User talk:Comet Tuttle

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Comet Tuttle! I am NAHID and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

NAHID 14:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Geejo strikes again!

I won't be back on Wikipedia for several days, but I'd appreciate input from anyone who tried to help me. There's more specific information.[1]Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My Yahoo Email nightmare

[2]

It's getting better. I think they might be able to fix it. At least I got a response.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Effect

In science reputation plays a large role in securing resources. Places/people with good reputations can secure lots of funds, with lots of funds they can do lots of research, with lots of research they can reinforce their reputation, a strong reputation allows they to secure more resources/funds. As I'm sure you can see its something of a feedback loop. Reputation in science is based on credit (citations, awards, associations...) mis-attribution of credit is thus a big deal especially when lots of grant money is at stake. Check out Merton's 1968 paper, there is no pay wall and its a good read.--OMCV (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

Excuse the "stupid question": What does (ec) stand for. --85.178.104.139 (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For you

The Refdesk Barnstar What a splendid video link you provided! DRosenbach (Talk

Just to assure you don't get me wrong

I reread my latest comment on "is melvin manhoef okay?" on the reference desk. It occured to me that you could misread this as an offence. I am totally aware that what you wrote about using the Entertainment desk does not imply you would be thinking this kind of "sports" was an entertainment of any kind, but to where such incidents are classified nowadays by the majority of media-people. So in short: no offence meant; not to you. 95.112.190.236 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for pointing out the edit botch in my Reference Desk item. It was indeed as you said, a global search and replace that was a bit more global than I intended. --Anonymous (currently 208.76.104.144 (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC) ).

Racial memory

Your comment on the subject has set me thinking. Are you saying that there is no such thing...please clarify  Jon Ascton  (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that means Jung is a liar... Jon Ascton  (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Vending machines question

Hi, Tuttle. I was startled, not to say shocked, to find that you had removed my comment from the RefDesk just now. I thought that wasn't something we did on the RefDesk except in special circumstances - and I'm also surprised that you didn't drop me a note when you did it.

OK, you found my reply unhelpful. I intended it to be helpful, and who knows, maybe others would have found it so too. I genuinely couldn't work out what the OP was asking - obviously it was about somebody removing vending machines from the campus, but I could not tell from the question which party was supposedly doing so. I could have just left it for somebody else, but I thought that telling the OP that the question was not clear would be helpful. --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I didn't think of looking on the talk page. Or more accurately, I thought of complaining about the removal on the talk page, but decided to speak directly to you first, so I didn't look on the talk page. Anyway it's done now - I've replied on WT:RD, but I'm not going to make anything more of it. --ColinFine (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Reference Desk

I have nominated the article for deletion, see WP:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Reference Desk. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My unlikable answer

I'd be grateful if you could expand (here rather than on that or my talk page) on this comment of yours. You seem unhappy with my mere mention (as one of several alternatives) of the possibility of moving to an alternative to Windows; I don't understand why. And I don't know what the other objection is.

Of course your own comment was polite, and I am not complaining about it in the slightest. And everybody is welcome to dislike anything that I write. However, there seems to be some meaning here that eludes me and I'd like to know what it is. -- Hoary (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

malware repair FAQ

Nice job. (I'm not sure a Wikipedia user page is the right place for such a general-purpose document, but never mind that. :-) ) Three comments:

1. 100MB of JPEG picture files will fit on one CD. Not sure what numbers you had in mind there.
2. I'm really glad you included the advice about creating separate user and administrator accounts. I wish more people did that.
3. I agree that in general, disk images can be preferable to backups, and backups can be preferable to just manually copying (or dragging) selected files and folders to a removable disk. But for a compromised system, personally, I feel the reverse is true. And in any case (even if the "backup" is just a bunch of manually-copied files), I think you should put in some kind of explicit warning to treat that backup disk as poison. You must never boot from it, you must never mount it and run any apps which are on it, you must never copy any executable programs back off of it, you must be careful copying any data files which might contain executable content back off of it. (Sadly, the line between "data files" and "executables" is much blurrier than it used to be.) —Steve Summit (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Troll?

