User talk:Hairy Dude

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: Please add new comments to the BOTTOM of this page, unless they are in reply to something else. Hairy Dude 13:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Note for the humourously challenged: The Am-0 template on my user page is a joke. I accept that non-British dialects of English are as valid as British ones, and I even use American English on WP when it's appropriate. Any comments on my opinion of non-British dialects will be ignored, because they are invalid. Hairy Dude 19:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive: /Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Thanks for nuking the non-notable

Thanks for getting rid of the non-notable World of Warcraft material on Small matter of programming. I'm usually too chicken to get rid of text which I don't see as belonging on Wikipedia, but I'm glad someone takes care of these things. Kingdon 02:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you're not sure what is notable, it's probably wise not to delete stuff - WP:BOLD does have its exceptions! :) I might add that my own idea of notability has been enhanced by the deletion of the article on a relatively major student computer society of which I am a member: we thought it was notable for what seemed like good reasons, but WP consensus disagreed because there weren't enough independent sources of information. It's very much tied in with verifiability. I suppose the confidence to get rid of NN stuff only comes with such experience. Hairy Dude 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I messed up. Can you fix it?

The proper useage is in the plural - and I misspelled it when I tried to move it.
Thanks. --Ludvikus 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What we have now is Categoies. --Ludvikus 01:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the name of an article :) Please continue at Talk:Category (philosophy). Hairy Dude 13:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal names - feudal names

I was trying to find some information and wound up following from link to link (as procrastinators are wont to do), and wound up on the personal name pages. Is there a reason that Quixote and Lafayette are rendered in small caps? I was thinking is was some sort of vandalism, since it's next to a reference about the "disgusting name" of the musical "Man of La Mancha". Before changing it I was hoping you could let me know what's up so that maybe I wouldn't have to.

Thanks, Datsun Eleven 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Personal name. Hairy Dude 00:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Fork bomb" article

I really do not believe the fork bomb article requires references. It doesn't contain any questionable factoids. Any programmer or information security expert (or armchair expert) could verify that the information in that article is accurate. Any script kiddie could tell you how to write a program to saturate a system's process table. There are no weasel worded statements like "A common dilemma is that most Unix-like operating systems assume that all system users are trusted by the system administrator and therefore do not include protection against internal denial of service attacks." Do note, however, that the article may have too much original research or statements based on editors' experiences with this. Furthermore, if the need for references is a major issue, act on it and hit Google. However, I doubt anything you'd find would be a "reliable source" as I doubt any such source would inform people how to bring down a computer system that they can execute code on. --Victor 22:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion every article needs some references, if only to show that it's not just Wikipedia that came up with the idea. Sure, any expert could tell you what a fork bomb is, but what if the reader doesn't have access to such experts? Anyway, sometimes I add {{unreferenced}} rather than adding references myself because I don't have time. "So fix it" only works if you are able to. Hairy Dude 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I doubt most readers question the validity of Wikipedia content (which is a grave problem) but topics like these are usually lacking in decent, neutral sources. --Victor 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blackboard Legal Issues

Blackboard legal issues - "except where it is deemed necessary" makes the pledge sound completely empty, or that they are effectively admitting to filing unnecessary infringement lawsuits)

As I recall the phrase "except where it is deemed nessecary" was Blackboard's exact wording on their website at: http://www.blackboard.com/patent/FAQ_013107.htm. However, they have since changed it. The original page is not on Archive.org, so I have no easy way to prove it one way or the other. Secondly, if you think that wording this casts an undue bad light on Blackboard, I think you can objectively say that filing an unnessecary infringement lawsuit isn't much a mental stretch given the company's legal track record. Romanpoet 16:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Well, I happen to agree on that last point :) However, my opinion is of course no more welcome than anyone else's (it being original research). I'm sure there are plenty of sources for criticisms of the patents - instead of casting a bad light on an unethical company, Wikipedia would prefer to reflect the bad light (and whatever good light there is) cast by other people :) Hairy Dude 21:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simple and wrong unity

