User talk:StuRat

Vicious comments from others (and a few that aren't)

Archives

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

People to ignore

This person, on the Ref Desk, seems more interested in fighting and wasting my time than having a civil discussion, so I will ignore them:

92.15.0.66
92.15.6.232
92.15.8.206
92.15.18.16
92.15.20.212
92.15.24.116
92.24.182.238
92.24.190.23
92.24.191.116
92.28.254.54

Award

I, Trollderella award this for making me laugh with this comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=27015168&oldid=27014965

Thanks ! ...wouldn't you know my first award would be for being a smart ass ? StuRat 02:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

		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)

Thanks ! StuRat 19:29, 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)

Thank you, too ! StuRat 22:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Puns and jokes

Here are some puns and jokes from the Ref Desk:

I don't know if this fits your request, but I was always delighted by the word "predate": to pray upon and to pre-date! --151.51.62.111 (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's actually to "prey upon". Saying "pray upon" would altar the meaning. :-) StuRat (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Can African hunting dogs be bread with normal domestic dogs. Can Australian Dingo's be bread with African hunting dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you ground all those dogs up and put them in a pan with some dough, then cooked for an hour, then yes, they could all be bread together, regardless of how they've been bred separately. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Which logical fallacy is inherent in the following argument(putting aside the question of whether either statement is true): "Darwin recanted on his deathbed; therefore the theory of evolution must be false"? 137.151.174.176 (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It could be the genetic fallacy, meaning that a man's otherwise decent theory is considered inherently specious, based on it's origin. StuRat (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

StuRat, your bias is oozing all over the place. 169.139.217.79 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If I'm equally biased against everyone, doesn't that make me balanced (while simultaneously unbalanced)? :-) StuRat (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference Desk and unicorns

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)

Thanks ! And you managed to say it all in just two sentences, LOL. StuRat 01:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

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)

Thanks. I wasn't actually away, just reduced my level of contributions as I'm in the process of moving. Next month I should be back to "full time". StuRat 15:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Reference Desk

Thank you for pointing out the template on the Ottoman capitals, I guess I was too busy looking for the capitals in the article to notice. By the way, those are a lot of edits you have. | AndonicO 12:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome ! StuRat 12:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Canada thanks you.

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.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. And thanks. StuRat 06:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I've worked your reference to the previous months archive into the template directly, so it's now a part of the top bar--152.163.100.136 18:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but is this Fresh ? Just forgot to log in ? StuRat 18:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  01:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, either that or I'm VectorPotential (: The date math in the current version of the template is so twisted I figured I was the only one who would be able to update it at this point (: Even if I am too busy with university work to continue hands-on RD maintenance work -- 172.147.144.217 17:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yea, that date math confused me. StuRat 17:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If I have some free time this weekend I'll try and template-ify some of the date math, to make the header less cluttered. Also, there's still one minor glitch concerning the years, sort of going to be a problem once we get to 2007.--172.165.196.210 10:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, cool. StuRat 10:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that didn't work, just made it more buggy and over complicated--Molecular Hamiltonian 19:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now it does work, but only with subst--Molecular Hamiltonian 19:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Language

"RefDeskia". Hehe. I Like it. :) --Russoc4 17:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! :-) StuRat 17:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

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)

You're quite welcome ! StuRat 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Nick

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)

No, it's a variation on my name, Stuart. My parents once received a letter from my school saying "We would like to congratulate your daughter Sturat on her excellent academic performance." I thought it was so funny that I continue to use it as a screen name to this day. StuRat 18:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you a female!!! the name stuart doesnt sound feminine.nids(♂) 18:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not, that's what made it so funny. StuRat 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So, your school staff is guilty for double error on the same letter.nids(♂) 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they were apparently attempting to compensate for the academic excellence of the students with extreme administrative incompetence. :-) StuRat 19:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Also, I wanted to talk about that templates. This one is horribly inflammatory:

OK, it is time for your joking to end. You are potentially offending people, both here in the Wikipedia community and the wider readership. What you are doing could be seen as vandalism and you could get blocked from editing Wikipedia for it. You might not get another warning before having a block imposed, so be careful and be serious from now on.

This one is better, but still rather unpleasant:

The jokes are getting old. Humor's great, but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions.

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:

Humor is much appreciated, but this question also deserves a serious answer, does anybody have one ?

StuRat 03:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's one of a series of user warnings, for use on user talk pages not on article pages. Your wording sounds like something for the RD. Is the issue you don't want it on this page? The point is to encourage a user to stop doing something. I hope we're at the point of having a rational discussion. I don't see any particular reason to keep it here. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Our edits seem to have crossed paths. Templates like this are almost never used at the point of reference, but on the user talk page (at the point of reference generally the offending comment is simply removed). The "forum" style pages (HD, RD, VP) are perhaps special, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to have these sorts of templates on the RD. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the last one might be good to let everyone know the question remains unanswered. When I see several pages of replies, I generally assume there's an answer in there somewhere, but this would let me know there wasn't, at least at the point where it's posted. I think I'll propose it at the Ref Desk talk page and see who salutes. StuRat 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ref desk talk page seems like a good idea. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars

		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)

Thanks ! I'm partially Scottish myself, and very cheap, so claim the right to make fun of myself. StuRat 12:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah so it was you and your brother who found that penny? 8-)

Chianti and fava beans,

Before you break out the Chianti and fava beans, ...