I didn't troll the reference desk. If that was trolling then what about the person above me who asked for Lil Wayne's email? I strongly protest and I disagree with your judgment. Dust429 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

RefDesk

As it is, I see that Jayron deleted his own comment. However, I must warn you that if you remove others' comments, from any talk-page again, in a circumstance which is not mandated by WP:TPO, you will be reported immediately to ANI. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 08:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not "on the contrary" – the relevant guideline clearly states, "removal of others' comments generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." While Jayron's comment was definitely BITE-y (though arguably justified), it did answer the question and could not be described as a personal attack. At worst, it was incivil, and WP:TPO suggests that removal of such material is inappropriate.

If there's any part of what I've just written that you disagree with or don't understand, please contact me, and simply be aware that you will be held to account for any removals you make in future which are not mandated by policy. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You have quoted a number of your opinions as if they are fact; allow me to point this out.

1. The comment should never have been posted, I think you might agree with that. As it happens, I do agree on this point, yes.
2. Removal of the comment was therefore the right thing to do. No – this principle is contrary to Wikipedia's ethos in general (hence "removal of others' comments generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil"). Auschwitz should never have been built, but that's not to say it should be demolished.
3. The rules you keep quoting at me are article talk page rules, and the Reference Desk is not an article talk page. It has aspects of an article talk page, but it is not one. This is Wikilawyering in the extreme: to back up such a claim, you would need to either find a policy specifically exempting the RefDesk from WP:TALK, or find a policy permitting the deletion of vaguely incivil comments on the RefDesk. In essence, if you can't produce a better written alternative to WP:TALK, then that will have to do (elements of COMMONSENSE and IAR here).
4. Look at whether the comment should exist on the Reference Desk. Clearly, it should not. See point (2).

If there's any part of what I've just written that you disagree with or don't understand, please contact me. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, quoting policy is not Wikilawyering. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering thoroughly. The second half of your comment, about the definition of talk-page, suggests that you haven't fully read point (3) above.

I'm not planning to continue this discussion with you, because I suspect you will prevent it from getting anywhere. However, rest assured that if you violate WP:TPO with respect to the RefDesk again you will be reported to ANI. (Please don't respond to this on my talkpage, any further debate on this subject will be deleted without being read.) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

MfD

You should know that I am nominating three pages you created, User:Comet Tuttle/Repair, User:Comet Tuttle/Malware and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing/Viruses for a collective MfD. Please understand that this is nothing personal, nothing tit-for-tat: I simply stumbled across one of them while looking through your contributions during our discussion a few minutes ago. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference desk + removing comments (again)

Hi, you may remember that a couple of weeks ago, I warned you that deleting others' comments from the RefDesk violated WP:TPO and you informed me, "The rules you keep quoting at me are article talk page rules, and the Reference Desk is not an article talk page."

However, I should let you know that today, I happened across Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines, specifically the section #When removing or redacting a posting which clearly states, "When removing or redacting someone else's posting, the usual talk page guidelines apply." Which was exactly my point all along.

So I was right, and policy did prohibit your actions, and your Wikilawyering was not only Wikilawyering but also completely mistaken. For this reason, I hope that you will not delete others' messages from the RefDesk again. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 16:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The section heading is not the guideline. The body of that paragraph identifies WP:TPO as the policy, which states that you should not remove comments unless they are flagrantly and solely breaches of the rule against personal attacks. OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 16:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that phrases like, "trying to bully me into submission," make you look like someone interested in contributing to a collaborative project? ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 17:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Animated square wheel

There's a temporary workaround you could employ, detailed here. I've tested it in preview with the full size image, and it does work. All the best, Steve ^T • C 13:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Working holiday visa

Hi Comet Tuttle, I've mentioned US non-participation at the top of the working holiday visa page, re discussion on the reference desk. Is that the right thing to do? I'm just a n00b :) Cod Lover Oil (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your clarifying comments at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Capitalization in legal documents! 75.108.193.135 (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)