry friends. The Demographics of sexual orientation article (isn't Wikipedia great?) gives a range of statistics as one might expect, but the estimated "non-hetero" total varies from 5% to 15%. I would be very, very surprised if as few as 15% of furs identified as non-hetero.

Having said that, "identified" is an interesting word. Furry is much more accepting of gay/bi people than most other communities, and I've sometimes wondered (damn that No original research rule!) whether in fact it's not that furs are more likely to be gay/bi than the general population, but rather that the general population is much less likely to be open about it. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot more than 15% of people were non-heterosexual; it's just that furry is one of the few places they can say so without fear.

This is a subject that interests me, but this rambling comment isn't doing a lot to improve Wikipedia's article quality, so I'm going back to the article now. I think I'll have to remove the "likely far less than often perceived to be" sentence, though, since that's no better (without a reference to back it up) than the previous version. I like the "common perception" bit, though, since that's a fact rather than an opinion. It's going to mean a rather short paragraph, but until and unless we find some good external statistics then that's unfortunately inevitable. Loganberry (Talk) 00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm heterosexual too (and monogamous, which many people also seem to think furs aren't)... and, interestingly, so are the majority of furs I've met. Sure, a list of furs I've met most definitely counts as original research, but I met quite a few when I was (for a short while) organizer of a furry group, and I think the significant majority were also straight... And I was in the bay area!  :)
In addition to furs being more likely to be open with other people, I figure it might also be that furs have a better, not sure how to word it, view of themselves. More of a feel for who and what they are, and accepting of that, than other people on average. The effect is the same, that the percentage of non-hetero furs is the same as the percentage of non-hetero non-furs, but that furs might be much more likely to realize/accept what they are.
Rambling comments are always good; I sure make plenty of them.  :)
The statistics you mentioned were firstly gathered at conventions, which are hardly a representation of furs as a whole, and then from voluntary response online surveys, which are rather prone to bias. (i.e. the "Gay and proud!" types may be more likely to take the survey than the "so I'm a fur, what of it?" type, for example). Conducting an accurate survey would be very difficult; randomly cold-calling a few million phone numbers and asking each person who answered if they were a fur, and if so, what their orientation was, still would be prone to bias, but would be more accurate that the highly self-selected surveys done so far.
Another factor that might cause furry sexuality statistics to be skewed is the large percentage of people who are furs but don't know it. I, myself, when I discovered furry culture thought something along the lines of "You mean I'm not alone?!", and from the few people I've introduced to what furry was, have seen similar responses. It's quite possible that people who identify as gay/bi are more likely to be thinking about what they are and what else they might be, or might get exposed to furryness through other means (such as being in a more enlightened demographic). (In simpler wording, it could be that people who are gay/bi are more likely to discover they're also furry than straight people, in terms of people who might be furry but don't know it or don't know of its existance).
Oh well, this (like most other sexuality topics) might never be resolved.  :) Bushytails 03:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] moved from userpage

I think you got my IP wrong beacuse I didnt add anything to Wikipedia lately From 198.148.166.5 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.148.166.5 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

IP addresses are often shared between multiple people; someone with your IP was vandalizing articles. To avoid confusion, you may wish to create an account, so your edits will be separate from the other people who may use your IP. Thanks, Bushytails 17:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC).

[edit] WP:CP

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 23:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied"

If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions.

After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to:

{{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~

Blank the page and replace the text with

{{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}

to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.


Yes, I saw that... however, I'm rather not a fan of speedy deleting most things (i.e. prefer to give the user the benefit of a doubt), and if I started speedying some and not others, I'd have even more people complaining.
(And, no, I'm not making a WP:POINT... why do you ask?  :) Bushytails 00:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
(of the ~20 I've listed on CP in the last two days, only 4 are less than 48 hours old, so it wouldn't change much anyway... Bushytails 01:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] 2005 South Asia earthquake

Image:WikiThanks.png Thank you for your contribution at 2005 South Asia earthquake. Please keep it up!!! Pradeepsomani (talk)

