User talk:Mshonle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

snoyes 07:00, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks! Interesting site you have there yourself. MShonle 10:53, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cantor set

You were mistaken to write 0.0999999... where 0.02222222... appeared in Cantor set. You neglected the fact that this was being done in base 3, and that it is important that that base is used. Michael Hardy 00:33, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks. I'll make the revert. MShonle 00:47, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Gmail 2 Reversions 3 Sorry for my joke about *annoying* billboards 4 Article Licensing 5 Computer security audit 6 macros in C

[edit] Gmail

Well, I do try to keep an NPOV... but yeah, it rocks. I'm going to add a section on its limitations soon, though, such as how it doesn't display picture attachments inline like Outlook or Mozilla, and, of course, how there's no wap or pop access yet. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 12:59, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions

I revert edits which I do not consider to be improvements to articles. Both the Zionism and Anti-Zionism articles represent a great deal of work by many editors, including me, and have achieved a state of balance which was acceptable to editors holding different points of view. I am therefore very reluctant to allow that balance to be upset by edits which do not take the total context of the article into account. Anti-Zionism has a long section on Palestinian and other Arab attitudes to Zionism, and also a section on the influence that the Israel-Palestine conflict has had on attitudes to Zionism in other parts of the world. The opening sections are intended to be a general introduction to the topic. Inserting statements taken out of their proper context in the introduction only serves to re-open arguments about the balance of the article. Adam 04:16, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But the opening should give an introduction to the overall article, particularly a long section. You've just proved my point. MShonle 04:53, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I will try to recast the opening section to take that into account. Adam 05:39, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy we seem to have found some consensus in the intro, even though I'm not exactly sharing your views. Please see my latest entry at the talk page. IMO examples don't belong in the intro, especially controversial ones. You don't want the readers' blood pressure rise before they finish the entire article :) ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:25, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Right, if we wanted temperatures to rise we need only direct them to Jayjg's edit commentary. MShonle 05:47, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for my joke about *annoying* billboards

Hehehe, that was me that changed this sentence by adding annoying, it was not a serious edit of course. "A billboard or hoarding is a large outdoor annoying signboard, ..." Sorry for that *blush*. I wanted to show a girlfriend of mine that you cud change something straight of, but she wasn't impressed unfortunately. And I had to do this because I'm a member of the Wikipedia Anonymous Funny Vandalists (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bad_jokes_and_other_deleted_nonsense/Funny_vandalism , you'll find two excellent examples there of much funnier funny vandalism). Of course we Wikipedia Anonymous Funny Vandalists consider ourselves hooked to funny vandalism and we call our sponsor if we feel the urge to commit funny vandalism, but my sponsor wasn't home unfortunately. hehehehe no I wanted to show my new female flat mate how wikipedia worked and couldn't resist the temptation of finding out how much time it took to get goofiness removed. (I would have removed it myself if no one else had.) It took 37 minutes before you removed it by the way so this proves again wikipedia.org is great. Silly edits are removed very fast. Sorry for the inconvenience *blush* I will try to control my funny vandalism urge next time. This was my first funny edit by the way after hundreds of serious edits. If you wanna know who I am check out my personal page. CYA Mshonle!!!!!!!!!111111111111oneoneoneone Paulus/laudaka (add me to your YIM/AIM/ICQ/M$N M contact list if you like!) Laudaka's talk page 09:05, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

GFDL is why we are here and why it's been working. Keep my contributions only in GFDL. MShonle 06:00, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Computer security audit

Thanks for your help. I learned the computer trade by doing before getting the big picture education. I don't have much in the way of academic credentials. I have learned most of what I know about computing by applying what I have learned at vendor schools (classes offered by the computer hardware and application producers) and peer discussion groups, then exploring how come this or that program not doing as I intended. I feel like I still am a Wiki newbie, and probably will be for a few months. AlMac 23:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly an incremental process. If you have the time you might want to change all the [[Links like this]] into [[links like this]], so the first letter would be just like it is normally in the sentence. Since the MediaWiki syntax doesn't rely on CamelCase we can make the text look more natural (and keep it capitalized, e.g., if it starts a sentence). Also, once you've linked to an article you don't need to link to it again. That can cut down on the color changes and make the text more readable. MShonle 00:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] macros in C

Actually, the do ... while (0) trick is necessary. Consider the macro:

#define FOO(x, y) { func1(x); func2(y); }

This code would then yield a syntax error:

if (x)
   FOO(x, y);
else
   bar();

Whereas this works fine with the do ... while (0) trick (because the macro definition itself does not include a terminating semi-colon -- the macro use site supplies it).

Neilc 02:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! MShonle 04:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)