Well done, StuRat, well done! :-)

Atlant 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! StuRat 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics Ref Desk

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)

You're welcome. If you'll go ahead and list how you did it I will look for any errors. StuRat 06:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

XMAS colors

		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)

Thanks again, my goal in life is to make everyone wet their pants. (I secretly own the company that makes Depends.) StuRat 17:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well then, get back into life! ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Is "get back into life" their slogan ? I thought it was "good to the last drop". :-) StuRat 18:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that too. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Now if it didnt seem like sycophancy or loyalty or something, I would award StuRat with something! Im not sure what yet! Lets wait and see what comes to mind.--Light current 00:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you give him a barnstar; it wouldn't look good if I gave him two in a row. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My respect for StuRat is worth more than a truckload of Barnstars!--Light current 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur; I won't say "more than a shipload" because it would seem childish.

What we need is an award for StuRat putting up with gigatons of irrelevant bullshit presented as coherent and sensible argument--Light current 01:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What, you mean they aren't coherent and sensible arguments? ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

more on RD

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)

Thanks ! StuRat 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal

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)

Thanks for your help. I am afraid that User:Friday's tendency to do things in a unilateral way will return, however, without another Admin prodding him toward building a consensus with the rest of us. May I call on you if he drifts back in that direction ? StuRat 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm always around. :-) --HappyCamper 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		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 frothT C 20:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! StuRat 20:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Chapeau

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)

Thanks for your support. I agree on not commenting until the RFC's at least get a second. This issue just appears to be an unwarranted distraction, IMHO. StuRat 13:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am leaving

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)

Please reconsider. We need the voices of sane people to finish this process. If you leave, you let the bullies win. That doesn't just have implications for the Ref Desk, but for every corner of Wikipedia, even the dark corners. Light's block ends soon, and DirkvdM still occasionally participates in the talk page discussions:

"...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)

LOL

Loved the chicken farmer joke. Bet it is nuked before midnight, though. Gandalf61 18:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That would surely be fowl play! Where is it anyway. Post a link--Light current 18:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad you liked the joke, here it is: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Nobel_Prize_Laureate.....28Women.29. StuRat 18:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And here's a copy, in case it gets deleted:

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)

This really is pulling our Leghorns--Light current 19:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Howdy StuRat. It's a cute play on words, but your comment didn't really do anything to help answer the poster's question. Please, take pity on the dial-up users of the Ref Desk. If you'd like to share jokes with other editors, consider using their talk pages or email in the future. Heck, create a section in your user space; I'm sure it would be well-subscribed.

Nobody's going to 'nuke' your remark; it doesn't attack anyone and is unlikely to offend. I'm just dropping in to ask you to remember the purpose of the Ref Desk (it's there to answer questions). If you want to tell a joke on the Desk, try to work some useful information into it—that way everyone is happy. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I do try to do that, but this joke was at least related to the topic. I use that as a bare minimum requirement. StuRat 19:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Its good to see you have Standards, Stu! 8-)--Light current 19:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed.EricR 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for at least notifying me. However, your comment that it was "off topic" is incorrect, as both the joke and topic were on the Nobel Prize. StuRat 23:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There's more to being on-topic on the ref desk than just being vaguely related to the question; there's also the matter of actually helping to answer the question. The ref desk, after all, is for answering questions. -- SCZenz 23:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering the question and being on topic are two quite different issues. For example, a request for a clarification is on topic, but doesn't answer the question, just like this joke. StuRat 23:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Being on-topic for the page means asking or answering a question, or doing something that works toward answering a question (like a request for clarification). -- SCZenz 23:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You've got a whole new def of "on topic" there, but is this really worth arguing about ? Call it whatever you want, I don't care to fight about it. Let's just agree to disagree peacefully, shall we ? StuRat 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that what we call it isn't important. I think we agree that the reference desk should be used primarily for asking and working on answering questions, at least. -- SCZenz 23:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Primarily, yes. Exclusively, no. Building a sense of community is also important. And, sometimes, that can be facilitated with humor. StuRat 23:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You cannot be serious! [6] 8-)--Light current 23:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nicotine Addiction

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)

You're welcome, and good luck on your report ! StuRat 03:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I THough Nicotine Addiction Was Bad].184.163.238.18 (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentals of marketing

That was an awesome, AWESOME answer. Anchoress 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! StuRat 18:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to second that. I just about choked on my coffee, when I saw that and laughed. Nice job!! Antandrus (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and here's a link for those who missed it: [7]. StuRat 18:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Helping Me Out!

