Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
Hi StuRat
I've noticed that you previously posted a comment on the user talk of the Memory Protection article. I was wondering if you'd be interested on a WikiProject on OS Development? I created a proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#OS_Development
Jatos 09:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"Welcome to Uranus-Hertz Corp. Your call is important to us, although obviously not important enough to actually hire sufficient staff to answer it. Come to think of it, your call isn't very important to us at all, and neither are you. If you have any complaints, we will be glad to connect you to our call center in India, where they will promptly disconnect you. Actually, it won't be all that prompt, you will have to listen to off-station MUZAK for several minutes first."
I actually prefer dials to digital pads. My current microwave oven has one dial for time and one for power level. It has a handle you pull to open, not a button you have to depress. It has no digital display. I can't stand those electronic pads where you have to enter info in a specific way to get it to cooperate and need to re-enter the time after every power glitch to prevent it from flashing 12:00 all the time (like a VCR). Also, on a TV which lacks a volume dial, it's impossible to turn it on and turn the volume down in the early morning hours without waking everybody in the house. With a dial you can turn the volume down before even turning it on.
Another example of technology run amok is the digital "temperature control system" on my truck. In order to receive "permission" to switch to recirc mode when the truck in front of me is belching diesel fumes, I must first page thru the menu until I set it to the face vents position, otherwise it will flash a red light at me that means "access denied". Good luck doing all that while driving. Then, when I turn the vehicle off, all the settings go back to the defaults, as opposed to a manual system which would damn well leave it how I had set it. I guess I will just have to get used to looking (and coughing) like a chimney sweep. Well, I enjoyed my good morning rant, did you ?
![]() |
The E=MC² Barnstar | |
For your extraordinary contributions to Wikipedia reference desks, I award you this EMC² Barnstar. Keep up the good work! deeptrivia ( talk) 03:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
I maynot be qualified enough to award anything but I can surely support the barnstar you got. Good on you mate! you certainly deserve it ... (My IP address is not permanent.) As per your request I put the four tildes. 202.161.131.69 19:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Notwithstanding what it may say about me that I haven't written apropos of any of your quality responses to sundry questions posed at the various Reference Desks but that I write now about a jocular comment, I must commend your unicorn leapfrogging entry, about which I laughed a good deal. I should say, of course, that I find msot of your answers to be altogether excellent and that I think excellence in responding to questions at the Reference Desks is to be admired, inasmuch as the Reference Desk is often the first location at which non-Wikipedians encounter Wikipedia and its editors, such that one's being well-treated at the Reference Desk may lead one to partake of the editing work, improving the project writ large. Joe 01:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi StuRat. I always look forward to reading your posts on the Ref Desk, with their trademark clarity and sanity, and even when I disagree with your arguments, they always give me plenty to think about, so whenever you go AWOL you leave a gaping hole. Welcome back, and I hope you were enjoying whatever you were doing. Cheers JackofOz 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh StuRat, Canada stands on guard for thee as we commend you for your incredible selfless robot-like diligence in maintain intergalactic order at RD. I seriously hope you're not getting in shit at work for doing this. I'm not really sure what's happened to all the bot requests, but for the moment I have started laying out a make-shift RD that could be used to transfer the existing pages into a new stream-lined interface once there is a bot willing to handle all of the archiving. After the front page is expanded to include all the rules and stuff, I'm going to add a new RD template to each of the subpages, and see where I can go from there. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"RefDeskia". Hehe. I Like it. :) -- Russoc4 17:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, just a quick thanks for helping with my question on Reference/Science: "In tides, why is the eighth wave always the largest?". You're answer was really helpful. Robinoke 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi StuRat, I'm just curious about your username. Does it mean anything? Are you aware that it is the (half-correctt, official is "StR") abbreviation for "Studienrat", the default job title and salary level for high school teachers in German state service? Simon A. 07:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, I wanted to talk about that templates. This one is horribly inflammatory:
This one is better, but still rather unpleasant:
Perhaps it could say something more like this, customized for the Ref Desk, Help Desk, and any other location where questions are asked and answered:
StuRat 03:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Sorry this is (very) late, but I had meant to give you a barnstar for your comment at the reference desk a few months ago. In answer to how copper wiring was made you said: "Two thrifty Scots found the same penny at the same time." Thank you for lightening up Wikipedia. | AndonicO Talk 11:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
Och Aye but isnt that a bit racialist these days? Plus if you said that in Glasgow.... well I wouldnt! 8-)-- Light current 11:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah so it was you and your brother who found that penny? 8-)
Well done, StuRat, well done! :-)
Atlant 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help me at the ref desk,I'm afraid maths isn't my strong point.Also,it was really kind of you to actually do the problem yourself.I promise I'll read more about maths so that I don't annoy you too much with my silly questions :) Starkidstar 06:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
When asked why red and green are Christmas colors, you said:"I did have another theory about why red and green are the XMAS colors, but I think it's probably only my family who celebrates XMAS by putting frogs in blenders." I keep wondering how many of these you are going to get... | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 16:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
Thanks ! StuRat 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. But thank yourself too; you earned it, and made me laugh very hard in the process. :-) | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I hope I didn't offend you with my latest comments on the talk thread. I get the impression you are sincerely trying to find a path to a solution and very much appreciate the effort you're putting into this. Like I say, I'm busy in real life at the moment so don't have (and will not soon have) much time to participate in this discussion. I suspect this whole thing has been quite upsetting for you - please don't give up. -- Rick Block ( talk) 16:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi StuRat - thanks for keeping the conversation alive on the RD - I think I'm going to call it a day, and I think I'm going to leave things as is. I've written all there is which needed to be said I think, and it's time for me to move on. There's a lot of good nuggets there, so hopefully some Wikipedians will pick up on what I've tried to get at. In the meantime, I cannot guarantee that I will be around the RD for a sustained period, but do keep an eye out for my edits there - I have a feeling that some normalcy can come back to the project soon. Cheers, HappyCamper 20:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For a funny comment at the expense of Microsoft: "I actually like the name 'Windows' for the O/S, as it accurately portrays how paneful it is to use." I recieved a barnstar for a similar comment so I thought I'd spread the love froth T C 20:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC) |
I tip my hat to your tireless efforts on continuing the discourse at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk. I think the process has revealed some interesting points. I'm sorry my support was sporadic at best - apart from an overstuffed agenda, I also felt a bit lost and overpowered by the tremendous pace of evolving issues on multiple pages (and also admit to being rule-o-phobe). I decided not to comment on the RFCs on you and THB, because it doesn't seem necessary, but if someone else is going to support the poster's view I will change my mind, and also post a comment. I'm concerned (scratch that, I'm angry) about these recent developments and, FWIW, will try to help you guys when I finally have some spare time next week. Meanwhile, keep up the stiff upper lip, and good luck! --- Sluzzelin 11:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
StuRat - just to let you know that I'm am going to leave the RD guideline and RD talk page discussions. I just can't deal with Radiant and Hipocrite any more. Every time I interact with them I end up feeling disgusted and soiled. I am going to find some far corner of Wikpedia where the air is clean and the water is pure and I can leave their poison far behind. Sorry to see that Friday has endorsed your RfC, but I am sure it will just die from lack of further input. Keep up the good work, and thank you for all your help. Gandalf61 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"...and when they came for me, there was nobody left to protest." StuRat 21:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
except me! (I hope)-- Light current 03:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
As the old latin saying goes: Nil desperandum carborundum. loosely translated as: Dont let the bastards grind you down! 8-)-- Light current 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Loved the chicken farmer joke. Bet it is nuked before midnight, though. Gandalf61 18:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
A chicken farmer had a problem rooster that was stressing out the hens with "unwanted attentions" and solved the problem by putting a bell around the rooster's neck to give the hens adequate warning. However, the rooster soon learned to silence the bell by covering it with a wing, allowing him to once again sneak up on the hens. For his study of this amazing example of animal reasoning and learning, a noted professor has received both the "No bell piece prize" and the "Pullet surprise". :-) StuRat 15:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Removed. EricR 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Your answer to my question about the addictiveness of nicotine at the reference desk was exactly what I was looking for. BeefJeaunt 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
That was an awesome, AWESOME answer. Anchoress 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear StuRat,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question about the equation of a line. I really appreciate it =) Alex Ng 19:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello - irrespective of all the issues all the regular Ref Desk posters are discussing, just wanted to express my appreciation for your most apt replies. "Abridged too far" really made me smile! Wonderful! Happy New Year -- Geologyguy 00:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Stalagmites are attached at the bottom and stalactites at the top, so what do you call them if they're attached at both ends ? A mitey-tite, of course. StuRat 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You wrote: "For that matter, how about chain letters, especially the online variety, which can grow and mutate and reproduce, with the more successful mutations surviving and the less successful dying out. So, are they alive ? (Sure, they need people to survive, but don't many living parasites also need hosts ?)" StuRat 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The notion that a hunter would kill dozens of birds with a single shot seems outlandish to me. Do you have a reference for this? Friday (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I don't buy your assertion that hunters would kill dozens of pigeons with a single shot. Neither your first nor your second explanation for where you got this were convincing to me. But I suppose this doesn't matter much- now we're essentially looking at your opinion versus mine, neither of which are reliable sources. I can't even say such a scenario is impossible, just that it sounds quite unlikely to me, and is far from a typical hunting result. Friday (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: your initial response to my query on "Sanctity of Life" in relation to Warfare – I'm clarifying the topic as it more narrowly pertains to the individual draftee with a humanistic belief system faced with joining a combat unit rather than seeking a desk job or even conscientious objection. So I'm replying here rather than risking a diversion of the discussion there; to note: I recall the "greater good" argument (though unfortunately not much else!) from my high school history lessons back in the mid/late 1980s USA as a (the?) rationale for dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to hasten the end of WWII. Did I get that right, do you suppose? -- Deborahjay 05:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment on my userpage, the joke got a good laugh out of me at work, which is always good :D Aetherfukz 14:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know, I think your puns are great! I especially like the one about the vandalism to the Ireland related article raising someone's "ire". Good stuff, dude! Dismas| (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello StuRat. After a short Wikibreak, and some time to reflect, I wish to apologise for the uncivil tone of some of my comments on this page and at the Ref Desk. I still strongly disagree with your interpretation of Ref Desk policy, culture and purpose, but there is no excuse for personalising a disagreement. Moreover, I realise my annoyance helped antagonise the dispute, rather than resolve it. I think this is a sign that it is time to take a complete break from the Ref Desk for a period, which I intend to do, though I expect I may choose to return at some point in the future. Happy editing. Rockpocke t 07:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I would invite you to read through this again. Your statement that there's no consensus you've done anything wrong is rather surprising, given the kinds of comments on that RFC. You may also pay attention to the few who certified your response- 3 editors besides you, including two who've been blocked many times for disruption. Do this tell you anything? Friday (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Woof woof arf bark whine bark. (Equal parts not wanting to give too much away and being *gasp* a bit of a prude.) Clarityfiend 03:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For always making me chuckle at the Ref Desk! |
Hi StuRat. I would like to invite you to commenting upon or edit the new proposed policy Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals now that it has finally come up for discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies. Hopefully we can reach consensus (or not) within a week or two. Thanks! S.dedalus 23:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I responded there, but also wanted to add a note here that I agree with your actions on the matter in question, which promoted a fair outcome, despite reasonbly-held differences in opinion on side matters. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This is just some drama to get everyone to tell her how much they love her and want her back. I'm sure she'll be back as soon as she's gotten enough attention (although it might very well be under a new screen name/sockpuppet). StuRat 04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Since my comment is continually deleted from Clio's page, I will place it here. StuRat 05:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm at an utter loss to understand why you're still persisting in this namecalling and scorn towards Clio. It's petty, childish, disruptive, and really, really disgusting. — Steve Summit ( talk) 01:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I know I am. It's almost 3 AM here. A.Z. 05:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your common sense. For me personally, this comment wasn't deleted because I thought it was wrong though. I still think it is right - it was removed because it wasn't worth fighting offence. martianlostinspace 10:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I responded to a good point you made. -- Dweller 13:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I must admit to being a dirty little vandal, I altered the desert question on the science desk so that everyone said dessert. i'm still giggling though. 213.48.15.234 13:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm being somewhat gossip here but I'm just very curious... I see you and User:Friday arguing (or discussing) many, many times, for example in the Reference desk guidelines. Why is that? Sorry for meddling. -- Taraborn 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Bearnstar for a joke so unbelievably lame, it made me laugh | |
I wanted to award you a barnstar for making me laugh, but unfortunately it was eaten by a bear. Rockpocke t 05:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
Dunno if you noticed, but Light current has been up to his juvenile behavior again. I think your clever remarks in response to his trolling only encourage him. Would you mind taking particular care not to feed the trolls, when the troll is him? Or, if you actually know this kid, would you mind having a word with him? There are plenty of web sites where they encourage people to act like 12-year-olds, but Wikipedia isn't really meant to be one of them. Friday (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. When I refill an HP 28 Colour Cartridge that is low on ink as indicated to me on my computer, I can only refill about 1 mL of each of the three colours (magenta, cyan, and yellow). The cartridge says it can hold up to 8 mL. Why can't I refill 8 mL of each colour? Thanks. --Mayfare 23:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your speculation, StuRat. However, I am not sure if my colour ink cartridge is airtight. I went on HP's website and couldn't find any information on it. I even tried searching on Google. No luck there. Does anybody know if an HP 28 Colour Cartridge airtight? --Mayfare 02:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I experimented. Drawing out colour ink does not allow me to inject more colour ink. Why can't I refill 8 mL of each colour. -- Mayfare 00:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I meant to say that I tried to draw out air but I drew out colour ink instead. -- Mayfare 22:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you want to vote here. A.Z. 17:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no source information on the image page, so it does not follow the image use policy and meets criterion I4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. In a nutshell, the image use policy requires that the copyright status of images is verifiable. Without source information, it's impossible to do so. For example, the image could have been an artist's impression of the event, drawn on its centenary.
If you know where it came from, please could you fill in the following template and add it to the image page.
{{Information | Description = | Source = | Date = | Location = | Author = | Permission = }}
Let me know if you need further clarification of the policy. Thanks - Papa November 1 23:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to vote? You can see the candidates here and you can endorse them here. A.Z. 23:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the chuckle, StuRat. Bielle 23:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, StuRat. Do you want to participate in this discussion? A.Z. 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You're a member of WikiProject General Audience. I think that project is not working right now, but it's a great idea and a needed project. I think I may join it.
There's a discussion on the Integrin article talk page in which I'm defending that the article be more accessible to general audience. Participate, if you wish! A.Z. 03:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking for a diff by yours where you compared administrator corruption to what happened to students during the stanford prison experiment. Do you happen to know where is that diff? A.Z. 23:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I see no evidence that this page is protected. A redirect should be doable. Friday (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, loved the song in the nineties but never realised what it was all about...! SietskeEN 12:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (But it is a lot less decent than I expected it to be... :-O )
do you? lucid 03:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
For your RD work Pheonix15 20:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC) |
Hi,
Be a little more careful there -- that's just the first of several AfDs on the topic. The content was userfied to me as part of a DRV compromise six months ago. I'm not sure yet whether I'll revert your merge, but be aware that a redirect from my userspace to the article is forbidden, per CSD R2. I'll probably just restore the userpage as it was. Good effort, but you should probably check with someone before doing that, rather than after. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
StuRat, please try to avoid offering medical advice on the Reference Desks as you did in this thread [4]. It's one of those things that Just Isn't Done around here. While I appreciate that you're just trying to help, giving a questioner a list of diagnoses for his symptoms isn't appropriate. Even offering opinions as to whether or not a condition is serious or dangerous isn't a good idea; giving the impression that we'll always tell people if their symptoms are serious may lead questioners to (inappropriately) rely on those evaluations.