[edit] thanks for update on my Bucko contribuiton

I will learn how to write my own info .. thanks very much for you help

AC

Glad to help! It is a copyright violation to copy other web sites, and they usually get deleted as soon as they're noticed. However, if you write a new version of the article, entirely from scratch, your contributions would be most welcome! You may also wish to create an account, which lets you do more things than you can do without one, such as vote, upload files, move pages, etc. Bushytails 18:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article strap-on dildo, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
In this spirit I've added a barnstar to your user page. Please enjoy it! *grins* - UtherSRG (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heh heh

Great work on the strap on dildo article. As your probably aware I reached it via "Did You Know?" on the frontpage, again much positive sentiment on getting it there. I checked out the talk page, only to see accusations of trollhood and so forth. If the world was more tolerant perhaps it would be a featured article, marveled and referenced by millions, with the only accusations being that of genius. -- D-Katana 21:45, October 17 (UTC)

Heh, thankies. If you think the article's talk page was bad, see Talk:Main Page. I might submit it as a featured article, once a couple more sections (history, for example) are added. Thanks again, Bushytails 21:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Talk:Main Page

Hi. I like to read Talk:Main Page everynow and then, and was rather irritated at the rudeness a few other users displayed towards you. As far I'm concerned, tolerance is the best thing a person can practice. Besides, sex, like politics and religion, is a frequent target for POV, vandalism, and such, so you need to have people devoted to keeping the atricles up to a high standard. Keep up the good work, and don't let close-minded people get you down.-Sean Black Talk 01:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh, thankies. The depressing-constant-criticism is countered by the arguments-so-bad-they're-funny factor, which is good at keeping people from "getting you down".  :) Thanks again, Bushytails 01:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC).


[edit] Talk:Main Page Part II - Arguments RETURN - (insert scary music here)