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)

You're quite welcome ! StuRat 20:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

abridged too far

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)

Thanks, that's very gneiss of you. (I don't want you to think I'm stoned or anything, I just have quite an apatite for puns, especially puns that rock. If I leave a pun out, I feel like I might gypsum body.) StuRat 01:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

WTF are you talcing about?--Light current 02:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats another one chalked up! Any Moh's?--Light current 02:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

We're starting to accumulate quite a conglomerate of puns here. StuRat 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No schist! --Geologyguy 03:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No you mean aggregate--Light current 02:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think someone should get slated for al these terrible puns 8-)--Light current 03:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It seams to me that you only have yourself to blame. David D. (Talk) 18:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh?--Light current 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Look up seam. I guess if you have to explain the pun it doesn't really work.David D. (Talk) 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I lost my apatite, as much as I enjoyed the "abridged too far." It's not that I beryl will to ya'll, but this is too much. Shame there seams to be no article on seam--it's absence diabases the value of Wikipedia. KP Botany 20:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is unseamly. It stings that there isn't even an article on the song We Work the Black Seam; somebody should call the content police. StuRat 20:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Chertainly we should mica note of its absense in the disambig page. David D. (Talk) 21:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I understand mica, but WTFs note got to do with it? Youll have to do better than this on the RDs! 8-)--Light current 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't notice StuRat's change of course? We're now going over a clef with the police in tow. At least we'll get a good view of the strata on the way down. David D. (Talk) 22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought we could double our pun if we bass them on both geology and music. Perhaps I should add another topic so we can treble our punishment ? StuRat 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunite. KP Botany 22:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I shale call that a day. Unless any one thinks otherwise.--Light current 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A stalag mite be the right punishment for bad punners.Edison 23:54, 4 January 2007 (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)

Of cuourse one easy way to tell the difference (as one of my old GFs told me) is that 'Tites' always come down! BTW do you get a prize for having the longest pun run?--Light current 01:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Chain letters

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)

This is a good example, has reproduction, mutations and natural selection. David D. (Talk) 06:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. StuRat 07:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dozens?

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)

Oh geez, so it starts again. It’s not outlandish at all. Each shotgun contains many pellets, see illustration of a target hit by one: [8]. With the birds packed into such a dense cloud, each pellet was likely to hit and each kill or incapacitate at least one bird. If you count the number of pellet holes, you will see there are dozens. StuRat 20:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A comment from an editor who writes with English as a lingua franca in mind (i.e. for the benefit of non-native speakers among your readers): I didn't see the original post, but just based on the above, I'd recommend avoiding any ambiguity inherent in the wording single shot (focused on the action of firing the weapon?) by substituting single blast (to indicate a possible indeterminate number of multiple projectiles having been fired in that act). Just an idea. -- Deborahjay 05:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Friday should have said "a single blast". StuRat 12:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm familiar with shotguns. Depending on shot size, there may be anywhere from less than 10, to several hundred pellets. Very small ones won't generally kill a target individually- typically the target is hit by many pellets. The shot pattern will spread out over a distance, and the individual pellets will lose their effectiveness as velocity decreases (which is does quite rapidly with such a small projectile.) Do you have a source that mentions anyone downing dozens of pigeons with a single shot? Friday (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It was from a TV show on PBS many years ago, and I have no idea what the name of it was. At moderate range the pellets are spread out far enough to hit dozens of birds (provided the birds are there) and still have enough force to kill or incapacitate the birds. Those which were incapacitated fell to the ground and were finished off by the hunters or their dogs. StuRat 21:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I suppose it's a small issue- it's not like you're putting this assertion into an article. But, please do rememember that the ref desk isn't very well served by us basing what we say from our recollections of things we saw on TV many years ago. It's very easy to misremember such stuff. Friday (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't, I don't know about your mind, but my mind doesn't just make up things like that. The Ref Desk also isn't well served by challenging everything you possibly can, when you have absolutely no evidence that anything is wrong. This is especially true if you hold a grudge against people and use those challenges as a way to "get back at people". StuRat 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no grudge and no opinion whatsoever about you as a person. I do remember that you've put in inaccurate information before, and people have pointed this out to you. You're still doing it, so I'm telling you again. The ref desks aren't chat boards or panel discussions. Friday (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And where am I giving inaccurate info, exactly ? If you're going to make claims like that, I'd like to see some evidence. StuRat 22:28, 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)

That's because birds don't typically form a cloud of a million, giving hunters a target they can't miss. In the future, please don't challenge my statements unless you have some actual proof that they are wrong. And don't accuse me of giving inaccurate info unless you have proof, either. StuRat 02:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you many many times before, your standard of "you must prove me wrong" is unreasonable. If you're going to make unlikely claims, please have references to back it up. Friday (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is your claim that my statements are "unlikely". You just arbitrarily decide that the claims of people you don't like are "unlikely" and put the burden of proof on them, when you have absolutely no basis for doubting the statement. And I'm sure your fellow deletionist agree that anything lacking a reference can be deleted arbitrarily (but then again, they think anything can be deleted arbitrarily, reference or not). That doesn't make it right or mean the majority of people agree. StuRat 15:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The claims of 50 are citable, for example, see this discussion, so StuRats memory is probably correct. The problem is whether such claims are legitimate. Hunters, notoriously fishermen, embellish their accounts into ripping yarns. David D. (Talk) 03:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Since 24 would constitute "dozens", even if the claim of 50 was twice the reality, I would still be correct. StuRat 15:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're a baker! David D. (Talk) 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't particularly like rising, but I do like to loaf around. StuRat 17:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

StuRat the last thing we need is another bun thread. David D. (Talk) 17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm surprised enough that such a thing would be reported, whether or not it's really true. I may have my doubts, but if people are claiming that, they're claiming it. StuRat, sorry for being so skeptical about this. Friday (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting your error. This could all have been avoided, however, had you done some research before challenging my statement. I wish you would learn from this mistake. StuRat 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"The greater good" sounds familiar...