Your cooperation in the future is appreciated, and your continued contributions to the Reference Desks are welcomed. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for recommending Weather Underground in WP:RD/C. Weather.com was killing me on dialup, and http://forecast.weather.gov/ doesn't have the hourly forecast. Wunderground seems to beat the both. What a great site. / edg ☺ ★ 13:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"There are some serious nutjobs there, like Clio, who seem to be not only allowed, but actually encouraged, to viciously attack others by the Admins there (they block or ban anyone who criticizes her). I'd sure hate to see that lot migrate over here.". Seriously? I've seen all sorts of people criticize Clio, none of them got blocked. I've criticized her myself, without getting blocked. Do you think Loomis got indefinitely blocked for criticizing Clio? Do you think the 12 hour block you received here was for criticizing Clio? Or which blocks and bans were you talking about? Also, who are the other serious nutjobs? --- Sluzzelin talk 00:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The Matrixism re-direct and section on Matrixism in The Matrix (series) were summarily deleted by User:Philwelch. They have been restored (temporarily?) by User:Neil but I imagine this is not the end and you might want to chime in on the subject. Philwelch's administrator status is apparently under arbitration for various violations you might want to have a say there also. 207.69.139.144 15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, StuRat. I would like to know your opinions on my changes to this article. I believe I have improved it. I think it was an instance of experts keeping it from being readable to normal people. You may reply on the article talk page, if you wish. A.Z. 08:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
To: User talk:StuRat and User talk:Lomn
From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro
Re: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#Simple Math Question -- Need Help -- Leap Years (?)
Can someone please help me with this simple math calculation? It can't understand it and it's driving me crazy. Any insight is appreciated. Thanks.
According to Microsoft Excel: A lived 17,260 days and B lived 17,259 days.
That seems to make "sense" since ... although in different calendar years ... they were both born on the same "day" (December 18) but Person A lived an extra day in March (dying on March 21 instead of March 20) while Person B did not live for that extra day in March (dying on March 20 instead of March 21). So, it makes sense that the March 21 decedent (Person A) has lived one extra day more than the March 20 decedent (Person B) ... that is, Person A lived 17,260 days which is one day more than Person B who lived 17,259 days.
So, the only thing that is truly "different" between Person A and B is ... the actual calendar years that they lived through ... and thus "how many leap years / leap days did each person live through." (I think?)
Person A has lived through 12 leap days: in 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992.
Person B has lived through 12 leap days: in 1908, 1912, 1916, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, and 1952.
Using Method One (above), Person A lived one extra day more than Person B.
Person A: From December 18, 1946 to December 18, 1993 is exactly 47 years. So, A celebrates his 47th birthday. The date of death on March 21, 1994 is 93 days after the birthday. (using Excel or viewing a calendar)
Person B: From December 18, 1904 to December 18, 1951 is exactly 47 years. So, B celebrates his 47th birthday. The date of death on March 20, 1952 is 93 days after the birthday. (using Excel or viewing a calendar)
Using Method Two (above), Person A lives 47 years and 93 days. Person B also lives 47 years and 93 days. (There is no "one day" difference.)
I tried to use the Wikipedia template located at: Template:age in years and days.
Typing in these dates and values yields the following results:
Person A:
{{age in years and days|1946|12|18|1994|03|21}}
yields:
47 years, 93 days
Person B:
{{age in years and days|1904|12|18|1952|03|20}}
yields:
47 years, 93 days
So, Method Three (above) agrees with Method Two (above) ... Person A and Person B died at exactly the same age.
I also tried to use the Wikipedia template located at: Template:age in days.
Typing in these dates and values yields the following results:
Person A:
{{age in days|1946|12|18|1994|03|21}}
yields:
17260
Person B:
{{age in days|1904|12|18|1952|03|20}}
yields:
17259
So, Method Four (above) agrees with Method One (above) ... Person A and Person B did not die at exactly the same age, but one day off.
Can anyone help me understand the difference / distinction / discrepancy between these four methods? I seem to be missing something, but I cannot figure out what. Thanks. Where is my reasoning flawed?
Method One and Four agree that "A" lives one day longer than "B". (17,260 versus 17,259)
Methods Two and Three agree that "A" and "B" live exactly the same length of time. (47 years and 93 days)
So, perhaps the word "year" means a different thing for Person A than it does for Person B?
That is, the word "year" means 365 days in some cases ... but it means 366 days in some other (leap-year) cases.
That might seem to cause the discrepancy.
However, Person "A" has lived during 12 leap years/days ... and Person "B" has also lived during 12 leap year/days.
Thus, for both persons, the word "year" means 366 days in 12 years of their lives ... and the word "year" means 365 days in the other 36 years of their lives. They have both lived through 12 leap years and 35 normal years (thus, a birthday of 47 years total) ... plus a fractional piece of yet another (i.e., their 48th) year.
Can anyone help me understand the difference / distinction / discrepancy between these four methods? I seem to be missing something, but I cannot figure out what.
Where is my thinking flawed? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro 05:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
I have replied to your response in the Reference desk question "Decline". -- Taraborn 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Would you consider editing a paragraph in Isaac Titsingh?
What about supplementing this text with something like these two sentences as an in-line footnote?
I'm inclined to think that this isn't helpful -- rather more of a distraction? Maybe not .... What do you think? -- Ooperhoofd 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I seem to be suffering from said affliction (oh no, a medical diagnosis, ban him immediately !). Therefore, I have been, and will continue to be, less active until it heals. See you later my friends (and enemies). StuRat 16:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought I would reply here, rather than on Dmcdevit's talkpage. Yes, the reasoning, evidence and discussion leading to many of ArbCom's decisions are non transparent. By the very nature of this information it is sometimes difficult to know exactly why, but in the few occasions I have been privy to information restricted by ArbCom, it was relating to personal identifying details of editors and/or information that compromises the security of editors. Whether that is a good or bad thing, whether than we like it or not is somewhat beside the point. WP is not a democracy, and everthing is not automatically open for community discussion and decision based on democreatic principles. Jimbo made that clear when he first appointed ArbCom: "The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster" In other words, ArbCom can make decisions without justifying itself the community and only Jimbo himself can over-rule this. No amount of demanding ArbCom listen to consensus will change that. So, does ArbCom have the potential issue unfair blocks? Of course it does. Is this particular block unfair. Who knows? You and I are not privy to the facts, so we can't know. Maybe will will never be privy to the facts, so we will never be able to know. That is simply something we have to accept if we wish to remain part of this community.
The second issues it that there has been a few recent blocks of so-called "pro-paedophilia advocates" (and I use that term because thats is what others have accused them of being, not because I consider them to be that, personally). I do get the feeling that there is a kind of hysteria around here that people who don't espouse the established "paedophila is bad" line are themselves paedophiles, and paedophiles must be blocked. I don't know if there is any official sanction of that (though Jimbo generally appears to have little patience for such individuals). I personally don't agree with that reasoning . With respect to encyclopaedic content, a "pro-paedophilia advocate" is no more a concern to me than an "anti-paedophilia advocate" - WP is not a place for any type of advocacy. But I am not WP's legal or PR counsel and wouldn't have to deal with the fallout if the project was implicated in an online grooming scandal. Everyone is welcome to contributed to WP, but in reality, does that mean we should openly welcome self identifying paedophiles and permit them to interact with children? Is that really in the long term interests of the encyclopaedia? I guess what I am trying to say is that while its all well and fine to discuss these issues in purely academic terms, but people like ArbCom and Jimbo have strategic, legal and ethical considerations that we don't. To conclude, I, again personally, don't believe A.Z.'s edits have demonstrated advocacy. However, his editing style has does mean he tends to offer personal opinion and couch things in terms of his beliefs. In the culture of low tolerance for non-conformist views on this issue, he was skating on thin ice. I and others tried to warn him of this a few weeks back, but to little avail. I hope his appeal is successful, but I'm not holding my breath. Rockpocke t 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, last night I was watching Saving Private Ryan and I saw the ad you were talking about. It sounds like the girl was saying "can we get some more toys" or something along those lines. Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's my own version of two songs:
Winter Wonderland
Silver Balls
StuRat ( talk) 03:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Stu,
just a note to let you know that Vaughan Pratt has written a rather long question to you at talk:Boolean logic, requesting your input on your objections to the level of difficulty of Boolean algebra (logic). -- Trovatore ( talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to invite you to participate in the Boolean algebra task force that I am forming. Despite the name, a task force is just an ad hoc subcommittee of a wikiproject to work on a particular issue. In this case, I think that our articles on various aspects of Boolean algebra, propositional logic, and applications would benefit from some big-picture planning of the organization of material into various articles. The task force would not require a great time commitment. The main goal is to work out a proposal for how the material should be arranged. A second goal is for the focus to remain interdisciplinary, including computer science, logic, and mathematics. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
StuRat! This is temuzion & I should remind u the matter which we r dealing. "excess water intake leads to kidney troubles". Regarding that matter u told me that It might be a sign of diabetes. But it was certainly not diabetes. For more details see the original page where u saw my question Temuzion ( talk) 04:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
From Comparison of CECB units:
Brand | Model | S-Video | Analog passthrough | Smart antenna | Manufacturer | MPEG Decoder / SoC | Demodulator | Tuner | EPG type | Other features | Prices and store |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apex | DT250 | Yes [3] | Yes [3] | Yes [3] | Denca Industrial Ltd. [4] | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | 3-Day | D, L, V | $60 -> Best Buy |
Digital Stream | DTX9950 | No | Yes | No | NHENS Digital, Inc. | LGDT1111D | Thomson demod + tuner | Thomson demod + tuner | 12-Hr,1-Ch | D, L, U, V | $60 -> Radio Shack |
Insignia | NS-DXA1 | No | No | No | LG Electronics | LG LGDT1111D | SoC Integrated | LG Innotek TDVG-H051F/ Sanyo UBA00AL | Now/Next | D, L, -S, V | $60 -> Best Buy |
Insignia | NS-DXA1-APT† [5] | No | Yes | No | LG Electronics | LG LGDT1111D | SoC Integrated | LG Innotek TDVG-H151F | Now/Next | D, L, P, V | $60 -> Best Buy |
Magnavox | TB100MW9 | No | No | No | Funai | R8A66973FP | Unknown | Sanyo UB010AF | 6Hr/1Ch | D, L | $50 -> Walmart |
Zenith | DTT900 DTT900 | No | No | No | LG Electronics | LG DT1111D | SoC Integrated | LG Innotek TDVG-H051F/ Sanyo UBA00AL | Now/Next | D, L, -S, V | $60 -> Circuit City |
Zenith | DTT901 [6] | No | Yes | No | LG Electronics | LG DT1111D | SoC Integrated | LG Innotek TDVG-H151F | Now/Next | D, L, P, V | $60 -> Circuit City |
Code | Name | Description |
---|---|---|
D | Digital CC | Capable of decoding digital or ATSC ( EIA-708) closed captions, which allow the user to change various aspects of the captions such as size, font style, background opacity, text color, etc. This code should not be used to indicate support for any kind of CC, since all boxes are required by law to support the older analog or NTSC ( EIA-608) captioning standard. |
E | External Power Supply | Powered by an external power supply. A box with this feature might be used in a vehicle without using a power inverter. |
L | Multilanguage Menus | The menus can be changed to languages other than English, either during system setup or in normal use. |
-N | No Channel Update | Can't add channels without first wiping out the channels you've already found. Units which only do this type of replacement auto-scan may never be able to find all channels at once, especially where antenna rotation or adjustments must be made to find different stations. There are two ways around this problem, an "add only" auto-scan, and manual channel adds. |
P | Low power consumption | Unit uses less than 5 watts of power (e.g. won't run warm). This may also make the unit last longer. |
R | Reminders | Settable reminders to alert you when a show is on. |
-S | Stereo volume is low | Setting the audio output mode to stereo substantially reduces the volume versus mono or analog. This means the volume will change when switching between analog and digital TV viewing. |
T | VCR Timer | Schedules programs at desired times so they can be recorded unattended to TiVo, VCR, DVD recorder or other recording media. |
U | Universal Remote | Comes with a universal remote control capable of being programmed to control other entertainment devices. Be sure to review the manual to make sure it can control your brand of TV, etc. |
V | Volume Control | Capable of independently controlling the output volume. You could, for example, set your TV to a particular volume and leave it there, using the CECB's remote to control volume instead, or use it to mute the CECB and avoid using the television remote almost entirely. Note that this type of volume control only allows you to reduce the volume level relative to that set on the TV, while a universal remote can also increase the volume level set on the TV. |
I've requested some help on the acute renal failure article at the doctor's mess. I don't know if there's a nephrologist aboard, but hopefully the article will nonetheless get some attention. - Nunh-huh 21:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Wikipedia Happy Funnel Award | |
StuRat, for your merry contribution at the Refdesk here [5] and brave signs of romantic idealism, I hereby endow you with the Funnel Award to be used very carefully. Julia Rossi ( talk) 23:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC) |
You will. If anyone can, you will, : )) Julia Rossi ( talk) 09:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As in "Waiting for Mister Right." [6] Edison ( talk) 05:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. This has been a really difficult time for my friend and the gang has been having a difficult time consoling him. I'm going to read the article you linked me carefully. Thanks again. -- Endless Dan 20:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I just thought I'd tell you (Franamax, StuRat, hydnjo, Atlant) how the flaming drink thing went. Well, mixed results. It's all made, but sometimes it works and some times it does not. What makes it extra odd, is that it works 100% of the time for me, but only about 50% for the girl that has to do it. So far, three shows with an audience and it only lit once. UGHH!!!
What I did: I made a fire place poker out of mostly thin PVC pipe. In the handle is a gas grill starter with wires going inside the pipe. Franamax - You mentioned the handle idea and I had already thought of that, but I didn't want to steer people towards what I was already thinking. I guess it's just a case of great minds thinking alike. ;-)
All of it is painted with "Hammered" spray paint made for outside plastic furniture. Here's a shot of it close up without the flame. http://wonderley.com/shows/2008/FarmersDaughter/Photos/Page01/shots/2008-04-17~069.jpg That's me on the couch. In the sort of V shaped tip is the igniter at the tip and the other wire coming at an angle. My invention sparks 99% of the time.
In the coffee mug is a metal jigger that I raised to the level of the top of the mug with a piece of PVC pipe. That was a mistake. I made the level of the jigger come to the level of the top of the cup so that the most amount of the flame would be visible. It should be raised, but not all the way to the top. I have to pretend to drink from this cup and the jigger (which gets scolding hot) is hard to NOT touch if the jigger is too high.
I scuffed up the inside of the mug and the other side of the jigger to get the glue to stick to it. The fact that the jigger is metal does not appear to have any effect on the spark.
In the jigger was originally only about 1/16 of an inch of "Golden Grain" booze - 95% alcohol. At my house, it ignited every time. But, not for Cheryl. I later thought about it was having it on my kitchen counter. That's higher up so I was holding the poker at more of an angle on the mug rather than straight down. So, we changed the jigger to about an half inch on alcohol. Soon before going on stage with it, she moves some of it on the side of the jigger for even more surface area.
When we do get a flame the poker flames a little as well and she blows it out. That actually looks great. The idea of adding salt is awesome - Thanks Atlant. However, I had no luck dissolving salt in the alcohol. I warmed up some alcohol with having hot water all around it in a thin glass and stirred a lot of salt in it. I then let it settle some and used a syringe with a wide tip to suck up some of the alcohol from the middle thinking I'd get the best alcohol with dissolved salt that I could. It did not appear to make any difference in the color of the flame or the ability to light it. However, we put salt in a sugar bowl. Once lit, putting a pinch of "sugar" in the flaming drink was an awesome effect.
I also tried freezing some of the booze so that the 5% that was not alcohol would be solid and use the 100% alcohol that was left - after it warmed back up and it made no difference. In fact, whatever the 5% that wasn't alcohol, appeared to be unfreezable as well.
Thanks again for all of your ideas. If you want to see more about the show, visit Wonderley.com -- Wonderley ( talk) 09:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I enjoyed the conversation over economics. We should have another soon. I did read your article on "diseconomies of scale", and I was impressed by your knowledge on the subject. I need about 20 more hours in the field before I complete my degree. I'd like to run by you some of the advanced elective courses and get your opinion on where my time is best spent.
Thanks
Paul Balfay NiceG3s ( talk) 13:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint. I had figured out the colons after a while, but still sometimes forget. Your point was well made and is taken. I'll try to do better. Just have some pity for cave people like me. I stopped programming when Assembler went out of fashion. It's taking me a while to learn what all the typographical marks are used for these days. Some of the posts I look at and people might as well be speaking Vogon. And my generation used to be renowned for using a lot of acronyms. We can't hold a candle to GFDL or WP-RF. I used to joke that my aunt wasn't 'up with all that technology" and now people tell me about "namespaces" and I go "Huh??" Plus there's all that stuff you have to think of so people won't get upset with you, like logging in, signing and now colons. Just don't run over granny when she forgets to not walk up the one way street the wrong way. Thanks :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa4edit ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that. Made me smile.