On the other hand, I was extremely disappointed by your participation in the exchange on the Talk and felt it lowered the overall quality of Wikipedia. Your article is well-written. The subject matter, while I thought mildly inappropriate for the main page, is respectfully treated. You obviously had editorial support or it never would have made the DYK at all. So why did you feel you had to lobby so hard against every bit of criticism? Your refusal to acknowledge the validity of any detracting argument, your comparison of dildos to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the naive dismissal of any sort of standards as culture-specific POV all struck me as particularly insulting and juvenile. For someone so ostensibly concerned with NPOV you were sure working hard to impose your standards on everyone else. You pulled off a coup by getting this article on the main page, congratulations. Next time take a step back and let your work speak for itself. --squirrel 14:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"You obviously had editorial support or it never would have made the DYK at all." Actually, I got exactly zero help. I asked a couple people to proofread it before I listed it on DYK, but no one did. I then listed it on DYK suggestions same as I would any other article, and it was put on the main page by not one, but two admins I've never met or talked to. Don't go assuming that your not liking something means other people also don't or that I had to pull strings to get it listed; your feeling that it's inappropriate for DYK doesn't mean wikipedia admins also feel this way.
And your "standards" are exactly that. Many cultures don't have the POV that there's anything wrong with dildos or that articles about them should be hidden. I'm guessing you're in the US, as most other countries don't hold the strong POV you're calling "standard". Did you know that in, say, Australia, full nudity is considered acceptable in magazines and on TV?
As to defending the article, all criticism against it was only about whether it should be on the main page, so letting the work speak for itself is irrelevant, with the exception of spawn man's insistance the word "cock" not appear in it. As a primary goal of wikipedia is a neutral point of view, I'm not just defending the article, I'm defending wikipedia's goals as a whole. If we let your culture's standards apply to wikipedia, using an example I gave on another talk page, will we also edit out any pictures of uncovered women's faces, mentions of beef as food, etc? Rather than trying to pick which cultures' opinions we should make policy and which to ignore, the only sane option is to remain neutral and not allow any of them to control the encyclopedia.
As to pushing a POV, I'm most definitely doing that. I'm pushing a POV that wikipedia should be neutral, and cover all content equally, regardless of any culture's POV about the content. If you call pushing neutrality as "imposing standards", so be it.
The last argument I'll make, as I'm getting tired of repeating things, is consensus. During the 12 hours or so it was on the main page, probably many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people saw the link. Only about 30 chose to complain, while about 20 pointed out how great it was or that it was ok there. Given the standard rule that people with a complaint are far more likely to do something than people who are happy with it or find it acceptable, and that so few people complained, I'd say the overwhelming public opinion was that it is OK on the front page, and it's only a small minority of people who have an objection to it.
Thanks for your comments, Bushytails 17:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC).
You miss my point. I'm not debating the suitability of your article for the main page, I'm saying you were out of line to dive so deeply in the ensuing argument. As the author you have a definite personal interest in the success of your article and your energetic point-by-point response to your critics went way beyond neutral debate and into demagoguery. Your article was already on the main page, uncensored, unmolested by the Admin staff. That amounts to Admin approval. To debate or not to debate had absolutely no effect on that result and served only your pride, not the goals of Wikipedia. Your repeated assertion that there was "no reason" not to include the article in DYK, dismissing the blindingly obvious reason why some might object, comes off as willfully naive and only fanned the flamewar.
I find your argument about consensus to be particularly mind-boggling. If, as you suggest, a silent majority does support your article, does that somehow make their view the correct one? Aren't the cultural standards you decry also formed by majority consensus? Do you really want to put all of your ideals and opinions up for a vote? --squirrel 20:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
You sure sounded like you were debating the suitability of the article for the main page, what with the claims it required "help" to get it in DYK, a coup, talking about letting it speak for itself, etc...
I think I mentioned at the start of each discussion on it that I might be slightly biased to thinking it's well-written, etc... of course I have a personal interest in the article (hell, it took two weeks to create, only part of which was the 450 photos taken). As to "unmolested", it was being removed, re-added, modified, etc on the DYK template (which is on the main page), so that's not nearly as clear-cut as you make it sound.
I'd hardly call it "blindingly obvious," as while I expected some complaints, I expected a lot fewer comments than there were. (although I did expect more typical vandalism; I was amazed the article received none... interesting demographic trivia that the people who vandalize are accepting of articles like that). I guess I underestimated just how strongly some americans feel their POV represents the entire planet. (Yes, I'm aware that sentance sounds like anti-american bigotry, but checking all the IPs on the main page talk shows every one thinking it should be removed to be american, except for one canadian, which was the least-strong removal request; that is a statement of fact, not bigotry).
As to why I responded to every comment; I feel it is appropriate to respond to arguments rather than ignoring them. If someone has a comment, the comment should be adressed rather than ignored, even if the response is to say exactly why their comment should not affect wikipedia in any way. Ignoring comments is rude, and I make a point of thouroughly reading every comment made, and giving a response which addresses the specific statements made in the comment rather than a form letter or a personal attack. If I were to ignore criticism, in addition to being rude, it wouldn't be appropriate either; criticism should not be ignored. (ignored in this context not including a thoughtful response as to why you weren't doing anything differently because of it)
As for consensus; that argument was just another reason why it was acceptable for the main page, and simply showed that despite the arguments people were making about standards and society and all that, it was obviously just those individuals and not society as a whole. (and, no, cultural standards are not defined by the majority, they're defined by corrupt religious officials and other leaders, and the culture usually just blindly follows them)
Thanks again, Bushytails 21:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC).
Not only am I not claiming you had special "help" in landing a DYK spot, I'm saying your article went through the exact same admin review process as every other DYK article. The decision to post your article on DYK - and not remove it - was a profound statement of support from Wikipedia's admins that is itself an answer to the critics. Regardless, in this case you were supremely unqualified to speak for Wikipedia because you had a conflicting interest in speaking for yourself and your work. It's the same reason why editors go to bat for their journalists and not the other way around. By not respecting that conflict of interest you undermined your own credibility and the credibility of the organization you claim to speak for.
As for consensus, you're still contradicting yourself. On one hand you suggest that the silent majority of non-critics actually support your article. On the other you claim that the majority is not expressing their will but is instead brainwashed by some vague cabal. The reality is that "society" and "leaders" and "religious officials" are not faceless, monolithic entities, they are groups of people with minds and wills just like yours. There is no conspiracy, only individuals who respond to reason and emotion just like you. --squirrel 15:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't like Bushytails..... Just so you know.... Spawn Man 09:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's ok. You don't have to like me. Bushytails 17:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Fine, I wont if that's what you want.... Spawn Man 23:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Suggestion

Hi there,

You created a talk page for IP address 207.6.147.254 and invited me to create an account. It was on my list of things to do -- honest! But considering I had edited a few articles I guess it was appropriate that I did so. Thanks for the gentle shove.