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)

Yes, that's right. The argument is that Japan would not have been willing to give an unconditional surrender otherwise. This would leave the US with the following options:

1) Accept a conditional surrender, which would have left the militaristic, imperial power structure in Japan, which likely would have resulted in another war with Japan, with nuclear weapons, a few years later, in which case millions would have died.

2) Continue conventional bombing, with the goals of destroying Japan's military, industrial, and agricultural production, resulting in the deaths from bombing and starvation of millions (almost all Japanese).

3) Perform a land invasion of Japan, which would have resulted in the deaths of millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of allies. Japanese school children were being taught to charge soldiers with sharpened sticks.

The US was in no mood to accept a conditional surrender. There was a contingency plan, however, in case the atomic bomb was not available by the time it was needed, which was a combo of options 2 and 3. Another concern was that the Soviet Union, which waited until Japan was weakened to declare war on Japan, would invade and conquer large portions of Japan, and then set it up as a communist state. As it is, they only managed to conquer a few northern islands.

So, to avoid using the atomic bomb would have likely resulted in more deaths. I do think their should have been Japanese POW observers present at the Trinity test, however, who then could have been returned to Japan to report on this new weapon. While I don't think this would bring about an immediate unconditional surrender, perhaps it would be enough to get the Japanese to give an unconditional surrender after Hiroshima, without the need for the second atomic bonb being dropped on Nagasaki. StuRat 12:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Free Beer

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)

Thanks, just try not to laugh while the boss is announcing his goals for the year. StuRat 16:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your puns

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)

Thanks ! StuRat 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding our exchanges above

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. Rockpocket 07:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. While I still completely reject arguments for authority and ad hominem attacks, believing that everyone should be allowed to present their arguments, with the readers deciding which is strongest (based on the relative strength of each argument and any supporting evidence), I admit that when someone is uncivil to me I find it difficult to remain civil to them, and I apologize for that. StuRat 13:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StuRat 2

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)

You are, of course, neglecting all the users who endorsed outside views favorable to my position, such as the 10 who endorsed "Outside view by User:Amarkov". StuRat 15:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean the one I endorsed? I didn't miss that one. If you read carefully you may find that it deals with part of the issue, and not other parts. Friday (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the one (must have been one of your more reasonable moments). The statements "The word 'deletionist', by itself, is not incivil", "And I do not see any evidence that StuRat is using it as a particularly derogatory term" seem quite favorable to my continued use of the term. If you think that position reflects a consensus that I should stop using the term, you are seriously mistaken. StuRat 15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ingemar's antics in My Life as a Dog

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)

But I have an inquiring mind and I want to know ! For example, does Ingemar prefer Coke or Pepsi bottles ? :-) StuRat 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ref Desk

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For always making me chuckle at the Ref Desk! Adrian M. H. 19:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ! StuRat 19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, deserved for the "splitting hares" comment alone. A pun par excellence. Rockpocket 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup. StuRat 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals

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)

I've commented, but it looks like they are more interested in avoiding legal liability than saving suicidal individuals. StuRat 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Hiya Stu

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)

OK, thanks. I had seen your comments on your talk page and decided it was best not to respond. StuRat 00:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, Clio will be back

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)

...and she is now back, just as predicted. StuRat 06:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed in you for this subthread

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)

My question is... is it allowed to remove comments you dislike from a discussion page? That's what I truly find... well, not elegant. I thought doing so was considered as vandalism. --Taraborn 22:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that, currently, albeit not elegant, everyone has the right to remove stuff from their talk page, and do whatever they want with it.

However, I think there should exist pages to talk about the user that don't belong to the user, as article talk pages. A.Z. 22:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlike article pages, general talk page material should not be removed unless it violates some policy (like personal attacks). You can "refactor" comments, though, like moving them to a new section that's more appropriate, or archiving them when old. Just removing comments because you disagree is a definite no-no, however. User talk pages are a bit different, though. There the user has ownership and can remove anything they like, while others should probably restrict themselves to removing their own comments before they have a response. StuRat 10:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you tired yet?