Just managed to save it from my spambox as it goes. :)
It kinda reminded me of this RD topic (dunno if you've seen it). -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 23:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, StuRat - any chance of dropping me a line? - adambrowne666athotmail.com - ta Adambrowne666 ( talk) 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you were heavily involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals some time ago I thought you might be interested in discussing the merits of a similar but slightly different proposal here. I would be very interested in your opinion. Cheers, -- S.dedalus ( talk) 00:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Fortran? good god, I almost forgot that existed. I was taught it at university but have never used it since. You mean it actually has a use? SpinningSpark 13:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[7]. :) -- Sean 13:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Next you'll be saying that if I edit articles on abbeys in Westmeath, I must yell " fore!" first! :-D -- tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 14:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Give it time and you will be up with me soon. My problem is that the diet, exercise and sleep tips don't work well for me these days because these were the tips I originally observed back when my doc first suspected GERD (at the time, I was in the second grade). Now, as a collage student, the diet and exercise tips and sleep advice, combined with the meds, all seem to be failing. I grow more frustrated by the day that there isn;t more that I could do to relieve the problem: usually when I ask people I get this same advice, its just that for once I was hoping someone may have heard about a herbal extract or a radical new surgury or a transplant or something of that nature that I could ask my doc about instead of seeing that all to familar 'no' head shake and that look that suggestiosn I be dead in ten years.
The post at RD was technically in the wrong (I was having an attack and was venting a little), but when one loses all hope and falls in to the frustration and hopelessness that the rest of his life must be lived like a old person unless one wants to be up at 2:30 in the morning screaming in agony from what amounts to having napalm poured down one throat doesn't inspire much confidence; neither does the fact that the average person lives all the way into his 60s or 70s. Fifty years of dealing with this on top of the 15 already spent dealing with this has a tendancy to make me just a little depressed and a little suicidal. At any rate, thanks for the comments, and I will check to make sure that I try everything you suggested (though at this point I am fairly confident I have). TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you not think the message you left me was a little harsh? Especially when you consider that it wasn't very clear cut whether he was asking for medical advice or not. Perhaps I was a little hasty in removing the question but personally i'd rather be safe than sorry. It is not a case of me removing anything medical, search through the archives for examples of where I responded to medical questions. Instead, it is a genuine concern for the OP. Please try and be a little less 'overzealous' yourself next time and stop assuming bad faith. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? contribs? 21:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Summer 2008!
Mifter (
talk)
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Winter not Summer then I wish you a Happy First Day of Winter 2008!
But it's not that simple becausse who knows where they are posting from. Not to mention a post titled "Science" on the hum desk *groan with hand to forehead*. Having fun so long as they don't make a habit of it. O..O Thank you so much fo the cows, SR :) Julia Rossi ( talk) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Since this has come down to a debate, I thought I should bring it here instead of clogging up that thread (hope you don't mind). To give you some context, let me just point out that I almost invariably take a fairly liberal view to anything from abortion to capital punishment to environmentalism to gun control to income redistribution to . . . you get the picture?
Now all of the examples you've given (company towns, paying in scrip, child labour, serfdom etc) are clearly immoral. Also, I fully agree that unrestricted capitalism leads to some horrid results. All I'm saying is that you can't call the employers of the poor immoral just because they employ the poor. Looking at this from the other side: the directors of companies are under all sorts of pressure from regulators, customers, suppliers, unions, shareholders, competitors etc. They also do what they have to do to ensure their companies' survival. And if they're not being immoral then they're not being immoral.
If you want to use the word "immoral" to describe the poverty that arises out of legitimate business practices, then IMHO you'll have to call the system immoral, not the business owners who are only players in the game despite the fact that they eat better food than the mineworkers. To me, it's a case of: "Don't hate the player, hate the game". Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
(Remove indent)Yeah, you're right. I guess the silver lining in all of this is that people will stop wasting fossil fuels and humanity may actually survive a few more decades than anticipated. Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 00:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks StuRat, I was almost expecting an op reaction, so it was nice to find your support message. Seems strange that people think the desks have fixed "staff" when most of us probably float around them all. Maybe locating properly to the so-called minor desks will help them and not dilute the main ones so much. Thanks again, Julia Rossi ( talk) 23:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, do you know how to identify Internet bot? For example an IP is editing/vandalizing some pages in a wiki, how will I understand if the IP is person or bot? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 03:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the "troll" at the reference desks. It was in the way of everybody including me who wished to post and answer questions. I am glad to see Jump gyn blocked. I was checking the history. -- Mayfare ( talk) 01:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
StuRat, I don't think Kainaw was suggesting that the OP couldn't tell the difference between a lodged popcorn kernel and a tooth. He merely noted that identification of a new, hard lump in the mouth is not a sure thing, and what one thinks is a tooth isn't always. (For the record, patients can and do mistake firmly lodged nuts and popcorn kernels for teeth, so Kainaw's remark wasn't completely off the wall.) Kainaw correctly noted that a bony tumor could present that way as well – though he really oughtn't be offering alternate diagnoses for the symptoms given – and there are numerous other possible explanations.
I've removed both the question and the bulk of the answers, as we have no basis for concluding that the OP's symptoms are the result of a wisdom tooth eruption, and we all should know better than to glibly offer such a diagnosis. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 04:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
StuRat, it is established convention to remove questions seeking medical advice and the consensus at AN/I is that TenOfAllTrades’s action was correct. — Travis talk 13:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The header you added at the RD talk page seems a bit excessive. We're trying to reach consensus and that type of thing won't really help. Besides, on talk pages (like this one :) ), the OPs' opinions are refected in the headers. Just a thought, Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 13:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I am a new editor. I saw what user:TenOfTrades done and its extremely unethical. He has acted very manipulatively, and anybody new and joining the debate would be lead straight into a fed and baited conclusion. When you left a note on my talk page, I thought you were going to disagree with me, but I'm glad you defended our merits. We are right, however depending on the choice of other editors who opine, we could very well find ourselves in the minority. I have been trying to encourage people to let this issue die, since its so obfuscated and its not worth bringing to attention how TenOfTrades has sidestepped the boundary of ethics to manipulate the POV in such a way that uses cheap tricks to "win" the fallacious argument that ultimately we're either forced to engage in or walk away from. I will continue this fight, for the sake of principle and for the sake of wikipedia only, if you do. However, if you think it will be drag out and will be a dirty fight, then I recommend we just keep an eye on the questionable user and make sure he doesn't do this often. Hopefully, he's not doing it intentionally. He has a commendable edit history, so I doubt he's trying to sabotage his good name. The discussion is probably over his head, and he is not quite ready to engage in formal, civil debates, while handling himself ethically. Sentriclecub ( talk) 15:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This is not a positive environment for encouraging new editors to be contributing to wikipedia. I'm a college grad, very educated, and am rethinking my place here.
20 minutes before travis' response [10] [11] [12] this is not about opposing viewpoints between whether or not to err on the side of caution. All 6 of us believe uniformly that it is very commendable of wikipedia to have respect for the medical community by having a large "gray area" and always sticking to answers that are completely [ black]. The discussion was about another matter, which for those who don't see it, I'm not involved. Sentriclecub ( talk) 16:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually i can see how this "black" answer alone is not treating his question medically, but the followups after my answer undermined any chance of not relooking at the question with a monstrous slanted perception.
The illusory effect lies with comparing the question to my answer, vs comparing the question to the subsequent fallouts. The question didn't change, but put into the new thread which developed, is undeniably a "medical issue", which should then be deleted. For those whose intelligence (12+ outta 24) manifests itself in alalogies, then I can convey my point this way.
The question along with my succinct answer was a "black square" but kineua's response minutes later was the green can.
Hope some of you liked the analogy method of explanation, and will check out this maze puzzle [13] for more brain workouts. Sentriclecub ( talk) 16:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer! So if the answer is "studio executives", then who might typically be on this panel who greenlights the project? Would it be the producer and director together? Or maybe some sort of executive in charge of finances? -- Sonjaaa ( talk) 21:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for saving pages about various Linux distributions from blatant deleting. I am sick of these "Delete because of non-notability" dictators. Megaribi ( talk) 10:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks like the one you posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alinex. The editor in question may be very mistaken, but it's best to assume good faith to prevent heated disputes. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 18:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi StuRat, missing you, hope all is well... Julia Rossi ( talk) 04:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I enjoy seeing you in good form on the desks, very fungi, as ever, helpful too – : ) Julia Rossi ( talk) 07:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to evade the questions you asked at the end of your response to my Science Ref Desk query, but as I wrote initially, I can't provide further details. The situation is characteristic of assignments on a military base, yes. I appreciate your input, StuRat, thanks. -- Deborahjay ( talk) 19:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
flaming
lawyer
c
never
for
get is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
In the winter we can build a snowman, then some kids 'll come and kick it down, we'll ask 'em if they did it, they'll say "no man", then we'll rub their faces in the ground.
Then we'll sit, and perspire, as we set their coats on fire, and we'll make 'em walk home, when it's twenty below...
Walking through a winter wonderland ! StuRat ( talk) 15:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Christmas, Sturat. |
Julia Rossi ( talk) 00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
This. To be honest, I'd very much like to see said infomercial. :) · AndonicO Engage. 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to say some personal Thank You! for answering my questions about jet fuel. It really helped to somewhat clear my mind and research topic farther. Vitall ( talk) 08:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
Thanks for answering my Band Planet question on the Reference Desk! -- Ye Olde Luke ( talk) 07:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
![]() | This user is a Reference desk regular. |
The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaming lawye r c 07:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Following up on your edit [14] where you mentioned your surprise at the lack of Digitizing pad article... Is it the same as a Graphics tablet? I've never seen one like in the pic you linked, so not too sure about creating a redirect.
Cheers, davidprior t/ c 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
<redacted inappropriate content> Refdesk is not for discussing users behavior. Please use their user talk pages to carry on conversations with them. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record,
I would have omitted the word "straight". Similarly, I'd have said "a sex video featuring Japanese with purple Mohawks", if the participants looked like that, but wouldn't have said "a sex video featuring Japanese with black hair, cut in the typical fashion", if the participants looked like that. ...
Precisely because you would have omitted the word "straight", that makes you a homophobe because your first response to my post was to warn people that it was a sex video. Obviously, I concur with Jack, viewing personal videos on company time is asking for disciplinary action, and viewing sex videos on company time especially is asking for dismissal. Note this is any, and I mean ANY, sex video. Now here is my evidence for the fact that you ARE a homophobe, and I am not being obnoxious, because I doesn't take less that 2 keystrokes to NOT type homophobic slurs.
Warning: That looks to be the start of a gay sex video. Fortunately it stops after the two men undress each other to their boxers, but probably not the type of thing you want to view at work, unless you want everyone to look at you a little differently from now on.
You intend to warn other's that this is a sex video, well the start, but that is irrelevant. Well if you intended to warn other's that this was a sex video, gay, straight, bi, nonhuman, it doesn't matter. And no, I will not assume good faith. Why the hell should I assume good faith? You never took the time to consider other people, so why should I? 96.53.149.117 ( talk) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I moved the above here from [17]. StuRat ( talk) 00:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(carrying on from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2008 December 23#Names)
Well, I think this is all very revealing about your attitudes to such minorities, Stu. So, you wouldn’t mention your friend’s religion or sexuality straight up, but you might get around to it later. Fair enough. Although, I hope you wouldn't wait till the moment he stepped out of the room and then said "By the way, he's gay". Rather, it might arise naturally when the topic of sexuality was being discussed. Why is the case we’re discussing any different? The issue was that the video contains images of people having sex. That’s all you needed to say. Had the discussion proceeded on that basis, maybe the fact that the sex depicted is gay might have been mentioned down the track somewhere. Or maybe not. I don’t have a problem with that either way. It’s the fact that the very first thing you identified was not just sex, but gay sex, that caused the problem. It’s tantamount to saying that sex between a man and a woman is so standard that nothing needs to be said, but sex between two men is something that must cause red flags to be raised and alarm bells to be sounded. If you wouldn't have mentioned first up that the sex was straight (if it had been a straight video), then why take a different approach when the sex happens to be gay?
You still don't seem to appreciate that the issue with watching sex videos at work is that it's that fact that the images are about sexual activity (as opposed to people digging ditches or playing music) that makes them inappropriate - it doesn't matter whether it's boy-girl, boy-boy or girl-girl. Even watching a non-porn sex education video at work could get you the sack in many places, and, again, whether it's straight or gay would make absolutely no difference. You seemed to understand that when you wrote "There's nothing homophobic about not wanting people to think you're the type of person who views sex videos at work". But now, you've drifted quite considerably to: "Many adults won't want to watch gay sex videos who would want to watch straight sex videos". That is certainly true speaking generally, but this whole discussion has been about watching videos at work, specifically at work. What might apply in the general case often has absolutely no relevance in a specific context; and vice-versa. So, either you're confusing generalities with specifics, or your original warning meant something other than that which I've gone to extreme lengths to continue to assume. Your first respondent, the one who called you a homophobe, was not so charitable, but it's understandable why they formed that instant conclusion. Very understandable. If you use that sort of seemingly discriminatory language in future, you can expect exactly the same reaction. Don't say you weren't warned.
Re "I don't think telling people what the link they are about to click will do is ever a bad thing; the more info they have the better decision they can make." This gets me back to my point about all sex videos being inappropriate for workplace viewing. Your argument now seems to be that some people would choose to risk the sack by watching a video at work that they know is straight, but they wouldn't take such a risk if they know it's gay. In the first case, the worst case scenario is that they'd lose their job; in the second case, they'd not only lose their job but also get branded as a homo, and that’s too high a price to pay. Well, maybe, but don't you think this is their decision? A general warning is fine, but one warning for straight videos and a different one for gay videos is not fine. That does definitely display a discriminatory attitude, and one that will not serve you well.
Just going slightly off topic for a moment, but it's still about the use of discriminatory language. I don't know what your religion is (assuming you have one), nor do I want to know, but let's say you're a Mormon, and you have a friend who constantly refers to you as "my Mormon friend Stu", where the subject of religion was not part of the conversation. I would be quite offended by such gratuitous references; it would imply that one's Mormon-ness puts them into a different category of friendship than merely "friend". And I would certainly ask them to refrain from categorising me in such a way. Same for "my gay friend Jack" or "my Chinese friend Fred". I had the greatest difficulty in ever explaining this to Loomis, both on WP and in private emails. He constantly brought up the subject of my gay sexuality in contexts where it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. I asked him to stop, and he agreed, but he couldn't (or maybe wouldn't) help himself. He, on the other hand, seemed obsessed by his Jewishness, and almost never failed to mention it, no matter what we were talking about. If he wants to think of himself first and foremost as a Jew, and as a Canadian, a man, a heterosexual, and a human being in lower places in the order, that's his choice. But most people don't primarily identify themselves by whatever minority groups they belong to, and it's wrong to assume they do. -- JackofOz ( talk) 03:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
"For those of you considering watching this at work, or at home with kids, this is the start of a sex video. However, the people in the video, whose genders I won't mention, stop once they get down to each other's underwear, of a type I won't mention, since that might indicate their gender and hence their sexual orientation. Now, for those of you at work, skip the next warning."