What is going on here? Look to the end and you know it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Planck_constant Heisenberg is wrong! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.175.99.7 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ich habe Dich angesprochen, weil Du ebenfalls bemerkt hast, daß da etwas faul ist. Die Einheit J/(rad/s) bzw. Js/rad ist vorstellbar, sinnvoll und richtig. Das Argument, 1 rad = 1, also dimensionslos, ist Unsinn und muß eine Schutzbehauptung sein. rad ist eine Winkeldefinition genauso wie m eine Längendefinition ist und die kann ebenfalls nicht entfallen. Sehr deutlich wird das auch beim Drehmoment, welches fälschlich als Nm bezeichnet wird. Richtig ist aber Arbeit je Drehwinkel, also Nm/rad oder Nm/°. Nun kommt Heisenberg mit seiner Unschärferelation und das ist der eigentliche Punkt, worauf ich hinauswollte: Die richtigen Einheiten zeigen, daß die H.U. ein totaler Unsinn sein muß! Mein Englisch ist leider miserabel, weshalb ich mich nicht auf eine Diskussion einlassen kann. Daher auch nur die Kurzversion "mathematisch". Auf Heisenbergs Unsinn ist aber ein Großteil der Quantenphysik aufgebaut, mit all den unvorstellbaren Behauptungen wie Vakuumenergie, Vakuumfluktuation, Quantenschaum, virtuellen Teilchen und noch viel anderer Quatsch. Mit Heisenberg werden Phantasieteilchen erzeugt, natürlich kurzlebige. Noch etwas für Dich zum genauen Nachdenken. Die Null! Damit wird ebenfalls viel gezaubert. Man sagt im allgemeinen: 3 Äpfel - 3 Äpfel = 0. Das ist falsch. Richtig ist: 3 Äpfel - 3 Äpfel = 0 Äpfel. Das ist ein gewaltiger Unterschied. In der theoretischen Physik wird das dann mißbraucht, indem man dann z.B. bei zwei Gleichungen, wo angeblich 0 herauskommt,diese Gleichungen gleichsetzt und schon hat man eine Verbindung zwischen pionen und Elefanten geschaffen, wobei letztere dann auch sehr kurze Zeit aus dem Nichts auftauchen dürfen und wieder verschwinden. Heisenberg erlaubt dies ja :-) http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/constants.htm#h —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.175.84.132 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't make up the rules about assigning units to values. What counts for Wikipedia is what is written in the literature, and that does indeed say that pairs of particles can spontaneously appear in a vacuum and then annihilate each other again, which is the principle that would be responsible for Hawking radiation. Whether this describes the truth is not for Wikipedia to decide - that would be original research, which is forbidden here. If you think radians should be considered to have a dimension, find a paper supporting this view and cite it. Actually, that should be done for the converse as well. I don't have the time or inclination to do this, though (I am not a physicist after all). Oh, and please sign your comments. Hairy Dude 16:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gotten vs. got

There is nothing wrong with "gotten," for Christ's sake. Just because it became obsolete in England (except in "ill-gotten gain") doesn't mean it has to become obsolete everywhere else.

Kostaki mou 21:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use the dialect of English appropriate to the subject. That article was plainly on a British subject, so I thought the use of "gotten" inappropriate. And please be civil. There's no need to blaspheme over such a trivial issue. Hairy Dude 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greyfriars Bobby

Correct. Well-spotted! Ref (chew)(do) 23:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposed: Soilent Grün → Die Ärzte

It has been proposed to merge the content of Soilent Grün into Die Ärzte. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 11:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Chain Barnstar of Recognition

removed Chain Barnstars of Recognition, Merit, Diligence and Honour added by Hpfan9374 01:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Much as I appreciate barnstars, I feel I must decline these. I don't believe that pure edit count is a sensible reason to grant barnstars, and the idea of chain barnstars is too much like a pyramid scheme for me to feel entirely comfortable with it. (Besides, who ever heard of an honour for which you have to do something unrelated to the reason you got it to retain it?) Hairy Dude 13:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dominion of Newfoundland "This Prime Minister is not that of the UK"

I agree with your removal of links to the disambiguation pages for Newfoundland and Labrador, but I am wondering why you felt it necessary to specify in an article on the Dominion of Newfoundland that it was Newfoundland's Prime Minister who was involved in a scandal, as opposed to a UK PM?Silverchemist 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because a layman might think that since it was under the UK's control, its PM would be the UK's. It just makes the article a bit easier to read. Of course, if you think the clarification isn't necessary, feel free to remove it. Hairy Dude 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The clarification doesn't need to be removed; one extra word isn't a problem. At the time of the scandal, Newfoundland was not under UK control, at least not to the same extent that it was as a colony, or during Comission of Government, over a decade later.Silverchemist 22:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you please explain more fully?