I know I am. It's almost 3 AM here. A.Z. 05:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Only 2 AM here ! StuRat 05:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So plenty of time till the Sun comes along! I for one am going to sleep. I have got to work tomorrow. Good night. A.Z. 05:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Good night. StuRat 06:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jews

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 believe you lined it out, as opposed to deleting it. This is what I recommend if you no longer believe a statement of yours to be correct. The existence of races is a very touchy issue. While it is true that there is considerable genetic overlap between races, or, to be more scientific, "gene pools", there are still genes which are far more common in certain gene pools than others. For example, the gene for Tay Sachs disease is more common in Eastern European Jews than in the general world population. I personally have no idea about "head size" genes, however. StuRat 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at the Ref Desk talk page

I responded to a good point you made. --Dweller 13:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look now. StuRat 03:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry :(

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)

No harm done, and it was worth a few laughs, too. StuRat 02:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You and Friday

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)

The Ref Desk is where people ask questions and get answers from volunteers like me. Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines is where the rules for answering those questions are written down. Inclusionists, like me, welcome a wide variety of questions and answers. Others, like Friday, are apt to delete any question or answer they don't think "is encyclopedic". StuRat 15:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm being gossip too, but I believe Friday has once expressed the opinion that the reference desk would be better off if it were deleted. A.Z. 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bearnstar

		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. Rockpocket 05:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Does "eaten by a bear" mean it was deleted ? StuRat 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha. I hope that is a clever joke (or else paranoia really is getting the better of you). No, it doesn't mean that, the link explains. Rockpocket 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, where have you been? I could have done with your support recently when a harmless joke I made was unilaterally removed. Typical, just when I need some inclusionist support, they all go awol. Rockpocket 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I had to do some actual work (gasp !). Do you have a link to the joke ? Is it too late to support it ? StuRat 01:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, too late, I'm afraid. Actually it wasn't the removal itself that I was bothered with (a joke is a joke, and I'm not about to claim something so flippant deserves to remain if another editor thinks it inappropriate) it was the unwarranted accusation in the edit summary of the removal.

By the way, Loomis is a hair's breadth away from being indef blocked again. I'm lobbying to give him one last chance, though I'm not sure it will carry. I don't know if you have any influence with him, or if you even care, but if you do it really would be helpful if you could impress on him that it he has a stark choice to make. Rightly or wrongly, fair or unfair, this is how it is and he has got to accept that or he will be unwelcome here for an indefinite period. Rockpocket 08:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop feeding the trolls, or at least one particular troll

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)

Colour Inkjet Refill

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)

Just speculation, but, if it's an airtight container and you are using a needle to inject new ink, you will need to draw air out to allow room for the new ink. StuRat 01:21, 15 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)

Why not do an experiment and use the needle to draw some air out first, and see if that doesn't allow you to inject more ink ? StuRat 02:55, 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)

Actually, I was suggesting you draw out air to make room for the new ink. Drawing out old ink to make room for new ink is rather self defeating. Also, if there is still ink in the cartridges, perhaps that isn't the problem. For example, printer cartridges not used for a while can get a dried out plug in the ink delivery system. StuRat 05:05, 8 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)

Useful article to be deleted

Perhaps you want to vote here. A.Z. 17:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I've added my comments there. StuRat

Speedy tagged Image

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)

Some googling found the source. I've added it to the image page, restored it to the article and removed the speedy tag. Papa November 1 10:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Election for the Board of Trustees

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)

It looks like the endorsement period is closed. I would have endorsed User:Kingboyk for his commitment to democratic means (versus the current group of despots we have as Admins) and User:^demon for his commitment to re-allow contributions through anonymous proxy servers. (Users who wish to contribute anonymously should be allowed to do so.) StuRat 00:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You can still vote for them. Both have got enough endorsements, unlike the candidate that I have endorsed, Jouster, for the reasons expressed on his user page. A.Z. 03:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do I go to vote ? StuRat 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I guess the page hasn't been created yet or there is no link to it. According to this timeline, voting starts next thursday. A.Z. 03:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I voted, but I don't think the results are in yet. StuRat 23:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that they'll announce the results tomorrow. A.Z. 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Incarated"

Thanks for the chuckle, StuRat. Bielle 23:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome ! StuRat 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Discussion" to "talk"

Hi, StuRat. Do you want to participate in this discussion? A.Z. 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I voted in favor of this change to the tab labels. StuRat 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Integrin

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)

Thanks, I'll take a look. StuRat 07:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrators and the stanford prison experiment

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)

It was the 6th comment in this thread: User_talk:StuRat/archive4#Imagine.21_redux. StuRat 04:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the comparison, and I am referring to that diff in an essay I'm writing (linked from my user page, and that is supposed to be my definitive essay about giving sysop tools to everyone).