"For those of you watching at home, without kids, this is the start of a gay sex video. If you wish to watch, enjoy. If watching such things is against your religion or moral beliefs, then don't watch." StuRat ( talk) 04:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(deindent) No, that's not an accurate description of what you did. It wasn't a case of you informing people who might be interested in gay videos that this was such a video. It was a case of you warning them against watching it in the event that gay videos are not their cup of tea. You've already acknowledged that you wouldn't have issued a similar "warning" had the video been straight (your words from 1 Jan: I would have omitted the word "straight"). That's the crux of the discrimination, and that's obviously why the anon called you a homophobe. It's one thing to simply label a sex video as straight, gay or whatever it is, without further comment. But when you start warning people what not to watch, you walk a very, very precarious line unless you're particularly careful with your choice of words. Maybe it's clearer to me because I'm sensitised to these sorts of issues through years of intimate personal experience, plus professional training in fostering inclusivity and embracing diversity. Without for a moment being condescending or patronising, let me suggest there are Discrimination Awareness courses you can take to make you more alive to these issues and how best to avoid them. -- JackofOz ( talk) 06:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Trust you to invent music terrorism, >)) Julia Rossi ( talk) 08:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I completely forgot about disturbing the peace, disrupting traffic, and all sorts of offenses that only apply when the prosecutor is hard up. Come to think of it, if he played badly enough he would be making one big noise that would eliminate many smaller noises (i.e. his playing). Maybe he can use that as a positive defense. Phil_burnstein ( talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I've really had it with your opinionating like "...Hamas is more interested in provoking war than working for peace...". Your responses to Ref Desk queries tend to include a whole lot of cutesy punchlines or downright gratuitous joking. Let me put it plainly: if you're sincere about contributing here and sharing knowledge, try writing responsibly, e.g. phrasing speculations as just that. Plenty of good examples are offered by regular editors, and you would do well to emulate them rather than, what, shooting from the lip? Frankly, I find your writing sloppy and offensive. In the name of dignity and respect for the question-and-answer process, kindly try to write in kind instead of merely spouting. Those of us living under rocket fire this morning aren't so free to participate in the discussion (and there are at least two visiting European Wikipedians, to my personal knowledge, who need my urgent advice now more than the Ref Desk does), and it's discouraging to see those who do write, spewing flak. -- Thanks, Deborahjay ( talk) 11:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I will certainly try that out, since I desperate for anything new that may work. I hope you are having a Happy New Year. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello friend StuRat, I am a new user in Wikipedia. Today I've been gazing through the computing reference desk and watching the others to contribute. I've seen that you are interested in the field of Science and Maths (as posted by you in your User Page). In fact, I am interested in those fields too. Then if I personally discuss with you about Science and Maths on your talk page, will you mind something? If not, will you kindly permit me to do the same? Thank you. Anirban16chatterjee ( talk) 16:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Furthur, I present you the tireless contributor's barnstar for your nice contributions in the Computing Reference Desk Anirban16chatterjee ( talk) 16:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks a lot friend! I often use the reference desk, but I think it is good for me to keep in touch with someone like you, who is endowed with the golden light of knowledge, for my betterment. And, you obviously deserved the barnstar. Thank you friend, see you again. -Best Regards, Anirban16chatterjee ( talk) 16:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
My issue with your answers is that when they are on topics that could potentially affect people or animals or pets or what have you, you have often responded in terms that made it sound like you knew what you were talking about when it was clear you were, as we say, talking out of your hat. I know that we all parade about with conviction even though it is often not well founded but on questions where there are potential beings to be harmed, a simple, "it would seem to me, though I don't know for sure" would go a long way. There is no sin in emphasizing that one's opinions are provisional. There is much in pretending to be an authority on something that one is not. I happily give opinions on things I am not certain of, but I always preface it with a comment about whether I am speaking from any particular specialized knowledge or whether I am just reasoning my way through it. It's an important distinction. -- 98.217.8.46 ( talk) 17:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Friend StuRat, sorry for not being able to reply to your kind invitation earlier.A Actually, I was on a vacation along with my family. Thank you for inviting me to play chess with you. I am most delighted to know that you are also a chess player. Therefore, would you mind setting the time and date? (But one fact my friend, I am from India, so my time zone may be different from yours). And friend, I've found out a new rule in Organic Chemistry, which I'll feel great to share with you (since you are interested in Science). The rule is this "We can directly calculate whether a given hydrocarbon is Alkane, Alkene or Alkyne from their vapour densities. If the Vapour Density of the hydrocarbon is n, then # If (n+1) is exactly divisible by 7, then the Hydrocarbon is an alkane. # If n is itself exactly divisible by 7, then the hydrocarbon is an alkene. # If (n-1) is exactly divisible by 7, then the hydrocarbon is an alkyne.". Thank you friend, for taking your valuable time in going through my message. I'll wait for your reply. Anirban16chatterjee ( talk) 12:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the rule applies only to the aliphatic hydrocarbons. I hope to find out a new rule for the cyclic hydrocarbons well. And, I'll set up the account in pogo in a short while. After I set up the account, I certainly tell you my account name. Thank you friend. Anirban16chatterjee ( talk) 02:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Sir, as per your desire, I'm posting the Bodes Law here with some examples. The law states that "The planets' distances from the Sun in the Solar system are interrelated to each other by the series 0,3,6,12,24,48,96... and so on. From the series, the constants for the cosmic bodies are as follows:-
Mercury = 0
Venus = 3
Earth = 6
Mars = 12
Ceres = 24
Jupiter = 48
Saturn = 96
Uranus = 192
The distance of Neptune, Pluto and Vulcan-X are not properly related to this series. Now, to find out the distance of any planet from the Sun, take the constant of the Planet and after that add 4 to it. Now, multiply to it 1/10th of Earth's distance from the Sun, (roughly taken 14,96,00,000 Km to 15,00,00,000 Km). For example, to find out the distance of Mars, simply take its constant, i.e, 12, and it's distance is:
(12+4)*1/10*15,00,00,000 Km = 24,00,00,000 Km. But all this distances are approximate, and may not be exactly equal to the original distances. And, it is more convenient to express distances obtained by this method by using A.U (astronomical unit, 1 au =Distance of Earth from Sun). And my whole-hearted gratitude to you, for teaching me numerous important topics yesterday! Sorry for not posting the rule earlier, since today is the Great Republic Day of Our Nation India, and we were watching the Republic Day Parade of the Indian Army. Best Regards.
Anirban16chatterjee (
talk) 07:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Mercury = 0+4= 4*15=60 vs 46-70 (ave=58) -3%
Venus = 3+4= 7*15=105 vs 107-109 (ave=108) +3%
Earth = 6+4= 10*15=150 vs 147-152 (ave=149.5) +0%
Mars = 12+4= 16*15=240 vs 207-249 (ave=228) -5%
Ceres = 24+4= 28*15=420 vs 381-448 (ave=414.5) -1%
Jupiter = 48+4= 52*15=780 vs 741-817 (ave=779) +0%
Saturn = 96+4= 100*15=1500 vs 1354-1514 (ave=1434) -4%
Uranus = 192+4= 196*15=2940 vs 2749-3004 (ave=2876.5) -2%
Neptune = 384+4= 388*15=5820 vs 4453-4554 (ave=4503.5) -23%
Pluto = 768+4= 772*15=11580 vs 4437-7376 (ave=5906.5) -49%
Thank you for your kind help, Sir. Actually, by answering the questions made by a fake IP address holder, on the Computing Reference desk, I've fallen in a great trouble with some of the other users. Since you are an experienced user, I need your advice related to this matter. May we discuss this on the Chess Board on Pogo, about this? Anirban16chatterjee ( talk) 09:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The Ref desk really isn't the place to be offering advice on personal issues on serious real life issues, when we have no personal knowledge of the people involved. However, if one is one thing to offer advice, but scaremongering along the lines of Somebody could end up dead is really, really nonconstructive. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that course of events could lead from her situation, and implying there is - especially to someone who might be in a distraught state of mind already - is really irresponsible and, quite frankly, cruel. Please consider removing it. Rockpocke t 21:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
This is obviously not the first time you've received this award, but there's no such thing as too many barnstars, especially when they're well deserved! Thanks for your helpful and bite free answers. :-) Crackthewhip775 ( talk) 05:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC) |
I posted comments here ( Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Intern)-- 202.168.229.245 ( talk) 11:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I have added bit there. It would be great if you take a look that issue. Thank you-- 202.168.229.245 ( talk) 19:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, If memory serves me right you were looking for microwave sleeves. Check out Red Baron deep dish microwavable pizzas (3 per box). Hope you like pizza. (Michelina's e.g. has the crisper inside the box, so they wouldn't work for you.) Lisa4edit 76.97.245.5 ( talk) 00:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
In response to this, which is now far beyond the original question and no longer appropriate for the reference desk so I'm continuing here, that's true only if you take the signing of the Arusha Accords as both the pro forma and actual end of the Rwandan Civil War. One is then left with trying to explain away the advance of the Rwandan Patriotic Front across the Arusha Accords demilitarized zone after the beginning of the Rwandan Genocide. The one chosen by apologists of Hutu power is to lump the renewed fighting between rebel and government forces in with the slaughter of civilians by government forces, thereby implying that the civilians deserved to be killed by association with the rebels. Others, who believe treaty dates, end up just failing to explain what happened and sounding incoherent. Most sources I've read politely describe the pretty signatures on the Arusha Accord and then go on to describe the civil war as continuing through at least the capture of the country by the RPF, often dated to the fall of Kigali, the capture of Ruhengeri or the end of Opération Turquoise. The notion that the civil war and genocide can be separated, as implied by your comment, simply isn't borne out by the facts. - Banyan Tree 13:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi StuRat, sorry I seem to have offended you with this removal - your tone was pretty strongly negative. I have a lot of respect for your work on RD/S and elsewhere, but I think your reply on the talk page was disproportionately negative, almost argumentative. Seems like a pretty small thing, really - I did what I thought was proper, and you pointed out some things I could have done better. Thanks for the constructive parts of the feedback. -- Scray ( talk) 03:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You know I'm almost as vehemently opposed to ridiculous removals as you are, but I'm not sure that restoring this question was the right move. It seems to me that this response might be overcompensation for the inherent unfairness in our current removal process. While I'd like to see that process revised as much as anyone, I think supporting questions that clearly cross the line is unlikely to improve the situation and might prove even more divisive. – 74 15:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey Stu, you argue for a logical approach to all RefDesk questions, you discourse quite passionately on the talk page how everyone else is wrong to remove Q's, you restore removed threads in the name of freedom. Then you answer a perfectly legitimate question with an echoing resonance of nothing at all. Seriously, why would you bother to provide that answer? What is your purpose here? Sorry, but my respect-level has gone down a notch, unless you have a rationale for that. Franamax ( talk) 10:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You're an English native speaker. and I need help.
Is this text right?
In one of his speeches, with the name,, Message to the Grass Roots`` (in Detroit on10th November, 1963) , Malcolm X differentiated sarcastically between the contradicting characters from ,, house Negroes`` and ,, field Negroes ``.This is a allusion to Martin Luther King and his followers, who want to achieve their aims of freedom and equality in a peaceful way. Malcolm X called Martin Luther King as a house slave, the house slaves usually lived better than field slaves. They usually had better food and were sometimes given the family cast-off clothing, sometimes they close bonds of affection and the slave-owners and the slaves were friends. In contrast to the field slaves the house slaves lived well and they felt no need to leave the plantation.
He wanted to explain with this statement that Martin Luther King and his followers were embodiment of the house slave. Malcolm X despises King and his followers who were the so-called civil-rights activist. He accuses the activists that they collaborate unconsciously with the power holder because they are house slaves who admire ,, the white devils ``. Malcolm X characterizes Martin Luther King and the civil-rights movement as implement of the opressor.The main objective of him would be to expose oppressors' past and present inhumanities and injustices. Malcolm X refers the fact that blacks are still discriminated and segregated at present time and for that reason he wants to resort to violence because this is in his opinion the only way to achieve equality. In an other speech he uses an allusion to make the social connection between black and white clear. Coffee is the only thing I like integrated.(Malcolm X zit. N. Haley 1987: 13).
I KNOW IT'S LONG, BUT PLEASE I WILL NEVER BOTHER YOU AGAIN, PLEASE. IS IT RIGHT? I WRITED IT -- 190.49.114.59 ( talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
In his speech, "Message to the Grass Roots" (given in Detroit on November 10th, 1963), Malcolm X differentiated sarcastically between the contradicting characteristics of "house Negroes" and "field Negroes". This is an allusion to Martin Luther King and his followers, who wanted to achieve their aims of freedom and equality through peaceful means. Malcolm X called Martin Luther King a "house slave", since the house slaves usually lived better than field slaves. They usually had better food and were sometimes given the family's cast-off clothing. Sometimes they even had close bonds of affection with their white masters. In contrast to the field slaves, the house slaves lived comparatively well and felt no compulsion to leave the plantation.
He claimed that Martin Luther King and his followers were the embodiment of the house slave. Malcolm X despised King and his followers, the so-called "civil-rights activists". He accused the activists of unconsciously collaborating with those in power because they were house slaves who admired "the white devils". Malcolm X characterized Martin Luther King and the civil-rights movement as "implements of the oppressor". Malcolm's main objective was to expose the oppressors' past and present inhumanities and injustices. Malcolm X referred to the fact that blacks were still discriminated against and segregated at that time. For that reason, he wanted to use violence because this, in his opinion, was the only way to achieve equality. In another speech he used an allusion to make the social connection between black and white clear: "Coffee is the only thing I like integrated". StuRat ( talk) 21:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. God Bless You. I love Wikipedia and its articles, the best encyclopedia ever. I love to read about terrorism, Bin laden, etc. Thank you again! -- 190.49.114.59 ( talk) 01:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, StuRat. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. |
I wonder if in imagination, you ever think about the horrific and really cruel realities of the Mossad and the inhumane mechanisms of the so-called intelligence operations all these warring sides carry out. For example, current reports of Hamas assassinations and torture of those Fatah members they suspect and accuse of providing information to Israel. Or how about the coercion allegedly applied by Israel on Palestinians to get their services as informers? Your "smiley" emoticon with which you signed your remark may go down great with others who think (or imagine) as you do... but for people close to the conflict, occasionally under rocket attack though far more often suffering the consequences of living in a militarized society in the constrained circumstances of being surrounded by hostile and violent elements bent on our destruction while "we" oppress innocents who happen to be on the wrong side... no, StuRat, it's not a smiley matter, whatever you may like to do or write on the Ref Desks. What's for you a joking matter is life and death for others. I feel that your jokey remarks cheapen and degrade what a lot of people are suffering.-- Deborahjay ( talk) 23:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Please don't change other people's comments (including section headers) on talk pages. Friday (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Good template. Accords respect to the OP, offers helpful links so they don't feel as though no one cares and which may assist them in their discussions with the dr, and prevents any refdesker overstepping and providing advice. Can we develop something formal along these lines? Gwinva ( talk) 06:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I accidentally clobbered a post of yours to the Ref Desk.
I tried to Put it back. You might want to double check to make sure I didn't mangle it. Sorry. APL ( talk) 13:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
1) Don't ever edit after an edit conflict. The problem here is that it escalates to an edit of the entire Ref Desk page, which is quite likely to have endless edit conflicts.
2) Instead, hit the back browser arrow and cut your new text, then hit the "discussion" tab to reload the page, then pick "edit" on the Q, and paste your comments back in.
3) Only add one chunk of contiguous text at a time. Adding discontiguous text with other people's comments in-between makes resolving edit conflicts much uglier. StuRat ( talk) 13:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer your search engine personally. I like cats better than porn. I use Ask. I don't know why but it REALLY sucks. <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 ( talk) 23:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC) 19:10pm March 23, 2009
Sturat, I noticed you often reply to users who remove medical questions from the refdesk with report cards detailing all manner of issues you had with the removal process. Is this really necessary everytime? Clearly, the removers don't agree with you so there is no real purpose to do this? But even if you have to give users feedback after removing questions, could you please do so on their user talk pages?
Btw, you say that there should be links to and fro between the talk page and the desk - I think this is unnecessary work for the remover. There is no guideline supporting this so incessantly nagging users to do this is not appropriate. If you think this should be part of the guidelines, you're welcome to make a formal request to include them. As long as there is a diff, we could easily find the question on the desk. Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 22:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that keeping the nastiness off the Ref Desk itself is important and worthwhile, though I think we both understand that nastiness elsewhere is no more acceptable. Our history is peppered with unpleasantnesses, and I think it's time to call a halt.
I am well aware that you have no great love of me, and from my perspective it seems you are willing to go out of your way to offend – and be offended by – me. It's unproductive and unhelpful, and I would like to find a way to put it to an end. Frankly, I don't expect to convince you that I'm a rational, reasonable, intelligent human being, worthy of courteous treatment. I'm quite willing to settle for any end to hostilities in some way that doesn't do further harm to Wikipedia and the editors at the Ref Desks.
I do not wish to shut you out of any reasonable discussion on the Ref Desk or elsewhere, nor do I want (or expect) any shiny, happy declarations of mutual, undying friendship, or regret, or apology. I recommend a practical approach, with an aim to minimizing bickering and maximizing continued participation by both of us. Here is what I propose:
I believe that those arrangements should eliminate the vast majority of areas where we are suffering from utterly fruitless friction. Point #1 leaves open the door for comment where a genuine debate has opened, but leaves neither of us the opportunity for sheer bloodyminded contrariness. Point #2 lets others 'make the call'; neither one of us need take a 'final' decision. Points #3, #4, and #5 are intended to discourage poking and prodding in either direction. (If a message needs to be conveyed or an edit needs to be reverted, the matter ought to be sufficiently obvious that someone else can do it.)
