User talk:Dmh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Dmh, 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:

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!  Vsmith 01:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. The IP address in question is owned by Google, not my ISP. I'm running Google's accelerator, and I was trying to edit a page I'd visited several times recently, therefore ... Presumably MyWikiBiz is doing the same thing. Except I'd expect to see a lot more people blocked. Anyway, if you have a look at my contributions, you'll see I'm not writing for MWB.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure that paying people to write Wikipedia articles is bad, per se. It's very much in line with Stallman's model of free software, where the code is free but it's fine (and even encouraged) to pay people to write it. What I find objectionable about MWB is the aim is clearly advertising. $100 for writing a 3-paragraph blurb seems a little on the steep side as well, but caveat emptor. -Dmh 04:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Turning of Google acceleration for wikipedia seemed to fix the problem. -Dmh 04:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 64.233.173.85 lifted. Sorry for the trouble, and happy editing!

Request handled by: Luna Santin 04:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


I read that. :) You brought up some nice points. Personally, I still have no idea what to make of the whole thing. The Google accelerator does seem to have been leading to some interesting autoblock issues, lately -- it's also interesting when non-blocked users end up loading Google-cached "you have been blocked from editing" versions of pages. ;) Well, we'll figure a way around it all, somehow, I hope. Luna Santin 05:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)r

Contents

[edit] SQL

I see you reverted my attempt to remove weasel words from the misnomer article. It has been a while since my active study of SQL, but I'm rather sure that the statement has at least some bit of truth in it. While PL/SQL is structured and is a complete (i.e. Turing complete) language, SQL itself (especially at the time of its naming) is not. –Gunslinger47 09:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Winningest

As I stated in my edit summary, the word is considered informal. In the link you sent me "-adjective informal". It is of quite recent coinage (1970's or so) and may easily confuse non-native speakers of English. By comparison, "most successful" is a far more common construction which is equally informative. (It is obvious what he is "most successful" at - as the entire phrase is "most successful coach", the sentence clearly parses to indicate the most successful at coaching.) By comparison, "winningest" is an unfortunate, ugly-sounding, and possibly confusing alternative.

If you feel "most successful (at) coach(ing)" is too vague, I'd suggest "has the best win/loss record of any coach" or a similar construction. It was my understanding that win/loss ratio was the principle factor people looked at in determining whether a coach was a success or not. Is this incorrect?

Cheers, Kasreyn 03:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Photon Belt

Hi. I noticed your contribution to wikt:photon belt and am wondering if you'd like to create an article here for it. It was already deleted once but I think it could be resurrected. See User:Eep²/The Photon Belt (and its talk page) for more info. Thanks. -Eep² 07:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geezinslaws

[edit] Geezinslaws

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Geezinslaws, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. IronGargoyle 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peak oil

The abiotic theory is no longer supported because all oil samples tested contain bio markers. It's like the flat earth theory is no longer supported because there are pictures of the round earth now. I think the statement should be there and that strong.Kgrr