User talk:Dmh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello Dmh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Vsmith 01:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


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

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

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


Yes check.svg

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

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

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


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

SQL[edit]

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

Re: Winningest[edit]

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

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

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

The Photon Belt[edit]

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

Geezinslaws[edit]

Geezinslaws[edit]

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

Peak oil[edit]

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

Account creation system[edit]

Someone, probably you, has asked to join the account creation system and given this as their Wikipedia username. Please reply here to confirm it was you. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't me -Dmh (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your AfC (Twackle)[edit]

Symbol declined.svg

Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Twackle was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! --ANowlin: talk 19:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Crystal Clear action edit add.png

Twackle, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!  Chzz  ►  22:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Older comment on Eclipse article[edit]

I know you made this comment a long time ago, but as a member of the newly formed WPEclipses project I was hoping you could expound upon the situation you were trying to solve and if you still think the Eclipse article needs additional clarification wrt your discussion. Thanks! --TimL (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There had been a number of statements in the articles for eclipse, transit, occultation and maybe syzygy, to the effect that "eclipse" only "really" applied to a body being shadowed by another. That is, a lunar eclipse is a true eclipse, but a solar eclipse is really an occultation of the sun by the moon. After checking APOD and Espenak's eclipse page, and maybe elsewhere, I concluded this was another of those cases where someone decides that accepted usage is "wrong" on some technical grounds and wants to make sure that Wikipedia has the "right" information. So I took those statements out and tried to explain actual usage "occultation", "transit" and "eclipse" as best I could.
However, I never really felt I'd put the right information in the right place. Actual usage is a bit complicated, and it would be nice to have a discussion of the terms as they relate each other, but where? I never did come up with a good answer for that. As I recall, I did put together a short section, but I forget where it ended up and (with apologies) I'm not going to look it up right now. Wherever it ends up, I think the main points are
  • "Eclipse" refers to an object becoming less visible as a result of a syzygy.
  • "Transit" refers to an object passing in front of another, but not completely covering it
  • "Occultation" refers to an object passing in front of another and completely covering it.
  • An occultation is a kind of eclipse, but an eclipse can also occur when an object passes into the shadow of another.
  • "Transit" is generally used when the object passing in front is much smaller than the object behind
  • "Partial eclipse" tends to be used when the object in front is about the same size, but doesn't completely cover the object behind
  • If it's considerably larger, but doesn't completely cover, that may be called a "partial occultation", but I'm not sure
  • There doesn't seem to be a crisp distinction between transit and partial eclipse. For example, the transit of Phobos (or was it Deimos) is also referred to as a partial eclipse. In practice, there aren't a lot of examples to go by.
  • And then there are eclipsing binary stars ...
Hope that helps. Feel free to use any of it that works, of course. --Dmh (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Bristol (software) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bristol (software) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol (software) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 (talkcontribs) 16:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)