What say you? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
EZD_Features_Matrix
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).AZSQ.E232568
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
Hi StuRat
I've noticed that you previously posted a comment on the user talk of the Memory Protection article. I was wondering if you'd be interested on a WikiProject on OS Development? I created a proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#OS_Development
Jatos 09:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"Welcome to Uranus-Hertz Corp. Your call is important to us, although obviously not important enough to actually hire sufficient staff to answer it. Come to think of it, your call isn't very important to us at all, and neither are you. If you have any complaints, we will be glad to connect you to our call center in India, where they will promptly disconnect you. Actually, it won't be all that prompt, you will have to listen to off-station MUZAK for several minutes first."
I actually prefer dials to digital pads. My current microwave oven has one dial for time and one for power level. It has a handle you pull to open, not a button you have to depress. It has no digital display. I can't stand those electronic pads where you have to enter info in a specific way to get it to cooperate and need to re-enter the time after every power glitch to prevent it from flashing 12:00 all the time (like a VCR). Also, on a TV which lacks a volume dial, it's impossible to turn it on and turn the volume down in the early morning hours without waking everybody in the house. With a dial you can turn the volume down before even turning it on.
Another example of technology run amok is the digital "temperature control system" on my truck. In order to receive "permission" to switch to recirc mode when the truck in front of me is belching diesel fumes, I must first page thru the menu until I set it to the face vents position, otherwise it will flash a red light at me that means "access denied". Good luck doing all that while driving. Then, when I turn the vehicle off, all the settings go back to the defaults, as opposed to a manual system which would damn well leave it how I had set it. I guess I will just have to get used to looking (and coughing) like a chimney sweep. Well, I enjoyed my good morning rant, did you ?
![]() |
The E=MC² Barnstar | |
For your extraordinary contributions to Wikipedia reference desks, I award you this EMC² Barnstar. Keep up the good work! deeptrivia ( talk) 03:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
I maynot be qualified enough to award anything but I can surely support the barnstar you got. Good on you mate! you certainly deserve it ... (My IP address is not permanent.) As per your request I put the four tildes. 202.161.131.69 19:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Notwithstanding what it may say about me that I haven't written apropos of any of your quality responses to sundry questions posed at the various Reference Desks but that I write now about a jocular comment, I must commend your unicorn leapfrogging entry, about which I laughed a good deal. I should say, of course, that I find msot of your answers to be altogether excellent and that I think excellence in responding to questions at the Reference Desks is to be admired, inasmuch as the Reference Desk is often the first location at which non-Wikipedians encounter Wikipedia and its editors, such that one's being well-treated at the Reference Desk may lead one to partake of the editing work, improving the project writ large. Joe 01:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi StuRat. I always look forward to reading your posts on the Ref Desk, with their trademark clarity and sanity, and even when I disagree with your arguments, they always give me plenty to think about, so whenever you go AWOL you leave a gaping hole. Welcome back, and I hope you were enjoying whatever you were doing. Cheers JackofOz 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh StuRat, Canada stands on guard for thee as we commend you for your incredible selfless robot-like diligence in maintain intergalactic order at RD. I seriously hope you're not getting in shit at work for doing this. I'm not really sure what's happened to all the bot requests, but for the moment I have started laying out a make-shift RD that could be used to transfer the existing pages into a new stream-lined interface once there is a bot willing to handle all of the archiving. After the front page is expanded to include all the rules and stuff, I'm going to add a new RD template to each of the subpages, and see where I can go from there. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"RefDeskia". Hehe. I Like it. :) -- Russoc4 17:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, just a quick thanks for helping with my question on Reference/Science: "In tides, why is the eighth wave always the largest?". You're answer was really helpful. Robinoke 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi StuRat, I'm just curious about your username. Does it mean anything? Are you aware that it is the (half-correctt, official is "StR") abbreviation for "Studienrat", the default job title and salary level for high school teachers in German state service? Simon A. 07:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, I wanted to talk about that templates. This one is horribly inflammatory:
This one is better, but still rather unpleasant:
Perhaps it could say something more like this, customized for the Ref Desk, Help Desk, and any other location where questions are asked and answered:
StuRat 03:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Sorry this is (very) late, but I had meant to give you a barnstar for your comment at the reference desk a few months ago. In answer to how copper wiring was made you said: "Two thrifty Scots found the same penny at the same time." Thank you for lightening up Wikipedia. | AndonicO Talk 11:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
Och Aye but isnt that a bit racialist these days? Plus if you said that in Glasgow.... well I wouldnt! 8-)-- Light current 11:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah so it was you and your brother who found that penny? 8-)
Well done, StuRat, well done! :-)
Atlant 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help me at the ref desk,I'm afraid maths isn't my strong point.Also,it was really kind of you to actually do the problem yourself.I promise I'll read more about maths so that I don't annoy you too much with my silly questions :) Starkidstar 06:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
When asked why red and green are Christmas colors, you said:"I did have another theory about why red and green are the XMAS colors, but I think it's probably only my family who celebrates XMAS by putting frogs in blenders." I keep wondering how many of these you are going to get... | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 16:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
Thanks ! StuRat 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. But thank yourself too; you earned it, and made me laugh very hard in the process. :-) | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I hope I didn't offend you with my latest comments on the talk thread. I get the impression you are sincerely trying to find a path to a solution and very much appreciate the effort you're putting into this. Like I say, I'm busy in real life at the moment so don't have (and will not soon have) much time to participate in this discussion. I suspect this whole thing has been quite upsetting for you - please don't give up. -- Rick Block ( talk) 16:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi StuRat - thanks for keeping the conversation alive on the RD - I think I'm going to call it a day, and I think I'm going to leave things as is. I've written all there is which needed to be said I think, and it's time for me to move on. There's a lot of good nuggets there, so hopefully some Wikipedians will pick up on what I've tried to get at. In the meantime, I cannot guarantee that I will be around the RD for a sustained period, but do keep an eye out for my edits there - I have a feeling that some normalcy can come back to the project soon. Cheers, HappyCamper 20:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For a funny comment at the expense of Microsoft: "I actually like the name 'Windows' for the O/S, as it accurately portrays how paneful it is to use." I recieved a barnstar for a similar comment so I thought I'd spread the love froth T C 20:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC) |
I tip my hat to your tireless efforts on continuing the discourse at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk. I think the process has revealed some interesting points. I'm sorry my support was sporadic at best - apart from an overstuffed agenda, I also felt a bit lost and overpowered by the tremendous pace of evolving issues on multiple pages (and also admit to being rule-o-phobe). I decided not to comment on the RFCs on you and THB, because it doesn't seem necessary, but if someone else is going to support the poster's view I will change my mind, and also post a comment. I'm concerned (scratch that, I'm angry) about these recent developments and, FWIW, will try to help you guys when I finally have some spare time next week. Meanwhile, keep up the stiff upper lip, and good luck! --- Sluzzelin 11:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
StuRat - just to let you know that I'm am going to leave the RD guideline and RD talk page discussions. I just can't deal with Radiant and Hipocrite any more. Every time I interact with them I end up feeling disgusted and soiled. I am going to find some far corner of Wikpedia where the air is clean and the water is pure and I can leave their poison far behind. Sorry to see that Friday has endorsed your RfC, but I am sure it will just die from lack of further input. Keep up the good work, and thank you for all your help. Gandalf61 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"...and when they came for me, there was nobody left to protest." StuRat 21:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
except me! (I hope)-- Light current 03:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
As the old latin saying goes: Nil desperandum carborundum. loosely translated as: Dont let the bastards grind you down! 8-)-- Light current 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Loved the chicken farmer joke. Bet it is nuked before midnight, though. Gandalf61 18:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
A chicken farmer had a problem rooster that was stressing out the hens with "unwanted attentions" and solved the problem by putting a bell around the rooster's neck to give the hens adequate warning. However, the rooster soon learned to silence the bell by covering it with a wing, allowing him to once again sneak up on the hens. For his study of this amazing example of animal reasoning and learning, a noted professor has received both the "No bell piece prize" and the "Pullet surprise". :-) StuRat 15:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Removed. EricR 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Your answer to my question about the addictiveness of nicotine at the reference desk was exactly what I was looking for. BeefJeaunt 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
That was an awesome, AWESOME answer. Anchoress 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear StuRat,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question about the equation of a line. I really appreciate it =) Alex Ng 19:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello - irrespective of all the issues all the regular Ref Desk posters are discussing, just wanted to express my appreciation for your most apt replies. "Abridged too far" really made me smile! Wonderful! Happy New Year -- Geologyguy 00:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Stalagmites are attached at the bottom and stalactites at the top, so what do you call them if they're attached at both ends ? A mitey-tite, of course. StuRat 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You wrote: "For that matter, how about chain letters, especially the online variety, which can grow and mutate and reproduce, with the more successful mutations surviving and the less successful dying out. So, are they alive ? (Sure, they need people to survive, but don't many living parasites also need hosts ?)" StuRat 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The notion that a hunter would kill dozens of birds with a single shot seems outlandish to me. Do you have a reference for this? Friday (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I don't buy your assertion that hunters would kill dozens of pigeons with a single shot. Neither your first nor your second explanation for where you got this were convincing to me. But I suppose this doesn't matter much- now we're essentially looking at your opinion versus mine, neither of which are reliable sources. I can't even say such a scenario is impossible, just that it sounds quite unlikely to me, and is far from a typical hunting result. Friday (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: your initial response to my query on "Sanctity of Life" in relation to Warfare – I'm clarifying the topic as it more narrowly pertains to the individual draftee with a humanistic belief system faced with joining a combat unit rather than seeking a desk job or even conscientious objection. So I'm replying here rather than risking a diversion of the discussion there; to note: I recall the "greater good" argument (though unfortunately not much else!) from my high school history lessons back in the mid/late 1980s USA as a (the?) rationale for dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to hasten the end of WWII. Did I get that right, do you suppose? -- Deborahjay 05:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment on my userpage, the joke got a good laugh out of me at work, which is always good :D Aetherfukz 14:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know, I think your puns are great! I especially like the one about the vandalism to the Ireland related article raising someone's "ire". Good stuff, dude! Dismas| (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello StuRat. After a short Wikibreak, and some time to reflect, I wish to apologise for the uncivil tone of some of my comments on this page and at the Ref Desk. I still strongly disagree with your interpretation of Ref Desk policy, culture and purpose, but there is no excuse for personalising a disagreement. Moreover, I realise my annoyance helped antagonise the dispute, rather than resolve it. I think this is a sign that it is time to take a complete break from the Ref Desk for a period, which I intend to do, though I expect I may choose to return at some point in the future. Happy editing. Rockpocke t 07:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I would invite you to read through this again. Your statement that there's no consensus you've done anything wrong is rather surprising, given the kinds of comments on that RFC. You may also pay attention to the few who certified your response- 3 editors besides you, including two who've been blocked many times for disruption. Do this tell you anything? Friday (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Woof woof arf bark whine bark. (Equal parts not wanting to give too much away and being *gasp* a bit of a prude.) Clarityfiend 03:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For always making me chuckle at the Ref Desk! |
Hi StuRat. I would like to invite you to commenting upon or edit the new proposed policy Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals now that it has finally come up for discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies. Hopefully we can reach consensus (or not) within a week or two. Thanks! S.dedalus 23:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I responded there, but also wanted to add a note here that I agree with your actions on the matter in question, which promoted a fair outcome, despite reasonbly-held differences in opinion on side matters. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This is just some drama to get everyone to tell her how much they love her and want her back. I'm sure she'll be back as soon as she's gotten enough attention (although it might very well be under a new screen name/sockpuppet). StuRat 04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Since my comment is continually deleted from Clio's page, I will place it here. StuRat 05:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm at an utter loss to understand why you're still persisting in this namecalling and scorn towards Clio. It's petty, childish, disruptive, and really, really disgusting. — Steve Summit ( talk) 01:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I know I am. It's almost 3 AM here. A.Z. 05:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your common sense. For me personally, this comment wasn't deleted because I thought it was wrong though. I still think it is right - it was removed because it wasn't worth fighting offence. martianlostinspace 10:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I responded to a good point you made. -- Dweller 13:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I must admit to being a dirty little vandal, I altered the desert question on the science desk so that everyone said dessert. i'm still giggling though. 213.48.15.234 13:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm being somewhat gossip here but I'm just very curious... I see you and User:Friday arguing (or discussing) many, many times, for example in the Reference desk guidelines. Why is that? Sorry for meddling. -- Taraborn 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Bearnstar for a joke so unbelievably lame, it made me laugh | |
I wanted to award you a barnstar for making me laugh, but unfortunately it was eaten by a bear. Rockpocke t 05:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
Dunno if you noticed, but Light current has been up to his juvenile behavior again. I think your clever remarks in response to his trolling only encourage him. Would you mind taking particular care not to feed the trolls, when the troll is him? Or, if you actually know this kid, would you mind having a word with him? There are plenty of web sites where they encourage people to act like 12-year-olds, but Wikipedia isn't really meant to be one of them. Friday (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. When I refill an HP 28 Colour Cartridge that is low on ink as indicated to me on my computer, I can only refill about 1 mL of each of the three colours (magenta, cyan, and yellow). The cartridge says it can hold up to 8 mL. Why can't I refill 8 mL of each colour? Thanks. --Mayfare 23:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your speculation, StuRat. However, I am not sure if my colour ink cartridge is airtight. I went on HP's website and couldn't find any information on it. I even tried searching on Google. No luck there. Does anybody know if an HP 28 Colour Cartridge airtight? --Mayfare 02:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I experimented. Drawing out colour ink does not allow me to inject more colour ink. Why can't I refill 8 mL of each colour. -- Mayfare 00:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I meant to say that I tried to draw out air but I drew out colour ink instead. -- Mayfare 22:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you want to vote here. A.Z. 17:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no source information on the image page, so it does not follow the image use policy and meets criterion I4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. In a nutshell, the image use policy requires that the copyright status of images is verifiable. Without source information, it's impossible to do so. For example, the image could have been an artist's impression of the event, drawn on its centenary.
If you know where it came from, please could you fill in the following template and add it to the image page.
{{Information | Description = | Source = | Date = | Location = | Author = | Permission = }}
Let me know if you need further clarification of the policy. Thanks - Papa November 1 23:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to vote? You can see the candidates here and you can endorse them here. A.Z. 23:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the chuckle, StuRat. Bielle 23:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, StuRat. Do you want to participate in this discussion? A.Z. 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You're a member of WikiProject General Audience. I think that project is not working right now, but it's a great idea and a needed project. I think I may join it.
There's a discussion on the Integrin article talk page in which I'm defending that the article be more accessible to general audience. Participate, if you wish! A.Z. 03:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking for a diff by yours where you compared administrator corruption to what happened to students during the stanford prison experiment. Do you happen to know where is that diff? A.Z. 23:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I see no evidence that this page is protected. A redirect should be doable. Friday (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, loved the song in the nineties but never realised what it was all about...! SietskeEN 12:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (But it is a lot less decent than I expected it to be... :-O )
do you? lucid 03:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
For your RD work Pheonix15 20:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC) |
Hi,
Be a little more careful there -- that's just the first of several AfDs on the topic. The content was userfied to me as part of a DRV compromise six months ago. I'm not sure yet whether I'll revert your merge, but be aware that a redirect from my userspace to the article is forbidden, per CSD R2. I'll probably just restore the userpage as it was. Good effort, but you should probably check with someone before doing that, rather than after. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
StuRat, please try to avoid offering medical advice on the Reference Desks as you did in this thread [4]. It's one of those things that Just Isn't Done around here. While I appreciate that you're just trying to help, giving a questioner a list of diagnoses for his symptoms isn't appropriate. Even offering opinions as to whether or not a condition is serious or dangerous isn't a good idea; giving the impression that we'll always tell people if their symptoms are serious may lead questioners to (inappropriately) rely on those evaluations.