I bought a book by the leader of the Stanford prison experiment, called The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. I read some parts of the book, but I see it will be somewhat disturbing to read it entirely. I can see Wikipedia all over it. In fact, I was just reading the article about the Stanford prison experiment today, and I realized you can easily substitute guards for administrators and prisoners for editors. A.Z. 05:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For a more ominous comparison, there are Nazi war criminals. There were many people who behaved in a perfectly decent manner both before and after the war, but who calmly assisted in genocide during the war. Clearly, when somebody in authority tells people "it's OK to kill those subhumans", a lot of people go along willingly, even cheerfully. I wouldn't use this is your essay, however, as people tend to immediately ignore any comparison with Nazis as Godwin's Law. Personally, I think we have much to learn from that period, to ensure that it never happens again. StuRat 16:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. That book does talk about the nazis as well. StuRat, I would like that you read my essay and perhaps comment about it. I decided already which system for giving admin tools I support. It is simple and it doesn't require structural changes. The RfA reform page will probably move on now because an user decided to put an end to it with a vote. A.Z. 05:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added my comments. StuRat 17:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Matrixism

I see no evidence that this page is protected. A redirect should be doable. Friday (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's not for Admins, but if I try to edit it I get dumped onto a page that says "This page has been protected to prevent creation." StuRat 17:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Some nonstandard method of protection perhaps? Weird.. Does it say anything that might give a clue how it's protected? Friday (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Its this new way of salting pages. You transclude the article in Wikipedia:Protected titles, which is itself protected with the "cascading" option enabled). It took me a while to work out how this worked too. Good of them the lets the troops know eh? Rockpocket 17:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Salting" ? As in "plow the ground with salt so nothing can ever grow there again" as the Romans did in Carthage ? Now that we know how it's done, can either of you undo it so I can do as the AFD discussion concluded (move and redirect to The Matrix). StuRat 17:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SALT. Are you planning to merge the info into The Matrix or just redirect to the article as is? Rockpocket 17:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect, as was the conclusion of the AFD discussion. I would create a new section named "Matrixism as a real religion" and copy the content there from the user page where it currently resides. StuRat 17:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, StuRat, but a more recent DRV, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 19, endorsed the deletion. I'm not about to over-rule that considering how much administrative activity there has been on this article in the past. Here is what I will do, though. If you choose to add the Matrixism material to the Matrix article and it is accepted there for a week or two without significant challenge, then I will unsalt and redirect to there. However, if the material is sufficiently non-notable and unverified as to not sruvive as an article, it is likely that will also be the case as a subsection of the Matrix. Rockpocket 18:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the conclusion of the first ~vote can just be ignored because there was a later discussion. Do those opinions not matter any more ? Also, I think often people say "delete" as a lazy way of saying "get rid of that article, but I don't care what happens to the content". It's something like when people don't have car blinkers on, does that mean they aren't making a turn or that they are just too lazy to put on the blinker ? I think people should have to explicitly say "destroy the content and don't ever let it be placed anywhere in Wikipedia", if that's what they really mean. As for cars, a "going straight" signal might help there. I've added the content to The Matrix (series). StuRat 19:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

By your own argument, why should a later discussion be ignored because there is a former? Besides, I'm not "ignoring" the first Afd, but there is no point unsalting if there is no consensus for the material to be kept anywhere in Wikipedia. The material looks fine to me in its current place. If there is no major objections to its notability and verifiability by this time next week, I will unsalt and redirect Matrixism to that article. Rockpocket 19:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. StuRat 19:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. And on the off-chance I forget, do remind me of this next week. Rockpocket 19:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Rockpocket 18:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now changed the Matrixism redirect to point to the specific section. StuRat 18:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you should probably leave a hidden note by the section heading noting that per WP:REDIRECT, otherwise someone may change the wording of the heading and the redirect would be lost. Rockpocket 18:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, and I've now done so, but the redirect wouldn't be totally lost if the section title was changed. In that case, the redirect just reverts to the top of the article. StuRat 20:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hobo etc....

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 )

You're quite welcome ! StuRat 13:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

you don't happen to understand lojban

do you?lucid 03:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but then again, I rather enjoy the ambiguous nature of English words, since that allows for the formation of puns. StuRat 03:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Way to read a sentence that I had intended to come off as a joke with an extremely serious tone and make a comment about the ambiguity present in the english language, thus forcing me to make a sentence that is completely unambiguous. Until you find a way to point out the ambiguity --lucid 03:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, since you wrote "english" in lower case, you must not mean the language, but rather the term which means "spin" as in "put some english on the ball". Therefore, your comment regards the "spin language", AKA, the language of politicians. :-) StuRat 03:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you play Six degrees of separation, by chance? --lucid 04:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not since Kevin Bacon filed that restraining order. :-) StuRat 04:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your RD work Pheonix15 20:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ! StuRat 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Matrixism (2)

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)

I did, we had a Ref Desk discussion which was then continued up above on this page. Admin User:Rockpocket agreed to "unsalt" the locked page so I could add the redirect after the content went unchallenged for a week. StuRat 22:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind... I see now what you've done. I like the merge, but how did you preserve the attribution history, because my userpage is still as it was? Xoloz 22:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't preserve the attribution history. If you know of a way to do so, please, by all means, be my guest. StuRat 22:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. :) You'll notice this has changed the history of the redirect -- the people who wrote the content that you merged now receive credit in that history. I realize this situation was complicated, but remember that bigger merges require the merging of the article history as well, which needs the use of admin tools. The GFDL demands that the attribution history be retained. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Medical advice on the Ref Desk

StuRat, please try to avoid offering medical advice on the Reference Desks as you did in this thread [9]. 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)