I send this message to thank you (above), to let you know in case you should or need to remove the talk page for that IP address (since it is a dynamic IP address and someone else could have it assigned to them at some stage [in fact, other people on my local network do use this IP]), and to ask a question: Do you know if it is possible to have the contributions associated with my IP address before I created my account somehow transferred to my user name (Lapsus Linguae)? Just a little narcissism on my part I suppose!

Hope I have done the right thing by sending you a message this way. I was going to send it through the "E-mail this user" link, but then I noticed that you had a link on your user page suggesting that people contact you this way. I have been familiar with netiquette for years now, but I can see that I will need a bit of time to figure out some of the norms in this community with its rather unique structure.

Thanks again.

--Craig 09:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep, this is indeed the proper place to ask questions... I replied on your new talk page.  :) Bushytails 18:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome and the answer about merging contribution histories. Not serious. Just thought it would be nice. --Craig 19:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sloth

Given the quality of the information on the sloths page, I think the references to dog buggery constitute a marked improvement. You may want to have someone edit the entry whose information comes from more than Disney movies. (unsigned comment by 24.34.21.215 (talk • contribs).)

If you feel that way, please work to improve the article, rather than vandalise it. Bushytails 06:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My link

Can you tell me how my link is not relevant?

[edit] Never mind!

I get it - thanks

I replied on your talk page. Thanks, Bushytails 20:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Welcomes

good idea, thanks for telling me about the other template. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

Ouch! Woah. That's the worst personal attack I've received so far. I can't help but feel a litle perverse pride, really. :)--Sean Black Talk 00:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured I should point it out to you in case you missed it.  :)
P.S. Good luck with the mop, buddy. :)--Sean Black Talk 00:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Thankies.  :) Bushytails 00:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This guy doesn't quit [2]. Frankly, your disparaging nickname is much more creative than mine. :).--Sean Black Talk 01:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

hehe  :) Bushytails 01:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strap-on-dildo

Evilphoenix mentioned it when he voted neutral. Was he referring to someone else...? It's not entirely clear. freestylefrappe 02:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I was thinking you were referring to a specific comment I made at some point, not to the debate as a whole... Thanks again, Bushytails 04:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC).


[edit] James Blake (bus driver)

I filled out the article more. --Kmsiever 19:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppeting Biggie P

The reason why I deleted your sockpuppet notice from my user talk is because:

1. It is not true, you made a clear assumption that isn't coherent whatsoever.

2. Something like that on my talk page is detrimental to my credibility.

You are hurting my ability to edit Wikipedia for the better by posting something like that on my user talk. It undermines my credibility and people will be more likely to dismiss my edits. Please don't do it again.

-71.132.159.145 00:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Place To Store All Your Dildoes

Bushytails' New Dildo Storage Area
Enlarge
Bushytails' New Dildo Storage Area

Hey Bushytails, I figured you'd need a place to put all your dildos now that it looks like you're becoming an admin. I've also put up a notice about JJ Johnson up at WP:AN/I. Congrats! Karmafist 20:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, JJ's "Sockstars" are from accounts that aren't actually accounts, per se. His antics will stop by tonight, one way or another. Karmafist 20:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some stuff

Hey, Bushytails. This little Biggie.P thing has spiraled out of control, so see JJ.Johnson (talk • contribs). He seems to have swiped the layout from your user page, and then claimed that I gave him a Barnstar, but I ,er, didn't. I don't think he's actually Biggie, but perhaps a friend or schoolchum? I saw the discussion at WP:AN/I already, but keep me posted.--Sean Black | Talk 20:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the threats- There are two or three IPs he's using as well, yes? I think he's deliberately talking to, and about, himself to fool us. Hopefully it won't work.--Sean Black | Talk 21:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Yea, this is the same guy, except I don't plan to do anything stupid anymore. Just a note of clarification, my JJ.Johnson user page was only made that way for satirical purposes, I seriously did not plan on killing anybody. The Barnstars were meant to be fake of course, but obviously that wasn't a good idea. I'm going to withdraw my "votes" off of your RFA, and will refrain from voting. Anyways, good luck with that.
Also, I am quite fond of the way your talk page is set up. I hope it's ok with you if I mimic it a little bit (obviously with no barnstars, but I guarantee FAKE awards!!). Big.P 04:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Alright then.--Sean Black | Talk 04:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strap-on dildo NPOV?