Your cooperation in the future is appreciated, and your continued contributions to the Reference Desks are welcomed. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for recommending Weather Underground in WP:RD/C. Weather.com was killing me on dialup, and http://forecast.weather.gov/ doesn't have the hourly forecast. Wunderground seems to beat the both. What a great site. / edg ☺ ★ 13:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"There are some serious nutjobs there, like Clio, who seem to be not only allowed, but actually encouraged, to viciously attack others by the Admins there (they block or ban anyone who criticizes her). I'd sure hate to see that lot migrate over here.". Seriously? I've seen all sorts of people criticize Clio, none of them got blocked. I've criticized her myself, without getting blocked. Do you think Loomis got indefinitely blocked for criticizing Clio? Do you think the 12 hour block you received here was for criticizing Clio? Or which blocks and bans were you talking about? Also, who are the other serious nutjobs? --- Sluzzelin talk 00:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The Matrixism re-direct and section on Matrixism in The Matrix (series) were summarily deleted by User:Philwelch. They have been restored (temporarily?) by User:Neil but I imagine this is not the end and you might want to chime in on the subject. Philwelch's administrator status is apparently under arbitration for various violations you might want to have a say there also. 207.69.139.144 15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, StuRat. I would like to know your opinions on my changes to this article. I believe I have improved it. I think it was an instance of experts keeping it from being readable to normal people. You may reply on the article talk page, if you wish. A.Z. 08:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
To: User talk:StuRat and User talk:Lomn
From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro
Re: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#Simple Math Question -- Need Help -- Leap Years (?)
Can someone please help me with this simple math calculation? It can't understand it and it's driving me crazy. Any insight is appreciated. Thanks.
According to Microsoft Excel: A lived 17,260 days and B lived 17,259 days.
That seems to make "sense" since ... although in different calendar years ... they were both born on the same "day" (December 18) but Person A lived an extra day in March (dying on March 21 instead of March 20) while Person B did not live for that extra day in March (dying on March 20 instead of March 21). So, it makes sense that the March 21 decedent (Person A) has lived one extra day more than the March 20 decedent (Person B) ... that is, Person A lived 17,260 days which is one day more than Person B who lived 17,259 days.
So, the only thing that is truly "different" between Person A and B is ... the actual calendar years that they lived through ... and thus "how many leap years / leap days did each person live through." (I think?)
Person A has lived through 12 leap days: in 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992.
Person B has lived through 12 leap days: in 1908, 1912, 1916, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, and 1952.
Using Method One (above), Person A lived one extra day more than Person B.
Person A: From December 18, 1946 to December 18, 1993 is exactly 47 years. So, A celebrates his 47th birthday. The date of death on March 21, 1994 is 93 days after the birthday. (using Excel or viewing a calendar)
Person B: From December 18, 1904 to December 18, 1951 is exactly 47 years. So, B celebrates his 47th birthday. The date of death on March 20, 1952 is 93 days after the birthday. (using Excel or viewing a calendar)
Using Method Two (above), Person A lives 47 years and 93 days. Person B also lives 47 years and 93 days. (There is no "one day" difference.)
I tried to use the Wikipedia template located at: Template:age in years and days.
Typing in these dates and values yields the following results:
Person A:
{{age in years and days|1946|12|18|1994|03|21}}
yields:
47 years, 93 days
Person B:
{{age in years and days|1904|12|18|1952|03|20}}
yields:
47 years, 93 days
So, Method Three (above) agrees with Method Two (above) ... Person A and Person B died at exactly the same age.
I also tried to use the Wikipedia template located at: Template:age in days.
Typing in these dates and values yields the following results:
Person A:
{{age in days|1946|12|18|1994|03|21}}
yields:
17260
Person B:
{{age in days|1904|12|18|1952|03|20}}
yields:
17259
So, Method Four (above) agrees with Method One (above) ... Person A and Person B did not die at exactly the same age, but one day off.
Can anyone help me understand the difference / distinction / discrepancy between these four methods? I seem to be missing something, but I cannot figure out what. Thanks. Where is my reasoning flawed?
Method One and Four agree that "A" lives one day longer than "B". (17,260 versus 17,259)
Methods Two and Three agree that "A" and "B" live exactly the same length of time. (47 years and 93 days)
So, perhaps the word "year" means a different thing for Person A than it does for Person B?
That is, the word "year" means 365 days in some cases ... but it means 366 days in some other (leap-year) cases.
That might seem to cause the discrepancy.
However, Person "A" has lived during 12 leap years/days ... and Person "B" has also lived during 12 leap year/days.
Thus, for both persons, the word "year" means 366 days in 12 years of their lives ... and the word "year" means 365 days in the other 36 years of their lives. They have both lived through 12 leap years and 35 normal years (thus, a birthday of 47 years total) ... plus a fractional piece of yet another (i.e., their 48th) year.
Can anyone help me understand the difference / distinction / discrepancy between these four methods? I seem to be missing something, but I cannot figure out what.
Where is my thinking flawed? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro 05:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
I have replied to your response in the Reference desk question "Decline". -- Taraborn 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Would you consider editing a paragraph in Isaac Titsingh?
What about supplementing this text with something like these two sentences as an in-line footnote?
I'm inclined to think that this isn't helpful -- rather more of a distraction? Maybe not .... What do you think? -- Ooperhoofd 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I seem to be suffering from said affliction (oh no, a medical diagnosis, ban him immediately !). Therefore, I have been, and will continue to be, less active until it heals. See you later my friends (and enemies). StuRat 16:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought I would reply here, rather than on Dmcdevit's talkpage. Yes, the reasoning, evidence and discussion leading to many of ArbCom's decisions are non transparent. By the very nature of this information it is sometimes difficult to know exactly why, but in the few occasions I have been privy to information restricted by ArbCom, it was relating to personal identifying details of editors and/or information that compromises the security of editors. Whether that is a good or bad thing, whether than we like it or not is somewhat beside the point. WP is not a democracy, and everthing is not automatically open for community discussion and decision based on democreatic principles. Jimbo made that clear when he first appointed ArbCom: "The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster" In other words, ArbCom can make decisions without justifying itself the community and only Jimbo himself can over-rule this. No amount of demanding ArbCom listen to consensus will change that. So, does ArbCom have the potential issue unfair blocks? Of course it does. Is this particular block unfair. Who knows? You and I are not privy to the facts, so we can't know. Maybe will will never be privy to the facts, so we will never be able to know. That is simply something we have to accept if we wish to remain part of this community.
The second issues it that there has been a few recent blocks of so-called "pro-paedophilia advocates" (and I use that term because thats is what others have accused them of being, not because I consider them to be that, personally). I do get the feeling that there is a kind of hysteria around here that people who don't espouse the established "paedophila is bad" line are themselves paedophiles, and paedophiles must be blocked. I don't know if there is any official sanction of that (though Jimbo generally appears to have little patience for such individuals). I personally don't agree with that reasoning . With respect to encyclopaedic content, a "pro-paedophilia advocate" is no more a concern to me than an "anti-paedophilia advocate" - WP is not a place for any type of advocacy. But I am not WP's legal or PR counsel and wouldn't have to deal with the fallout if the project was implicated in an online grooming scandal. Everyone is welcome to contributed to WP, but in reality, does that mean we should openly welcome self identifying paedophiles and permit them to interact with children? Is that really in the long term interests of the encyclopaedia? I guess what I am trying to say is that while its all well and fine to discuss these issues in purely academic terms, but people like ArbCom and Jimbo have strategic, legal and ethical considerations that we don't. To conclude, I, again personally, don't believe A.Z.'s edits have demonstrated advocacy. However, his editing style has does mean he tends to offer personal opinion and couch things in terms of his beliefs. In the culture of low tolerance for non-conformist views on this issue, he was skating on thin ice. I and others tried to warn him of this a few weeks back, but to little avail. I hope his appeal is successful, but I'm not holding my breath. Rockpocke t 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, last night I was watching Saving Private Ryan and I saw the ad you were talking about. It sounds like the girl was saying "can we get some more toys" or something along those lines. Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's my own version of two songs:
Winter Wonderland
Silver Balls
StuRat ( talk) 03:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Stu,
just a note to let you know that Vaughan Pratt has written a rather long question to you at talk:Boolean logic, requesting your input on your objections to the level of difficulty of Boolean algebra (logic). -- Trovatore ( talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to invite you to participate in the Boolean algebra task force that I am forming. Despite the name, a task force is just an ad hoc subcommittee of a wikiproject to work on a particular issue. In this case, I think that our articles on various aspects of Boolean algebra, propositional logic, and applications would benefit from some big-picture planning of the organization of material into various articles. The task force would not require a great time commitment. The main goal is to work out a proposal for how the material should be arranged. A second goal is for the focus to remain interdisciplinary, including computer science, logic, and mathematics. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
StuRat! This is temuzion & I should remind u the matter which we r dealing. "excess water intake leads to kidney troubles". Regarding that matter u told me that It might be a sign of diabetes. But it was certainly not diabetes. For more details see the original page where u saw my question Temuzion ( talk) 04:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
From Comparison of CECB units:
Brand | Model | S-Video | Analog passthrough | Smart antenna | Manufacturer | MPEG Decoder / SoC | Demodulator | Tuner | EPG type | Other features | Prices and store |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apex | DT250 | Yes [3] | Yes [3] | Yes [3] | Denca Industrial Ltd. [4] | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | 3-Day | D, L, V | $60 -> Best Buy |
Digital Stream | DTX9950 | No | Yes | No | NHENS Digital, Inc. | LGDT1111D | Thomson demod + tuner | Thomson demod + tuner | 12-Hr,1-Ch | D, L, U, V | $60 -> Radio Shack |
Insignia | NS-DXA1 | No | No | No | LG Electronics | LG LGDT1111D | SoC Integrated | LG Innotek TDVG-H051F/ Sanyo UBA00AL | Now/Next | D, L, -S, V | $60 -> Best Buy |
Insignia | NS-DXA1-APT† [5] | No | Yes | No | LG Electronics | LG LGDT1111D | SoC Integrated | LG Innotek TDVG-H151F | Now/Next | D, L, P, V | $60 -> Best Buy |
Magnavox | TB100MW9 | No | No | No | Funai | R8A66973FP | Unknown | Sanyo UB010AF | 6Hr/1Ch | D, L | $50 -> Walmart |
Zenith | DTT900 DTT900 | No | No | No | LG Electronics | LG DT1111D | SoC Integrated | LG Innotek TDVG-H051F/ Sanyo UBA00AL | Now/Next | D, L, -S, V | $60 -> Circuit City |
Zenith | DTT901 [6] | No | Yes | No | LG Electronics | LG DT1111D | SoC Integrated | LG Innotek TDVG-H151F | Now/Next | D, L, P, V | $60 -> Circuit City |
Code | Name | Description |
---|---|---|
D | Digital CC | Capable of decoding digital or ATSC ( EIA-708) closed captions, which allow the user to change various aspects of the captions such as size, font style, background opacity, text color, etc. This code should not be used to indicate support for any kind of CC, since all boxes are required by law to support the older analog or NTSC ( EIA-608) captioning standard. |
E | External Power Supply | Powered by an external power supply. A box with this feature might be used in a vehicle without using a power inverter. |
L | Multilanguage Menus | The menus can be changed to languages other than English, either during system setup or in normal use. |
-N | No Channel Update | Can't add channels without first wiping out the channels you've already found. Units which only do this type of replacement auto-scan may never be able to find all channels at once, especially where antenna rotation or adjustments must be made to find different stations. There are two ways around this problem, an "add only" auto-scan, and manual channel adds. |
P | Low power consumption | Unit uses less than 5 watts of power (e.g. won't run warm). This may also make the unit last longer. |
R | Reminders | Settable reminders to alert you when a show is on. |
-S | Stereo volume is low | Setting the audio output mode to stereo substantially reduces the volume versus mono or analog. This means the volume will change when switching between analog and digital TV viewing. |
T | VCR Timer | Schedules programs at desired times so they can be recorded unattended to TiVo, VCR, DVD recorder or other recording media. |
U | Universal Remote | Comes with a universal remote control capable of being programmed to control other entertainment devices. Be sure to review the manual to make sure it can control your brand of TV, etc. |
V | Volume Control | Capable of independently controlling the output volume. You could, for example, set your TV to a particular volume and leave it there, using the CECB's remote to control volume instead, or use it to mute the CECB and avoid using the television remote almost entirely. Note that this type of volume control only allows you to reduce the volume level relative to that set on the TV, while a universal remote can also increase the volume level set on the TV. |
I've requested some help on the acute renal failure article at the doctor's mess. I don't know if there's a nephrologist aboard, but hopefully the article will nonetheless get some attention. - Nunh-huh 21:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Wikipedia Happy Funnel Award | |
StuRat, for your merry contribution at the Refdesk here [5] and brave signs of romantic idealism, I hereby endow you with the Funnel Award to be used very carefully. Julia Rossi ( talk) 23:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC) |
You will. If anyone can, you will, : )) Julia Rossi ( talk) 09:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As in "Waiting for Mister Right." [6] Edison ( talk) 05:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. This has been a really difficult time for my friend and the gang has been having a difficult time consoling him. I'm going to read the article you linked me carefully. Thanks again. -- Endless Dan 20:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I just thought I'd tell you (Franamax, StuRat, hydnjo, Atlant) how the flaming drink thing went. Well, mixed results. It's all made, but sometimes it works and some times it does not. What makes it extra odd, is that it works 100% of the time for me, but only about 50% for the girl that has to do it. So far, three shows with an audience and it only lit once. UGHH!!!
What I did: I made a fire place poker out of mostly thin PVC pipe. In the handle is a gas grill starter with wires going inside the pipe. Franamax - You mentioned the handle idea and I had already thought of that, but I didn't want to steer people towards what I was already thinking. I guess it's just a case of great minds thinking alike. ;-)
All of it is painted with "Hammered" spray paint made for outside plastic furniture. Here's a shot of it close up without the flame. http://wonderley.com/shows/2008/FarmersDaughter/Photos/Page01/shots/2008-04-17~069.jpg That's me on the couch. In the sort of V shaped tip is the igniter at the tip and the other wire coming at an angle. My invention sparks 99% of the time.
In the coffee mug is a metal jigger that I raised to the level of the top of the mug with a piece of PVC pipe. That was a mistake. I made the level of the jigger come to the level of the top of the cup so that the most amount of the flame would be visible. It should be raised, but not all the way to the top. I have to pretend to drink from this cup and the jigger (which gets scolding hot) is hard to NOT touch if the jigger is too high.
I scuffed up the inside of the mug and the other side of the jigger to get the glue to stick to it. The fact that the jigger is metal does not appear to have any effect on the spark.
In the jigger was originally only about 1/16 of an inch of "Golden Grain" booze - 95% alcohol. At my house, it ignited every time. But, not for Cheryl. I later thought about it was having it on my kitchen counter. That's higher up so I was holding the poker at more of an angle on the mug rather than straight down. So, we changed the jigger to about an half inch on alcohol. Soon before going on stage with it, she moves some of it on the side of the jigger for even more surface area.
When we do get a flame the poker flames a little as well and she blows it out. That actually looks great. The idea of adding salt is awesome - Thanks Atlant. However, I had no luck dissolving salt in the alcohol. I warmed up some alcohol with having hot water all around it in a thin glass and stirred a lot of salt in it. I then let it settle some and used a syringe with a wide tip to suck up some of the alcohol from the middle thinking I'd get the best alcohol with dissolved salt that I could. It did not appear to make any difference in the color of the flame or the ability to light it. However, we put salt in a sugar bowl. Once lit, putting a pinch of "sugar" in the flaming drink was an awesome effect.
I also tried freezing some of the booze so that the 5% that was not alcohol would be solid and use the 100% alcohol that was left - after it warmed back up and it made no difference. In fact, whatever the 5% that wasn't alcohol, appeared to be unfreezable as well.
Thanks again for all of your ideas. If you want to see more about the show, visit Wonderley.com -- Wonderley ( talk) 09:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I enjoyed the conversation over economics. We should have another soon. I did read your article on "diseconomies of scale", and I was impressed by your knowledge on the subject. I need about 20 more hours in the field before I complete my degree. I'd like to run by you some of the advanced elective courses and get your opinion on where my time is best spent.
Thanks
Paul Balfay NiceG3s ( talk) 13:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint. I had figured out the colons after a while, but still sometimes forget. Your point was well made and is taken. I'll try to do better. Just have some pity for cave people like me. I stopped programming when Assembler went out of fashion. It's taking me a while to learn what all the typographical marks are used for these days. Some of the posts I look at and people might as well be speaking Vogon. And my generation used to be renowned for using a lot of acronyms. We can't hold a candle to GFDL or WP-RF. I used to joke that my aunt wasn't 'up with all that technology" and now people tell me about "namespaces" and I go "Huh??" Plus there's all that stuff you have to think of so people won't get upset with you, like logging in, signing and now colons. Just don't run over granny when she forgets to not walk up the one way street the wrong way. Thanks :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa4edit ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that. Made me smile.