I would add that the rule is as much there to protect you as it is to protect Wikipedia. Practicing medicine without a license is illegal in almost every country in the world. If someone comes to harm because of your advice - then aside from moral and ethical issues, you could easily end up bankrupt and in jail - and it's just not worth the risk. Sneaky tricks like offering links to pages you also wrote outside of Wikipedia is not going to help you there. I'm not going to let this rest here. If you won't obey the spirit of the community rules - we'll have to change the wording of the rule so it's not allowed. Wikiversity should also disallow the offering of medical and legal advice and if we can't settle this amicably - I'll have to start campaigning for similar rules there. But it would be much, MUCH better for the community if you'd please just stick to the spirit of the guidelines. As it is, if you keep this up you'll be continually upsetting about 80% of your friends here at the help desk - and causing a rift in the community for the other 20%. Please - don't do this. SteveBaker 01:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Stu: I have this terrible pain whenever I twist my arm around this way. What should I do? Edison 16:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I get a similar pain whenever I try to have a civil, logical conversation with many of the Admins here, although the pain isn't in my arm. StuRat 18:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

wunderground.com

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)

You're quite welcome, glad you like it ! StuRat 13:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wunderground is also one of my favourite sites, and I'm so glad to see it being recommended :) Skittle 12:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously?

"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)

Yes, I am serious. Clio has said the same and worse (like her rant today on the people at Wikiversity which she calls "the realm of the stupid, the second-rate, the vicious and the petty-minded"), but rarely even gets chastised by an Admin, much less blocked, while anyone who aimed such comments at her gets chastised immediately and blocked or banned eventually. I don't want to discuss the "other serious nutjobs" here, but applying the strictest possible interpretation of Wikipedia policies (many of which clearly aren't applicable at all to the Ref Desk, but are meant for articles only), as well as making up absurd arguments such as us being arrested for practicing medicine without a license or being guilty of posting SPAM for providing a link to a sister project, might give you some clues as to what I'm talking about. The prevalence of such completely illogical arguments shakes my faith in Wikipedia. I have long ago lost faith in the "Admins for life" concept. StuRat 01:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi StuRat. I missed Clio's little dig at you at the time, just noticing it now. I have reminded her of WP:NPA. Likewise, you should be aware that "posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it... Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators". If you are going to complain about the attacks of others, calling them a "nutjob" from the saftey of another site is unlikely to garner much sympathy for you. As i said, just a friendly notice... Rockpocket 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

First, that policy only applies to sites "not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation", not Wikiversity. Second, I've not provided any links to attacks, although you and others have (does that make you in violation of the policy ?). Finally, your "reminder" to Clio couldn't have possibly been worded any softer, along with the "please feel free to remove this" language. Why can't you, or any other Admin, ever be firm with her, and say something like "this language will not be tolerated" ? You have absolutely no problem saying that to others when they behave as she does. StuRat 19:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, why doesn't the "you have no right to complain because you do it too" logic ever apply to Clio ? More favoritism at work ? StuRat 19:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly that part that is under dispute is the 3RR on removing attack links. Secondly, that quote does not explicitly relate to links, the following subsection is about external links. The part I quoted speaks for itself: "posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community." The fact that you appear to acknowledge you made a personal attack, and instead choose to wikilawyer over whether policy explicitly forbids it speaks volumes. How about you just stop doing it? Namecalling has no place on any wiki-project, that applies to you and Clio. She is aware of that, now you are too.

Finally, I find that Clio is more responsive to friendly notices. Unlike certain other editors, she does not strive to wikilawyer around every warning and play games with semantics. She either accepts it or disputes it, I don't care which, as long as she doesn't continue doing it. You, on the other hand, appear to do anything you can to bend the rules to suit your purposes, even to the extent of jumping ship and making attacks from the apparent safety of Wikiversity. If that continues I will consider it "an aggravating factor". Oh, and just in case you were not aware. Please feel free to remove this notice from you page if you desire. Rockpocket 20:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

1) You seem to have responded too quickly. I figured out which section you had linked to and revised my comments accordingly, but you responded to the old comments. Please reread my current comments and respond accordingly.

2) She may apologize or not (she never has apologized to me), but in either case she does continue with the insults. I expect to see a continuing chain of insults from her here, with no action taken against her (in fact, the continuing chain of insults is because no firm action is ever taken against her). She has now moved to placing insults on Wikiversity, as well (she just said she "despises" me and "pities" Lewis).

3) You don't seem to have answered why the "you have no right to complain because you do it too" logic doesn't ever apply to Clio. StuRat 04:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Matrixism Deleted by Rogue Administrator

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)

Thanks, do you have any links to where his status is being discussed ? Also, did you just forget to log in or do you prefer to remain anonymous ? StuRat 17:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the proper spelling is "rouge." Edison (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If I ever incorrectly spell "rogue" as "rouge", you will be able to tell from my apparent blushing as well as the stampede of people telling me I messed up. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Isochoric process now available to normal people

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)

Ok, I made some changes and comments (basically, I feel it's important to have material for both the general and technical audiences). StuRat 14:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I thought your changes were an improvement. A.Z. 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and let me know if any other articles need a review for a general audience. StuRat 02:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple Math Question -- Need Help -- Leap Years (?)

