User talk:Leotohill

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

.NET Framework[edit]

I don't understand why a person describing himself as knowing "something about .NET" would remove a valid and documented fact that intermediate language code that is JITted is sometimes faster than native one. Deity complex? This just enforces the notion that Wikipedia is not a source of real information, just somme hearsay and biased opinions.

No need to get personal, or bummed about WP. This is the process. I thought I was improving the article. If I contemplate other changes on this point, I'll bring it up on the discussion page first. Leotohill 14:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Self-Fulfilling Prophecies[edit]

Hey there. Noticed that you made some comments previously on Talk:Self-fulfilling prophecy. Was wondering if you might drop into there again and give your view on the definition of what it should be. Seems that we have a loggerheads with myself and User:Ritchy and it would be good to get another opinion. Thanks Enigmatical 02:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

.NET Framework[edit]

I have reworded your critisism of it, as somebody deleted your comment. I believe some that all views should be expressed on wikipedia, provided they are valid. bruce89 16:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge tag[edit]

It was up to the remover to discuss what she did before removing the tag. I have nothing against removing it but i had to revert something done unilaterally. Cheers -- Szvest 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Roomba accuracy tag[edit]

I notice that you placed an accuracy tag on the roomba article. At the same time you removed a sentence that made a claim. Were you disputing just that sentence? In any case, I can find no discussion of the accuracy issue, so I'm inclined to remove the tag. I'll wait a decent interval before doing so. Leotohill 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the ambiguity; I've clarified on Talk:Roomba. -- Beland 15:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft .NET[edit]

While I understand your philosophical reasons for wanting to differenciate between Microsoft .NET and the .NET Framework, I have to say that the reasons are not relevant. In fact, the Microsoft .NET article does more to confuse an individual about what .NET is than it does to supply information. If you are going to insist on two different articles, I suggest a complete rewrite. This article is currently not encyclopedic, IMHO. --BankingBum 01:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to discussing it, but I'd rather discuss on the talk page. Post there and I'll followup. Thanks. Leotohill 02:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I opened up a discussion on the talk page as you requested. Please feel free to express your view. //BankingBum 20:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC) $$

In response[edit]

I must have been in a good mood that day I suppose. I'm always experimenting with different tones and inflections to find something more "me". I'm working on another project now which I'm doing more "straight".

  • As far as footnotes go, I would just as assume skipping them. Reading every footnote and reference would be veeeeery tedious.
  • For grammar, proofreading should be standard. It would be embarrassing to include a typo in your performance. Edit when needed before recording.
  • For variance, I would stick as close as possible to the copy. For lists and bulletpoints, I would trim them down to the most poignant.
  • Yes, try and mention the revision, although I usually forget, and it is mentioned on the soundfile link.
  • Bitrates should be between 48-96 and monoaural for best performance.
  • As far as filters and such go, I myself use Adobe Audacity with a few EQ settings. Basic editing software is all you really need and there are plenty of free ones out there.

As far as your "lisp", it's hardly noticeable. It adds personality to your recordings. Don't sweat it. :)

Reason turns rancid (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks a ton for your work on the Subterranean Homesick Blues Spoken Article. I am sorry I didn't get a chance to thank you sooner!!! Datapharmer (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Regular expressions reverted to have incorrect backslashes[edit]

18-Jan-2008: Hello, I am a computer scientist from Texas. I have contacted User:Monger who again reverted the corrections which had removed the blackslashes from the POSIX regular expressions, such as for bracket-sets of characters. The syntax for regular expressions in POSIX is essentially the same as for UNIX (hence the similar "-IX" suffix). For specifying character sets, there are no backslashes in defining bracket-sets of characters, except when trying to match a bracket as a literal character: "[0-9()]" will match digits 0 to 9 or parentheses, but "[\[]" will match a literal left-bracket during the search. The other syntax using "\[abc\]" is incorrect for POSIX regular expressions (because it would match only the exact 5-character string "[abc]" not a set). The brackets are called "metacharacters" because they are individual characters (as are "^" and "$") which have meaning beyond the literal level. The correct syntax does not use "\[" or "\$" but only single characters, as metacharacters. The user 213.3.44.97 (from Zurich, Switzerland) and I had coded the correct syntax into the article "regular expression" to describe POSIX syntax. I have asked User:Monger to please restore that syntax. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of multiple sclerosis[edit]

Maybe it was not clear enough but secondary progressive is the name given to the subtype of multiple sclerosis that after begining as relapsing-remitting then ends to have attacks and the course is progressive. I tried to fix it in the article.--Garrondo (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just heard your audio version of the treatment of multiple sclerosis article. It sounds great. Well done... It had to take you a long time. It´s the firs time I hear an audio version and I feel its a very interesting project. For this effort and the improvement it supposses for the article I really believe you deserve the star of life:

For your impressive efforts on the treatment of multiple sclerosis audioversion I award you the Star of Life.--Garrondo (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia upload[edit]

Hi - The way the license works, as best I understand it, is this: The text of the article is licensed under the GFDL. The GFDL requires that derivative works be released under the same license. Therefore the spoken articles, which are derivative works of the written text, must be licensed under the GFDL.

When uploading a file that you created entirely on your own, you have the choice to pick from several 'free' licenses. Uploading a spoken article is a fairly unusual case, so I don't think it makes sense to change the Wikipedia upload process (or that any such effort would be accepted).

I tried to make the Spoken Wikipedia upload page clear by inserting the comment "This is the license tag. Please leave the license selector blank." However, you're far from being the only one who is still tripped up by the process. Do you have any suggestions to make it more clear? Thanks -SCEhardT 21:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

TPM Physical Presence Operation[edit]

Hello - you've made an edit suggesting that physical presence request optional - please can you provide a reference for this as the official specification suggests otherwise. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 02:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The enable/disable flag is persistent - its value is maintained through poweroff/poweron cycles. In "TPM Main Part 2 TPM Structures Specification version 1.2" see section 7.1 TPM_PERMANENT_FLAGS, specifically the TPM_PF_DISABLE flag.
The Owner (in the TPM sense of owner) can activate/deactivate and/or enable/disable the TPM, but there's no requirement to disable it on shutdown, and I think it would be impractical to do so in server farm scenarios.
See also http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749022.aspx which does not explicitly confirm my understanding it but implies it by describing enabling and activation as IT-management operation. "...for administrators responsible for setting up TPM-equipped computers..."
Regards, Leo Leotohill (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I've reverted your changes, as the physical presence operations are mandatory for configuration changes per the TPM specification. I've added 2 references to back this up. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've opened a talk section on the article page so we can continue this discussion there, if necessary. Leotohill (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Answered[edit]

link=User talk:Vsmith (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Leotohill. You have new messages at [[User talk:Vsmith (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)|User talk:Vsmith (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.