Just managed to save it from my spambox as it goes. :)
It kinda reminded me of this RD topic (dunno if you've seen it). -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 23:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, StuRat - any chance of dropping me a line? - adambrowne666athotmail.com - ta Adambrowne666 ( talk) 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you were heavily involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals some time ago I thought you might be interested in discussing the merits of a similar but slightly different proposal here. I would be very interested in your opinion. Cheers, -- S.dedalus ( talk) 00:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Fortran? good god, I almost forgot that existed. I was taught it at university but have never used it since. You mean it actually has a use? SpinningSpark 13:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[7]. :) -- Sean 13:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Next you'll be saying that if I edit articles on abbeys in Westmeath, I must yell " fore!" first! :-D -- tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 14:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Give it time and you will be up with me soon. My problem is that the diet, exercise and sleep tips don't work well for me these days because these were the tips I originally observed back when my doc first suspected GERD (at the time, I was in the second grade). Now, as a collage student, the diet and exercise tips and sleep advice, combined with the meds, all seem to be failing. I grow more frustrated by the day that there isn;t more that I could do to relieve the problem: usually when I ask people I get this same advice, its just that for once I was hoping someone may have heard about a herbal extract or a radical new surgury or a transplant or something of that nature that I could ask my doc about instead of seeing that all to familar 'no' head shake and that look that suggestiosn I be dead in ten years.
The post at RD was technically in the wrong (I was having an attack and was venting a little), but when one loses all hope and falls in to the frustration and hopelessness that the rest of his life must be lived like a old person unless one wants to be up at 2:30 in the morning screaming in agony from what amounts to having napalm poured down one throat doesn't inspire much confidence; neither does the fact that the average person lives all the way into his 60s or 70s. Fifty years of dealing with this on top of the 15 already spent dealing with this has a tendancy to make me just a little depressed and a little suicidal. At any rate, thanks for the comments, and I will check to make sure that I try everything you suggested (though at this point I am fairly confident I have). TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you not think the message you left me was a little harsh? Especially when you consider that it wasn't very clear cut whether he was asking for medical advice or not. Perhaps I was a little hasty in removing the question but personally i'd rather be safe than sorry. It is not a case of me removing anything medical, search through the archives for examples of where I responded to medical questions. Instead, it is a genuine concern for the OP. Please try and be a little less 'overzealous' yourself next time and stop assuming bad faith. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? contribs? 21:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Summer 2008!
Mifter (
talk)
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Winter not Summer then I wish you a Happy First Day of Winter 2008!
But it's not that simple becausse who knows where they are posting from. Not to mention a post titled "Science" on the hum desk *groan with hand to forehead*. Having fun so long as they don't make a habit of it. O..O Thank you so much fo the cows, SR :) Julia Rossi ( talk) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Since this has come down to a debate, I thought I should bring it here instead of clogging up that thread (hope you don't mind). To give you some context, let me just point out that I almost invariably take a fairly liberal view to anything from abortion to capital punishment to environmentalism to gun control to income redistribution to . . . you get the picture?
Now all of the examples you've given (company towns, paying in scrip, child labour, serfdom etc) are clearly immoral. Also, I fully agree that unrestricted capitalism leads to some horrid results. All I'm saying is that you can't call the employers of the poor immoral just because they employ the poor. Looking at this from the other side: the directors of companies are under all sorts of pressure from regulators, customers, suppliers, unions, shareholders, competitors etc. They also do what they have to do to ensure their companies' survival. And if they're not being immoral then they're not being immoral.
If you want to use the word "immoral" to describe the poverty that arises out of legitimate business practices, then IMHO you'll have to call the system immoral, not the business owners who are only players in the game despite the fact that they eat better food than the mineworkers. To me, it's a case of: "Don't hate the player, hate the game". Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
(Remove indent)Yeah, you're right. I guess the silver lining in all of this is that people will stop wasting fossil fuels and humanity may actually survive a few more decades than anticipated. Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 00:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks StuRat, I was almost expecting an op reaction, so it was nice to find your support message. Seems strange that people think the desks have fixed "staff" when most of us probably float around them all. Maybe locating properly to the so-called minor desks will help them and not dilute the main ones so much. Thanks again, Julia Rossi ( talk) 23:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, do you know how to identify Internet bot? For example an IP is editing/vandalizing some pages in a wiki, how will I understand if the IP is person or bot? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 03:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the "troll" at the reference desks. It was in the way of everybody including me who wished to post and answer questions. I am glad to see Jump gyn blocked. I was checking the history. -- Mayfare ( talk) 01:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
StuRat, I don't think Kainaw was suggesting that the OP couldn't tell the difference between a lodged popcorn kernel and a tooth. He merely noted that identification of a new, hard lump in the mouth is not a sure thing, and what one thinks is a tooth isn't always. (For the record, patients can and do mistake firmly lodged nuts and popcorn kernels for teeth, so Kainaw's remark wasn't completely off the wall.) Kainaw correctly noted that a bony tumor could present that way as well – though he really oughtn't be offering alternate diagnoses for the symptoms given – and there are numerous other possible explanations.
I've removed both the question and the bulk of the answers, as we have no basis for concluding that the OP's symptoms are the result of a wisdom tooth eruption, and we all should know better than to glibly offer such a diagnosis. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 04:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
StuRat, it is established convention to remove questions seeking medical advice and the consensus at AN/I is that TenOfAllTrades’s action was correct. — Travis talk 13:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The header you added at the RD talk page seems a bit excessive. We're trying to reach consensus and that type of thing won't really help. Besides, on talk pages (like this one :) ), the OPs' opinions are refected in the headers. Just a thought, Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 13:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I am a new editor. I saw what user:TenOfTrades done and its extremely unethical. He has acted very manipulatively, and anybody new and joining the debate would be lead straight into a fed and baited conclusion. When you left a note on my talk page, I thought you were going to disagree with me, but I'm glad you defended our merits. We are right, however depending on the choice of other editors who opine, we could very well find ourselves in the minority. I have been trying to encourage people to let this issue die, since its so obfuscated and its not worth bringing to attention how TenOfTrades has sidestepped the boundary of ethics to manipulate the POV in such a way that uses cheap tricks to "win" the fallacious argument that ultimately we're either forced to engage in or walk away from. I will continue this fight, for the sake of principle and for the sake of wikipedia only, if you do. However, if you think it will be drag out and will be a dirty fight, then I recommend we just keep an eye on the questionable user and make sure he doesn't do this often. Hopefully, he's not doing it intentionally. He has a commendable edit history, so I doubt he's trying to sabotage his good name. The discussion is probably over his head, and he is not quite ready to engage in formal, civil debates, while handling himself ethically. Sentriclecub ( talk) 15:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This is not a positive environment for encouraging new editors to be contributing to wikipedia. I'm a college grad, very educated, and am rethinking my place here.
20 minutes before travis' response [10] [11] [12] this is not about opposing viewpoints between whether or not to err on the side of caution. All 6 of us believe uniformly that it is very commendable of wikipedia to have respect for the medical community by having a large "gray area" and always sticking to answers that are completely [ black]. The discussion was about another matter, which for those who don't see it, I'm not involved. Sentriclecub ( talk) 16:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually i can see how this "black" answer alone is not treating his question medically, but the followups after my answer undermined any chance of not relooking at the question with a monstrous slanted perception.
The illusory effect lies with comparing the question to my answer, vs comparing the question to the subsequent fallouts. The question didn't change, but put into the new thread which developed, is undeniably a "medical issue", which should then be deleted. For those whose intelligence (12+ outta 24) manifests itself in alalogies, then I can convey my point this way.
The question along with my succinct answer was a "black square" but kineua's response minutes later was the green can.
Hope some of you liked the analogy method of explanation, and will check out this maze puzzle [13] for more brain workouts. Sentriclecub ( talk) 16:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer! So if the answer is "studio executives", then who might typically be on this panel who greenlights the project? Would it be the producer and director together? Or maybe some sort of executive in charge of finances? -- Sonjaaa ( talk) 21:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for saving pages about various Linux distributions from blatant deleting. I am sick of these "Delete because of non-notability" dictators. Megaribi ( talk) 10:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks like the one you posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alinex. The editor in question may be very mistaken, but it's best to assume good faith to prevent heated disputes. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 18:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi StuRat, missing you, hope all is well... Julia Rossi ( talk) 04:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I enjoy seeing you in good form on the desks, very fungi, as ever, helpful too – : ) Julia Rossi ( talk) 07:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to evade the questions you asked at the end of your response to my Science Ref Desk query, but as I wrote initially, I can't provide further details. The situation is characteristic of assignments on a military base, yes. I appreciate your input, StuRat, thanks. -- Deborahjay ( talk) 19:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
flaming
lawyer
c
never
for
get is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
In the winter we can build a snowman, then some kids 'll come and kick it down, we'll ask 'em if they did it, they'll say "no man", then we'll rub their faces in the ground.
Then we'll sit, and perspire, as we set their coats on fire, and we'll make 'em walk home, when it's twenty below...
Walking through a winter wonderland ! StuRat ( talk) 15:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Christmas, Sturat. |
Julia Rossi ( talk) 00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
This. To be honest, I'd very much like to see said infomercial. :) · AndonicO Engage. 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to say some personal Thank You! for answering my questions about jet fuel. It really helped to somewhat clear my mind and research topic farther. Vitall ( talk) 08:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
Thanks for answering my Band Planet question on the Reference Desk! -- Ye Olde Luke ( talk) 07:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
![]() | This user is a Reference desk regular. |
The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaming lawye r c 07:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Following up on your edit [14] where you mentioned your surprise at the lack of Digitizing pad article... Is it the same as a Graphics tablet? I've never seen one like in the pic you linked, so not too sure about creating a redirect.
Cheers, davidprior t/ c 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
<redacted inappropriate content> Refdesk is not for discussing users behavior. Please use their user talk pages to carry on conversations with them. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record,
I would have omitted the word "straight". Similarly, I'd have said "a sex video featuring Japanese with purple Mohawks", if the participants looked like that, but wouldn't have said "a sex video featuring Japanese with black hair, cut in the typical fashion", if the participants looked like that. ...
Precisely because you would have omitted the word "straight", that makes you a homophobe because your first response to my post was to warn people that it was a sex video. Obviously, I concur with Jack, viewing personal videos on company time is asking for disciplinary action, and viewing sex videos on company time especially is asking for dismissal. Note this is any, and I mean ANY, sex video. Now here is my evidence for the fact that you ARE a homophobe, and I am not being obnoxious, because I doesn't take less that 2 keystrokes to NOT type homophobic slurs.
Warning: That looks to be the start of a gay sex video. Fortunately it stops after the two men undress each other to their boxers, but probably not the type of thing you want to view at work, unless you want everyone to look at you a little differently from now on.
You intend to warn other's that this is a sex video, well the start, but that is irrelevant. Well if you intended to warn other's that this was a sex video, gay, straight, bi, nonhuman, it doesn't matter. And no, I will not assume good faith. Why the hell should I assume good faith? You never took the time to consider other people, so why should I? 96.53.149.117 ( talk) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I moved the above here from [17]. StuRat ( talk) 00:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(carrying on from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2008 December 23#Names)
Well, I think this is all very revealing about your attitudes to such minorities, Stu. So, you wouldn’t mention your friend’s religion or sexuality straight up, but you might get around to it later. Fair enough. Although, I hope you wouldn't wait till the moment he stepped out of the room and then said "By the way, he's gay". Rather, it might arise naturally when the topic of sexuality was being discussed. Why is the case we’re discussing any different? The issue was that the video contains images of people having sex. That’s all you needed to say. Had the discussion proceeded on that basis, maybe the fact that the sex depicted is gay might have been mentioned down the track somewhere. Or maybe not. I don’t have a problem with that either way. It’s the fact that the very first thing you identified was not just sex, but gay sex, that caused the problem. It’s tantamount to saying that sex between a man and a woman is so standard that nothing needs to be said, but sex between two men is something that must cause red flags to be raised and alarm bells to be sounded. If you wouldn't have mentioned first up that the sex was straight (if it had been a straight video), then why take a different approach when the sex happens to be gay?
You still don't seem to appreciate that the issue with watching sex videos at work is that it's that fact that the images are about sexual activity (as opposed to people digging ditches or playing music) that makes them inappropriate - it doesn't matter whether it's boy-girl, boy-boy or girl-girl. Even watching a non-porn sex education video at work could get you the sack in many places, and, again, whether it's straight or gay would make absolutely no difference. You seemed to understand that when you wrote "There's nothing homophobic about not wanting people to think you're the type of person who views sex videos at work". But now, you've drifted quite considerably to: "Many adults won't want to watch gay sex videos who would want to watch straight sex videos". That is certainly true speaking generally, but this whole discussion has been about watching videos at work, specifically at work. What might apply in the general case often has absolutely no relevance in a specific context; and vice-versa. So, either you're confusing generalities with specifics, or your original warning meant something other than that which I've gone to extreme lengths to continue to assume. Your first respondent, the one who called you a homophobe, was not so charitable, but it's understandable why they formed that instant conclusion. Very understandable. If you use that sort of seemingly discriminatory language in future, you can expect exactly the same reaction. Don't say you weren't warned.
Re "I don't think telling people what the link they are about to click will do is ever a bad thing; the more info they have the better decision they can make." This gets me back to my point about all sex videos being inappropriate for workplace viewing. Your argument now seems to be that some people would choose to risk the sack by watching a video at work that they know is straight, but they wouldn't take such a risk if they know it's gay. In the first case, the worst case scenario is that they'd lose their job; in the second case, they'd not only lose their job but also get branded as a homo, and that’s too high a price to pay. Well, maybe, but don't you think this is their decision? A general warning is fine, but one warning for straight videos and a different one for gay videos is not fine. That does definitely display a discriminatory attitude, and one that will not serve you well.
Just going slightly off topic for a moment, but it's still about the use of discriminatory language. I don't know what your religion is (assuming you have one), nor do I want to know, but let's say you're a Mormon, and you have a friend who constantly refers to you as "my Mormon friend Stu", where the subject of religion was not part of the conversation. I would be quite offended by such gratuitous references; it would imply that one's Mormon-ness puts them into a different category of friendship than merely "friend". And I would certainly ask them to refrain from categorising me in such a way. Same for "my gay friend Jack" or "my Chinese friend Fred". I had the greatest difficulty in ever explaining this to Loomis, both on WP and in private emails. He constantly brought up the subject of my gay sexuality in contexts where it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. I asked him to stop, and he agreed, but he couldn't (or maybe wouldn't) help himself. He, on the other hand, seemed obsessed by his Jewishness, and almost never failed to mention it, no matter what we were talking about. If he wants to think of himself first and foremost as a Jew, and as a Canadian, a man, a heterosexual, and a human being in lower places in the order, that's his choice. But most people don't primarily identify themselves by whatever minority groups they belong to, and it's wrong to assume they do. -- JackofOz ( talk) 03:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
"For those of you considering watching this at work, or at home with kids, this is the start of a sex video. However, the people in the video, whose genders I won't mention, stop once they get down to each other's underwear, of a type I won't mention, since that might indicate their gender and hence their sexual orientation. Now, for those of you at work, skip the next warning."