(copied from my talk page)

You mentioned you didn't feel the article was NPOV... any specific part of it you'd suggest I fix? I tried to write it as neutrally as possible, and it contains discussion (all factual to my knowledge) of practices I'm not personally interested in, while (I hope) not containing any gender or sexuality discriminatory material. There may be a bit of undue weight in that lesbian and transexual activities are not as well documented, but this is only because I am less familiar with them, not a POV against them. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance, Bushytails 05:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC).
  • Sure. The phrase "exteremely pleasurable" is repeated several times, in contexts like "Pegging is typically reported as extremely pleasurable..." with little support. The following sentence, "Many people, such as Dan Savage, believe all men should try pegging at least once..." with little evidence that anyone besides Dan Savage actually believes this. It's a piece of advocacy, and hardly a bad one, but it has many evaluations of frequency "typically advertised as..." etc. that make it sound like it's written more from experience than research. Statements like "The best practice is to try everything and see what's fun!" are clearly geared toward a how-to guide. Hope that helps! Demi T/C 22:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Questions

Hi, and thanks for the welcome. I've learnt a lot, and written a lot in the last four days, but time spent working things out detracts from contributing, so perhaps you can answer a few questions:

  1. The statistics pages seem to state filesize in Kb when surely the standard is to use kB (small k and B for bytes b for bits). Should this be put right or am I missing something?
  2. I can't seem find out how Go and Search differ on the search?
  3. Search seems very bad at coming up with 'near-match' pages, eg a search for 'Equal loudness contours' doesn't lead instantly to 'Equal-loudness contour'. I put up several redirect pages to overcome this but they have now gone. Am I missing something? You can answer here, thanks.

Lindosland 14:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  1. You'd have to talk to the developers about labling of file sizes, but I believe they are bytes...
  2. If you type in an article that exists, and press go, you will be taken to the article, while if you press search it will search for matching articles even if one of the exact name exists.
  3. Search isn't always that great, and I've often used google to search wikipedia even when wikipedia's search is working... again, that's a talk-to-the-devs question.  :)
  4. oh, and normally questions go at the bottom of talk pages, not the top... the little "+" link next to the edit this page button should do it automatically.
Glad to (attempt to :) help, Bushytails 16:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC).

[edit] RFA

Sincere congratulations on your RFA. Just being nominated speaks highly of your dedication and contributions to Wikipedia. I genuinely regret having to oppose because I feel you've done lots of good work. I hope this experience is an overall positive for you and helps you become an even better Wikipedia editor. --squirrel 15:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scary RFA! Boo!

Something I just noticed : Your RFA ends on Halloween! */OoooOOHhaa!!/*  :)--Sean Black | Talk 06:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised at the oppose pile-up, actually. I don't doubt that a few of the opposers have an dildo (or Furry, or whatever) bias, however. BTW, what timezone are you in? It's absurdly late where I am.--Sean Black | Talk 06:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Pacific! It's 3 AM here (New York). I'm going to bed. Cheers,Sean Black | Talk 07:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual preference

Yeah, but I coudn't think of any other way to say it. Either way, he (or she)'s misreprenting you by saying "animal fetish". Sheesh!--Sean Black | Talk 05:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unlikely award:

I award this barnstar to Bushytails for being himself...Spawn Man 06:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I award this barnstar to Bushytails for being himself...Spawn Man 06:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this a surprise? I thought I'd give you this for being you. Although we had our disagreements, you still didn't change your point of view, & for that I will respect you. Although the argument, or heated discussion if you will, got out of hand a bit, I do not resent you. Your sexual preferences are different to mine, but I don't care, who am I to judge? Everyone is different. Although I am still voting for oppose on your adminship, do not presume that it is because dislike your sexual preference. I am not expecting a reply, so you don't have to give one, I just thought it would be nice to show that we are not enemies & I'm not that mean... Spawn Man 06:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)-- BTW. Your friend mentions you live in the Pacific, what country, as I too live in the Pacific...