Could you please explain why you are replacing instances of Guantanamo with the accented version?

Since this is the English wikipedia, shouldn't we use the English spelling, not the Spanish spelling. I am not some kind of language bigot. But using the Spanish spelling just adds unnecessary work.

I thought there was a discussion about this, a year and a half ago, and the consensus was to use the Spanish spelling for the names of geographic locations where Spanish was spoken. So, Guantánamo Bay, not Guantanamo Bay -- but Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, not Guantánamo Bay Naval Base.

Has there been some recent review of this decision I missed out on?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your change doesn't just make maintaining the articles more difficult, but it mas text searches within the articles fail unexpectedly. And, if a reader ever has to do a text search on the title of the references, changing instances of Guantanamo to the spanish spelling will make those text searches fail.
In general, let me suggest you exercise caution in correcting errors you perceive in quoted material. If what you perceive as an error is the way it was written in the original source document I think it is almost always best to leave it as is. If, when you go and check the original source, and you find the "error" was in the original, by all means feel free to add a {{sic}} template after it, to guide other people who think it would be helpful to make a correction.
No offense, but barring a really convincing explanation I think I better revert your corrections before that gets complicated by someone introducing more changes after yours.
I cut this table from an earlier talk page discussion. If I made it today it might be longer. I continue to think that all the Guantanamo captives whose names require disambiguation should follow the same form, because most of the captives whose names require disambiguation require disambiguation from one another.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I tried to add the accent only where it was just "Guantanamo" or "Guantanamo Bay", but if I got some wrong or ended up acting against consensus, I apologise. I'll refrain from making such changes in future. Hairy Dude (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SVG image

Seeing Image:NatGasProcessing.png in Natural gas I couldn't help but think that it would be better as a vector image, so I created one: Image:NatGasProcessing.svg. I haven't replaced it in the article since a) I wanted to make sure people didn't think it sucked :) but more importantly 2) there is a bug in MediaWiki's rendering of SVGs which makes the arrowheads invisible. Seems to be fixed upstream though so it's only a matter of time till it looks right. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hairy Dude: As the originator of Image:NatGasProcessing.png, I don't think that your svg version "sucks". But I do have two important comments:
  • My original png drawing has a Legend box in the lower left hand corner that is essential to explaining the flow diagram and your version should also include that Legend box.
  • I deliberately chose my text font sizes so that the font would be readable in a drawing that was no more than 584px wide ... since that is the maximum width that can be displayed on a Wikipedia page without horizontal scrolling or without having to use the "thumb" function to reduce the image width. On my IE browser, using the "thumb" function to reduce the size of an image reduces the appearance or resolution quite visibly. I would urge you most strongly to reduce your font sizes so that the current 744px width of your svg version can be reduced to 584px.
Obviously, the arrow heads must be visible. Without them, the drawing is no good.
Personally, I think the png version is fine as is. But if you are going to change it to a svg version, then please consider the above two points. Regards, - mbeychok (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, scaling it down will be no problem... though why 584 px in particular? Also, I thought it would be better to keep the legend outside the image, since it is basically text rather than graphics. I really don't think representing text as graphics is a good idea. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I will not change the image in the article until that bug is fixed, since I agree, it is no good without the arrowheads. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US coins special case where greedy algorithm works?

I believe you originated the comment that US coin denominations are a special case for which the Greedy algorithm finds the optimal change. I believe that the more common coin system ([1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200] etc.) that is used, amongst other places, in the UK and Euroland can also use the greedy algorithm to give optimal change (I have verified this computationally for all amounts of change from 1 to 500). As such, I feel that the comment about the US being an exception (now edited since your initial change) should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.119.202 (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I originally thought that would be sufficient, but looking at it again it seems to suggest the US currency is more special than other currencies. I've rewritten the comment to take account of that. Thanks for your input. Hairy Dude (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

...with the beekeeping article. MisterSheik (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Hairy Dude (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)