"For those of you watching at home, without kids, this is the start of a gay sex video. If you wish to watch, enjoy. If watching such things is against your religion or moral beliefs, then don't watch." StuRat ( talk) 04:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(deindent) No, that's not an accurate description of what you did. It wasn't a case of you informing people who might be interested in gay videos that this was such a video. It was a case of you warning them against watching it in the event that gay videos are not their cup of tea. You've already acknowledged that you wouldn't have issued a similar "warning" had the video been straight (your words from 1 Jan: I would have omitted the word "straight"). That's the crux of the discrimination, and that's obviously why the anon called you a homophobe. It's one thing to simply label a sex video as straight, gay or whatever it is, without further comment. But when you start warning people what not to watch, you walk a very, very precarious line unless you're particularly careful with your choice of words. Maybe it's clearer to me because I'm sensitised to these sorts of issues through years of intimate personal experience, plus professional training in fostering inclusivity and embracing diversity. Without for a moment being condescending or patronising, let me suggest there are Discrimination Awareness courses you can take to make you more alive to these issues and how best to avoid them. -- JackofOz ( talk) 06:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Trust you to invent music terrorism, >)) Julia Rossi ( talk) 08:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I completely forgot about disturbing the peace, disrupting traffic, and all sorts of offenses that only apply when the prosecutor is hard up. Come to think of it, if he played badly enough he would be making one big noise that would eliminate many smaller noises (i.e. his playing). Maybe he can use that as a positive defense. Phil_burnstein ( talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I've really had it with your opinionating like "...Hamas is more interested in provoking war than working for peace...". Your responses to Ref Desk queries tend to include a whole lot of cutesy punchlines or downright gratuitous joking. Let me put it plainly: if you're sincere about contributing here and sharing knowledge, try writing responsibly, e.g. phrasing speculations as just that. Plenty of good examples are offered by regular editors, and you would do well to emulate them rather than, what, shooting from the lip? Frankly, I find your writing sloppy and offensive. In the name of dignity and respect for the question-and-answer process, kindly try to write in kind instead of merely spouting. Those of us living under rocket fire this morning aren't so free to participate in the discussion (and there are at least two visiting European Wikipedians, to my personal knowledge, who need my urgent advice now more than the Ref Desk does), and it's discouraging to see those who do write, spewing flak. -- Thanks, Deborahjay ( talk) 11:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I will certainly try that out, since I desperate for anything new that may work. I hope you are having a Happy New Year. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello friend StuRat, I am a new user in Wikipedia. Today I've been gazing through the computing reference desk and watching the others to contribute. I've seen that you are interested in the field of Science and Maths (as posted by you in your User Page). In fact, I am interested in those fields too. Then if I personally discuss with you about Science and Maths on your talk page, will you mind something? If not, will you kindly permit me to do the same? Thank you. Anirban16chatterjee ( talk) 16:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Furthur, I present you the tireless contributor's barnstar for your nice contributions in the Computing Reference Desk Anirban16chatterjee ( talk) 16:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks a lot friend! I often use the reference desk, but I think it is good for me to keep in touch with someone like you, who is endowed with the golden light of knowledge, for my betterment. And, you obviously deserved the barnstar. Thank you friend, see you again. -Best Regards, Anirban16chatterjee ( talk) 16:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
My issue with your answers is that when they are on topics that could potentially affect people or animals or pets or what have you, you have often responded in terms that made it sound like you knew what you were talking about when it was clear you were, as we say, talking out of your hat. I know that we all parade about with conviction even though it is often not well founded but on questions where there are potential beings to be harmed, a simple, "it would seem to me, though I don't know for sure" would go a long way. There is no sin in emphasizing that one's opinions are provisional. There is much in pretending to be an authority on something that one is not. I happily give opinions on things I am not certain of, but I always preface it with a comment about whether I am speaking from any particular specialized knowledge or whether I am just reasoning my way through it. It's an important distinction. -- 98.217.8.46 ( talk) 17:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Friend StuRat, sorry for not being able to reply to your kind invitation earlier.A Actually, I was on a vacation along with my family. Thank you for inviting me to play chess with you. I am most delighted to know that you are also a chess player. Therefore, would you mind setting the time and date? (But one fact my friend, I am from India, so my time zone may be different from yours). And friend, I've found out a new rule in Organic Chemistry, which I'll feel great to share with you (since you are interested in Science). The rule is this "We can directly calculate whether a given hydrocarbon is Alkane, Alkene or Alkyne from their vapour densities. If the Vapour Density of the hydrocarbon is n, then # If (n+1) is exactly divisible by 7, then the Hydrocarbon is an alkane. # If n is itself exactly divisible by 7, then the hydrocarbon is an alkene. # If (n-1) is exactly divisible by 7, then the hydrocarbon is an alkyne.". Thank you friend, for taking your valuable time in going through my message. I'll wait for your reply. Anirban16chatterjee ( talk) 12:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the rule applies only to the aliphatic hydrocarbons. I hope to find out a new rule for the cyclic hydrocarbons well. And, I'll set up the account in pogo in a short while. After I set up the account, I certainly tell you my account name. Thank you friend. Anirban16chatterjee ( talk) 02:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Sir, as per your desire, I'm posting the Bodes Law here with some examples. The law states that "The planets' distances from the Sun in the Solar system are interrelated to each other by the series 0,3,6,12,24,48,96... and so on. From the series, the constants for the cosmic bodies are as follows:-
Mercury = 0
Venus = 3
Earth = 6
Mars = 12
Ceres = 24
Jupiter = 48
Saturn = 96
Uranus = 192
The distance of Neptune, Pluto and Vulcan-X are not properly related to this series. Now, to find out the distance of any planet from the Sun, take the constant of the Planet and after that add 4 to it. Now, multiply to it 1/10th of Earth's distance from the Sun, (roughly taken 14,96,00,000 Km to 15,00,00,000 Km). For example, to find out the distance of Mars, simply take its constant, i.e, 12, and it's distance is:
(12+4)*1/10*15,00,00,000 Km = 24,00,00,000 Km. But all this distances are approximate, and may not be exactly equal to the original distances. And, it is more convenient to express distances obtained by this method by using A.U (astronomical unit, 1 au =Distance of Earth from Sun). And my whole-hearted gratitude to you, for teaching me numerous important topics yesterday! Sorry for not posting the rule earlier, since today is the Great Republic Day of Our Nation India, and we were watching the Republic Day Parade of the Indian Army. Best Regards.
Anirban16chatterjee (
talk) 07:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Mercury = 0+4= 4*15=60 vs 46-70 (ave=58) -3%
Venus = 3+4= 7*15=105 vs 107-109 (ave=108) +3%
Earth = 6+4= 10*15=150 vs 147-152 (ave=149.5) +0%
Mars = 12+4= 16*15=240 vs 207-249 (ave=228) -5%
Ceres = 24+4= 28*15=420 vs 381-448 (ave=414.5) -1%
Jupiter = 48+4= 52*15=780 vs 741-817 (ave=779) +0%
Saturn = 96+4= 100*15=1500 vs 1354-1514 (ave=1434) -4%
Uranus = 192+4= 196*15=2940 vs 2749-3004 (ave=2876.5) -2%
Neptune = 384+4= 388*15=5820 vs 4453-4554 (ave=4503.5) -23%
Pluto = 768+4= 772*15=11580 vs 4437-7376 (ave=5906.5) -49%
Thank you for your kind help, Sir. Actually, by answering the questions made by a fake IP address holder, on the Computing Reference desk, I've fallen in a great trouble with some of the other users. Since you are an experienced user, I need your advice related to this matter. May we discuss this on the Chess Board on Pogo, about this? Anirban16chatterjee ( talk) 09:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The Ref desk really isn't the place to be offering advice on personal issues on serious real life issues, when we have no personal knowledge of the people involved. However, if one is one thing to offer advice, but scaremongering along the lines of Somebody could end up dead is really, really nonconstructive. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that course of events could lead from her situation, and implying there is - especially to someone who might be in a distraught state of mind already - is really irresponsible and, quite frankly, cruel. Please consider removing it. Rockpocke t 21:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
This is obviously not the first time you've received this award, but there's no such thing as too many barnstars, especially when they're well deserved! Thanks for your helpful and bite free answers. :-) Crackthewhip775 ( talk) 05:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC) |
I posted comments here ( Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Intern)-- 202.168.229.245 ( talk) 11:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I have added bit there. It would be great if you take a look that issue. Thank you-- 202.168.229.245 ( talk) 19:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, If memory serves me right you were looking for microwave sleeves. Check out Red Baron deep dish microwavable pizzas (3 per box). Hope you like pizza. (Michelina's e.g. has the crisper inside the box, so they wouldn't work for you.) Lisa4edit 76.97.245.5 ( talk) 00:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
In response to this, which is now far beyond the original question and no longer appropriate for the reference desk so I'm continuing here, that's true only if you take the signing of the Arusha Accords as both the pro forma and actual end of the Rwandan Civil War. One is then left with trying to explain away the advance of the Rwandan Patriotic Front across the Arusha Accords demilitarized zone after the beginning of the Rwandan Genocide. The one chosen by apologists of Hutu power is to lump the renewed fighting between rebel and government forces in with the slaughter of civilians by government forces, thereby implying that the civilians deserved to be killed by association with the rebels. Others, who believe treaty dates, end up just failing to explain what happened and sounding incoherent. Most sources I've read politely describe the pretty signatures on the Arusha Accord and then go on to describe the civil war as continuing through at least the capture of the country by the RPF, often dated to the fall of Kigali, the capture of Ruhengeri or the end of Opération Turquoise. The notion that the civil war and genocide can be separated, as implied by your comment, simply isn't borne out by the facts. - Banyan Tree 13:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi StuRat, sorry I seem to have offended you with this removal - your tone was pretty strongly negative. I have a lot of respect for your work on RD/S and elsewhere, but I think your reply on the talk page was disproportionately negative, almost argumentative. Seems like a pretty small thing, really - I did what I thought was proper, and you pointed out some things I could have done better. Thanks for the constructive parts of the feedback. -- Scray ( talk) 03:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You know I'm almost as vehemently opposed to ridiculous removals as you are, but I'm not sure that restoring this question was the right move. It seems to me that this response might be overcompensation for the inherent unfairness in our current removal process. While I'd like to see that process revised as much as anyone, I think supporting questions that clearly cross the line is unlikely to improve the situation and might prove even more divisive. – 74 15:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey Stu, you argue for a logical approach to all RefDesk questions, you discourse quite passionately on the talk page how everyone else is wrong to remove Q's, you restore removed threads in the name of freedom. Then you answer a perfectly legitimate question with an echoing resonance of nothing at all. Seriously, why would you bother to provide that answer? What is your purpose here? Sorry, but my respect-level has gone down a notch, unless you have a rationale for that. Franamax ( talk) 10:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You're an English native speaker. and I need help.
Is this text right?
In one of his speeches, with the name,, Message to the Grass Roots`` (in Detroit on10th November, 1963) , Malcolm X differentiated sarcastically between the contradicting characters from ,, house Negroes`` and ,, field Negroes ``.This is a allusion to Martin Luther King and his followers, who want to achieve their aims of freedom and equality in a peaceful way. Malcolm X called Martin Luther King as a house slave, the house slaves usually lived better than field slaves. They usually had better food and were sometimes given the family cast-off clothing, sometimes they close bonds of affection and the slave-owners and the slaves were friends. In contrast to the field slaves the house slaves lived well and they felt no need to leave the plantation.
He wanted to explain with this statement that Martin Luther King and his followers were embodiment of the house slave. Malcolm X despises King and his followers who were the so-called civil-rights activist. He accuses the activists that they collaborate unconsciously with the power holder because they are house slaves who admire ,, the white devils ``. Malcolm X characterizes Martin Luther King and the civil-rights movement as implement of the opressor.The main objective of him would be to expose oppressors' past and present inhumanities and injustices. Malcolm X refers the fact that blacks are still discriminated and segregated at present time and for that reason he wants to resort to violence because this is in his opinion the only way to achieve equality. In an other speech he uses an allusion to make the social connection between black and white clear. Coffee is the only thing I like integrated.(Malcolm X zit. N. Haley 1987: 13).
I KNOW IT'S LONG, BUT PLEASE I WILL NEVER BOTHER YOU AGAIN, PLEASE. IS IT RIGHT? I WRITED IT -- 190.49.114.59 ( talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
In his speech, "Message to the Grass Roots" (given in Detroit on November 10th, 1963), Malcolm X differentiated sarcastically between the contradicting characteristics of "house Negroes" and "field Negroes". This is an allusion to Martin Luther King and his followers, who wanted to achieve their aims of freedom and equality through peaceful means. Malcolm X called Martin Luther King a "house slave", since the house slaves usually lived better than field slaves. They usually had better food and were sometimes given the family's cast-off clothing. Sometimes they even had close bonds of affection with their white masters. In contrast to the field slaves, the house slaves lived comparatively well and felt no compulsion to leave the plantation.
He claimed that Martin Luther King and his followers were the embodiment of the house slave. Malcolm X despised King and his followers, the so-called "civil-rights activists". He accused the activists of unconsciously collaborating with those in power because they were house slaves who admired "the white devils". Malcolm X characterized Martin Luther King and the civil-rights movement as "implements of the oppressor". Malcolm's main objective was to expose the oppressors' past and present inhumanities and injustices. Malcolm X referred to the fact that blacks were still discriminated against and segregated at that time. For that reason, he wanted to use violence because this, in his opinion, was the only way to achieve equality. In another speech he used an allusion to make the social connection between black and white clear: "Coffee is the only thing I like integrated". StuRat ( talk) 21:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. God Bless You. I love Wikipedia and its articles, the best encyclopedia ever. I love to read about terrorism, Bin laden, etc. Thank you again! -- 190.49.114.59 ( talk) 01:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, StuRat. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. |
I wonder if in imagination, you ever think about the horrific and really cruel realities of the Mossad and the inhumane mechanisms of the so-called intelligence operations all these warring sides carry out. For example, current reports of Hamas assassinations and torture of those Fatah members they suspect and accuse of providing information to Israel. Or how about the coercion allegedly applied by Israel on Palestinians to get their services as informers? Your "smiley" emoticon with which you signed your remark may go down great with others who think (or imagine) as you do... but for people close to the conflict, occasionally under rocket attack though far more often suffering the consequences of living in a militarized society in the constrained circumstances of being surrounded by hostile and violent elements bent on our destruction while "we" oppress innocents who happen to be on the wrong side... no, StuRat, it's not a smiley matter, whatever you may like to do or write on the Ref Desks. What's for you a joking matter is life and death for others. I feel that your jokey remarks cheapen and degrade what a lot of people are suffering.-- Deborahjay ( talk) 23:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Please don't change other people's comments (including section headers) on talk pages. Friday (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Good template. Accords respect to the OP, offers helpful links so they don't feel as though no one cares and which may assist them in their discussions with the dr, and prevents any refdesker overstepping and providing advice. Can we develop something formal along these lines? Gwinva ( talk) 06:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I accidentally clobbered a post of yours to the Ref Desk.
I tried to Put it back. You might want to double check to make sure I didn't mangle it. Sorry. APL ( talk) 13:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
1) Don't ever edit after an edit conflict. The problem here is that it escalates to an edit of the entire Ref Desk page, which is quite likely to have endless edit conflicts.
2) Instead, hit the back browser arrow and cut your new text, then hit the "discussion" tab to reload the page, then pick "edit" on the Q, and paste your comments back in.
3) Only add one chunk of contiguous text at a time. Adding discontiguous text with other people's comments in-between makes resolving edit conflicts much uglier. StuRat ( talk) 13:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer your search engine personally. I like cats better than porn. I use Ask. I don't know why but it REALLY sucks. <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 ( talk) 23:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC) 19:10pm March 23, 2009
Sturat, I noticed you often reply to users who remove medical questions from the refdesk with report cards detailing all manner of issues you had with the removal process. Is this really necessary everytime? Clearly, the removers don't agree with you so there is no real purpose to do this? But even if you have to give users feedback after removing questions, could you please do so on their user talk pages?
Btw, you say that there should be links to and fro between the talk page and the desk - I think this is unnecessary work for the remover. There is no guideline supporting this so incessantly nagging users to do this is not appropriate. If you think this should be part of the guidelines, you're welcome to make a formal request to include them. As long as there is a diff, we could easily find the question on the desk. Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 22:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that keeping the nastiness off the Ref Desk itself is important and worthwhile, though I think we both understand that nastiness elsewhere is no more acceptable. Our history is peppered with unpleasantnesses, and I think it's time to call a halt.
I am well aware that you have no great love of me, and from my perspective it seems you are willing to go out of your way to offend – and be offended by – me. It's unproductive and unhelpful, and I would like to find a way to put it to an end. Frankly, I don't expect to convince you that I'm a rational, reasonable, intelligent human being, worthy of courteous treatment. I'm quite willing to settle for any end to hostilities in some way that doesn't do further harm to Wikipedia and the editors at the Ref Desks.
I do not wish to shut you out of any reasonable discussion on the Ref Desk or elsewhere, nor do I want (or expect) any shiny, happy declarations of mutual, undying friendship, or regret, or apology. I recommend a practical approach, with an aim to minimizing bickering and maximizing continued participation by both of us. Here is what I propose:
I believe that those arrangements should eliminate the vast majority of areas where we are suffering from utterly fruitless friction. Point #1 leaves open the door for comment where a genuine debate has opened, but leaves neither of us the opportunity for sheer bloodyminded contrariness. Point #2 lets others 'make the call'; neither one of us need take a 'final' decision. Points #3, #4, and #5 are intended to discourage poking and prodding in either direction. (If a message needs to be conveyed or an edit needs to be reverted, the matter ought to be sufficiently obvious that someone else can do it.)
What say you? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
EZD_Features_Matrix
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).AZSQ.E232568
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).