Replied on my talk page you nice person you. Spawn Man 07:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum

You're a credit to this project. Please reapply for adminship again if this attempt fails. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yay! You got denied adminship! I'm soo happy for you! Spawn Man 06:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
meta:dick. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phroziac

Please see User:Phroziac. She says she's leaving. Please tell her that things aren't as bad they seem. Thanks.--Sean|Black 00:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Hi there! Sorry about the results for the RfAs. As I mentioned in the talk page, I have concerns about the motivation of some of the oppose votes. I think you handled yourself commendably and will eventually make a great admin. BTW, you did great work on that DYK article, kudos! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto to what Chairboy says. Plus you're also doing great work on the metalworking stuff. Luigizanasi 05:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Eloquence summed it up very well — eloquently in fact ;-) .
In the absence of the admin tools, have you investigated these scripts?. While they are not a direct replacement for them, they do help with navigation. CryptoDerk's vandal fighter works well, going by the quick setup I did, and should also be a useful addition. — Graibeard 06:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hategories and others

And further to the above, sorry for the belated reply but I've been distracted with non-wiki matters, and it will remain so for a bit longer too, you know how it goes. If I can do nothing else (articles and adding content) then a few quick reverts or edits from my watch list will have to do, especially when the server response is crippling. Be back soon(ish). — Graibeard 06:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh, same here... I've ended up simultaneously having no job, money, or car (note to all: The California Department of Motor Vehicles is REALLY FUCKED UP, and DOES NOT CARE. My perfect little subie of mine is sitting in the garage, and they won't let me drive it, since someone fucked the paperwork up, and they won't fix it), and trying to figure out how next month's bills are getting paid with none of those... if I had any one of the three, it wouldn't be a problem, but without any of the three... sigh. So, yeah, I'm not doing much either at the moment... bleh. Bushytails 07:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the good old DMV. Smog referee's decree cost me $100 for parts I'm still convinced I didn't need, but I digress. If you want to remove the hobby tags from the R/C car articles, go ahead if you feel the category is inappropriate. Hey, and if you're into giant-scale R/C, run, don't walk to the R/C wiki!! - Lucky 6.9 05:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The r/c wiki with the bloody horrible black color scheme that makes my eyes hurt?  :)
As to the DMV... two years ago, someone kicked up a rock that cracked my windshield. Their insurance paid for a new windshield, and all was well. Or so I thought. Apparantly the insurance company then made a mistake (they call it a "misunderstanding"), and this year, reported the car as a total loss/undrivable/salvage. I only find this out when I go to renew my registration, and they won't renew it. I call the insurance company, and they refuse to fix it. I call the DMV, and they refuse to remove it without being told to do so by the insurance company. So there's no fucking way to have it fixed! I spent two hours yelling at the local DMV office, and the only thing I got out of them was a printout saying I was welcome to sue them in a california court if I believed they had made an error.
Even though it was a screwup, they're insisting I go through the salvage revival process, costing over $300 just in fees... salvage certificate, VIN inspection (every vin; inside body panels and all), brake and lamp inspection, smog inspection (which it'll never pass without a new catalytic converter), replacement title, new registration, new plates (they won't let me keep my old plates, which I'm rather fond of), transfer fee, and about 67 other things I'm not remembering right now... and it would permanently brand the title as salvage. I'll be lucky if I can get my car back on the road for less than $500... even though there's fucking nothing wrong with it! it's sitting in the garage, even has a gallon of gas, and they won't renew the registration. It would have been cheaper to fix the windshield myself!
I just got two job offers (one yesterday, one today), but I can't get to either of them with no car. I'm completely, totally broke, and don't even have $5, much less $500 to make DMV happy. 15 day notice on the electric, water hasn't been paid in 2 months, and I just filed in the round bin some envelopes that looked remarkably like debt collection notices... if it wasn't for the DMV crap, I would probably have been able to make it... neither of the job offers pays anything, but they would have kept me housed and the lights on... but now, thanks to the DMV, I'm completely, totally, fucking screwed. So, thanks to the DMV, a temporary blip of unemployment is now probably going to end up with my being homeless. Way to go USA!
I'll stop ranting now.
The category sorting... you added back in cat:hobbies on some of the ones I removed it from, so wanted to ask you before starting an edit war... Bushytails 07:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

That would be the R/C wiki with the black background.  :) I feel your pain regarding cars. I bought a new car with some equity I cashed out of my house. Off to sell the old one...won't pass smog! Only cost $1500 to fix. Damn. So, rather than sell it, I gave it to my son. Figured if I was going to spend that kind of bread on a car, then I was going to keep it. The $100 was for two little rubber hoses on my old Mercedes 6.9 (hence the screen name). Got to set the timing to TDC and make another appointment with the ref. Joy. I can think of a lot of things I'd have done with $1600 that didn't involve car repairs.

I'll keep you in my thoughts and prayers. Hope you get out of the mess soon. As for the "hobby category" edits, I haven't changed anything since we spoke last, so don't worry about an edit war. - Lucky 6.9 19:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for your loss

I read your user message today, and wanted to give my condolences for your loss! Just know, a lot of us out here care, and we're wishing you well. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My condolences

I don't think we've met, even on Wikipedia. I came over here from an article talk page, and then I started closing tags so I could read things (the HTML tidy is off, if you haven't heard). Then I realized about your loss. Don't know how much it will mean coming from someone you don't know, but I can try: my condolences. Jacqui★ 01:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I, also, have rarely crossed paths with you on the wiki, but offer my condolences. I hope that you might remember that as a community, we're available for you to lean on if you need us. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I would also like to offer my condolences

It's never easy when you lose someone close to you, and to echo Jacqui I don't know how much this means coming from a perfect stranger. But I would like to offer my hand in friendship. Extend some wikilove and just let you know that I am deeply sorry for your loss. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 06:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I also wish to echo Jacqi, since I'm not much of a talker. Hope you feel better. ---User:Rayc 13:38, 1 December 2005 (CST)
From me too =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Hope you pull through alright- your father's soul lives on. BTW, fantastic contributions to wikipedia, very helpful to myself and many more.Ksenon 22:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for your loss as well. Best wishes to you and your family in this hard holiday season. — Catherine\talk 19:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loss of your father

I am saddened to hear of your father's passing & you have my condolences. Happy New Year, (as happy as it can be). Spawn Man 04:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have never vandalised wikipedia

I must say that I found your note to me somewhat offensive as I never vandalised wikipedia or even looked at the article you refer to. It may be that every AOL user comes up the same (as we sem to be classified as multiple users) but rest assured I have not done anything untoward. ben

[edit] FurryPing

Furrywolf, we miss you on IRC and Wikipedia. At least give us something to know you are still alive and kicking. Gigs 18:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Anything? :-( WikiFanatic 03:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, not on here or IRC... sigh Gigs 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am sorry

I am sorry to know of your loss and offer my condolences. I pray to the Lord to give you the strength to overcome this loss. My best wishes, --Gurubrahma 03:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Carbide pcb bit.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Carbide pcb bit.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 17:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Now fixed, see shistory, also Box of 02in pcb bits.jpg — Graibeard (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks vs Wikipedia vs Wikimedia

What's the difference? Many technical articles (eg. Java programming language) are better suited to be posted in Wikibooks rather than Wikipedia. Anwar saadat 12:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have uploaded images (embedded in articles) directly to Wikipedia. Is it appropriate? Or should I upload them to Wikimedia COmmons and link back to the article in Wikipedia? Anwar saadat 12:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Good to see you back. We've missed you, hope you'll stick around! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good to see you back again, stick around longer this time! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impact wrench

I love the article, and it is definitely worthy of DYK. I know this is an area of your expertise, but I do think that there should be at least a few references. I will take the liberty of adding some references. Please add a few yourself. I too was shocked to find out that there had not been an article for impact wrench. Cheers! Royalbroil T : C 13:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't really think of any references... About the only thing a google for impact wrenches finds is people trying to sell you them. I also don't like adding references to material which states nothing more than the article already does... such as that "what is an impact wrench" one. Completely useless, as it doesn't actually give much/any useful information, and some of the couple little bits it tries to give are actually wrong! I'll look for a better link to replace it with, but even if I don't find one, I'll probably still remove it, as it's rather bad to call that a reference. 20 minutes of googling and the only slightly reference-like materials I've found are patents, but the simple concepts in this article are only mentioned in the "it is known in the art" section. Bushytails 18:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that it will never fly on DYK without references (not that I have any influence). I googled for 20 minutes too. Feel free to remove the reference if it is wrong. I understand that you have advanced knowledge about impact wrenches. Do you have an book references, especially textbooks? Mine books are useless. I would love to see this article on DYK. Royalbroil T : C 22:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I own a book that even mentions impact wrenches...
The article isn't very detailed, with most things in it being considered common knowledge, except for maybe the construction of the hammer mechanisms. I could find some links to manufacturer's parts diagrams as references for how they're constructed, but not much else. I googled for a while after that, and still didn't find any link that would count as a reference, and I don't think I found a single page with more than 1/10th the detail of the article!
What parts, exactly, do you feel need references? I found a page on Dewalt's site that talks about the popularity of cordless impact wrenches, but I don't like using a site trying to sell you the product as a reference for how popular a product is. The operation of the hammers is easily documented by taking one apart (it took two days of soaking in degreaser to get that wrench clean enough for the photos!), and other than a link to the manufacturer's parts diagrams (not too useful) or to relevant patents (I couldn't find one with any detail on simple/old designs, they were all mentioned as prior art or "well known in the art"), not sure what would be a reference here. The safety stuff you already found a link about. Information on sizes, types, handle shapes, etc could probably only be referenced by just linking to ingersoll-rand's product page, as they make all kinds, and give detailed specs on each. The physics are already covered in the impact force article, so don't need them as backup here.
Since a lot of the article is just a statement on what's available, it could be completely documented by a big long list of links to different manufacturer's model pages, which would demonstrate the availability of everything mentioned. But that would be a relatively pointless list of external links, something wikipedia is not... Bushytails 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impact Wrench

Writing from "personal experience" or "common knowledge" is one of the gray areas on Wikipedia. Just off the top of my head: [3] [4] [5] [6]. The last link to google books appears to contain some content that you might be able to use. Can't really help you that much because I'm not familiar with the topic, but I am uncomfortable with the article being featured on DYK—which is supposed to be a good example of new content that is well-verified and soucred—without more thorough sourcing. You still have a couple days of elegibility for DYK; if you can make a signficant dent in the referencing, I'd be glad to see it featured on the main page. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The first link there (wisegeek) was added already, but I decided to remove it... it adds nothing to the article, it's not a particularly reliable source, and some of the information in it is actually wrong, making it rather bad to use as a reference! The google news link only finds a couple product announcements, a mention they can be used for some re-bar fastener, and that one was stolen from someone's shop. The google scholar results seem to mostly be about safety issues, and the one article I can find that might talk at all about the wrenches themselves requires a payment to view, which is rather unacceptable for a reference. Google books, as always, doesn't work, giving nice blank windows. Going to the library a town over and manually finding books that might mention impact wrenches just to cite them on wikipedia is a lot more interest (and gasoline!) than I care to put towards this article.,, I've spent probably two hours googling now, and am getting ready to give up.  :)
I don't recall DYK requiring articles to be sourced, but I've been away from wikipedia for over a year, and there certainly seems to be a lot more emphasis on it now than when I left...
So far, the only sources I've found would be manufacturer's product pages, and I rather dislike the idea of adding a whole bunch of links to commercial sites that don't add anything to the article. Bushytails 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
My relatively elementary google books search for "impact wrench" resulted in plenty of usable sources. Maybe the link is non-transferable; try it yourself. I don't have any special permissions from my current ip address so I see no reason why you wouldnt be able to access these (maybe you need to be logged into a google account: they're free and you dont have to give them an email address--in fact you get an email address). savidan(talk) (e@) 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It finds books, but the frame I imagine is supposed to contain the preview is blank except the word "Loading..." My guess would be their viewer is crap and depends on some proprietary browser/OS feature. And we all know they'd never just put the books up in html, pdf, or any other format, rather they'll force you to use their viewer... Their help claims some books are downloadable in PDF format, but their instructions to find them don't seem to actually find any, as the ones returned don't seem to have any link to download the book.
Since you seem to be able to access it, want to find some references and add them? this is WIKIpedia, after all.  :) Thanks again, Bushytails 00:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I really wouldn't have the first clue about how to reference this article. To get their viewer to work, you do have to have a google account. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/s/User_talk%7EBushytails_c6e1.html"