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.

• Person A is born on 12/18/1946 and dies on 03/21/1994
• Person B is born on 12/18/1904 and dies on 03/20/1952

Method One

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.

Method Two

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.)

Method Three

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.

Method Four

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.

Question

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))

All the methods are correct, but methods 1 and 4 are more useful for comparing ages. The reason is that methods 2 and 3 each count "47 years", but those years have variable lengths, some being leap years and some not. As it works out, the 47 years between 12/18/1946 and 12/18/1993 contain 12 leap days (48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92) while the 47 years between 12/18/1904 and 12/18/1951 contain 11 leap days (08, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48). Note that 1952 is not in the 47 year period in the second case. StuRat 07:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, had methods 2 and 3 counted from death back in time, the 47 years in each period both would have 12 leap years: 03/21/1947 to 03/21/1994 (48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92) and 03/20/1905 to 03/20/1952 (08, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52). The number of additional days would be 93 from 12/18/1946 to 03/21/1947 but only 92 from 12/18/1904 to 03/20/1905. Thus, you would get ages of 47 years, 93 days and 47 years, 92 days, respectively. The lesson ? Don't use variable sized units if you want an accurate result. StuRat 07:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, StuRat. Thank you for your reply to my question posted on the Math Help Desk (referenced aboved). I appreciate it. However, I am confused now more than ever. Can you please help me understand this situation? It's driving me nuts. Thanks so much. If you like, please start your explanation from scratch -- so that I can follow it more easily. However, I thought it was important to note that both people (A and B) lived through 12 leap days in the course of their lives. At some point, you said that one guy only had 11 leap days, while the other had 12. (You lost me there.) Then, you said, if we count "backwards" (from death to birth), then they both have 12 leap days in their lifetimes. (Huh? You lost me there again.) So, I am very lost lost (= lost squared). Ha ha. Would you mind explaining this again, starting from scratch? Thanks a lot. By the way, to clarify confusion: when you say the word "year", please indicate if you mean a calendar year (January 1 to December 31 of 1962, for example) ... or if you mean a full year of the person's life (December 18, 1957 to December 18, 1958, for example). Thanks again for your time and patience. Please reply at my Talk Page: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. (Joseph A. Spadaro 14:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

Follow-up. The issue is that the 1952 leap day is not counted as part of a "year", but as a separate day, using methods 2 and 3. The period used for the final year is 12/18/1950 to 12/18/1951, which does not include February 29, 1952. Thus you have an extra leap day, not part of the "47 years". This doesn't happen with the other person because his year of death, 1994, was not a leap year. So, while both people had 12 leap days in their lives, methods 2 and 3 only count, for the person who died in 1952, 11 of those in the "years" and one as a separate day, while they count all 12 of those in the "years" and none as a separate day, for the person who died in 1994. StuRat 15:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a way we can simplify the problem, leave off the first 44 years, which contain 11 leap days in either case:

{{age in years and days|1904|12|18|1948|12|18}} =

44 years, 0 days

{{age in years and days|1946|12|18|1990|12|18}} = 44 years, 0 days

{{age in days|1904|12|18|1948|12|18}} =

16071

{{age in days|1946|12|18|1990|12|18}} = 16071

This leaves us with the portion that contains the "discrepancy":

{{age in years and days|1948|12|18|1952|03|20}} =

3 years, 93 days

{{age in years and days|1990|12|18|1994|03|21}} = 3 years, 93 days

{{age in days|1948|12|18|1952|03|20}} =

1188

{{age in days|1990|12|18|1994|03|21}} = 1189

Now, let's break down how those calcs are done:

{{age in days|1948|12|18|1949|12|18}} = 365

{{age in days|1949|12|18|1950|12|18}} = 365

{{age in days|1950|12|18|1951|12|18}} = 365

{{age in days|1951|12|18|1952|03|20}} = 93 <- Leap day included

{{age in days|1990|12|18|1991|12|18}} = 365

{{age in days|1991|12|18|1992|12|18}} = 366 <- Leap day included

{{age in days|1992|12|18|1993|12|18}} = 365

{{age in days|1993|12|18|1994|03|21}} = 93

So, by shifting the leap day out of one of the "years" and into the days counted separately, it appears that an equal length of time has passed, when, in fact, the 2nd interval is a day longer. Note that all ranges were assumed to be from noon on the starting day to noon on the ending day (or from the same time on both days, in any case). StuRat 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not StuRat, but perhaps I can help as well. You've hit on the problem on the RefDesk as well as here:

• year is used as a term meaning "sometimes 365 days and sometimes 366 days, starting from an arbitrary point" (in this case, that point is Dec 18)

This gives you two different meanings of the word "year" scattered across your examples, intermingled in the final answer, with no further distinction given. That ambiguity is why you get the varied results for "years + days lived" even though it's quite easy to agree that persons A and B lived a different number of days.

Does that clarify the issue, or are you looking for a more explicit breakdown? — Lomn 13:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I appreciate the thorough explanations. I need a chance to read through them carefully and digest them. I will see if I understand this situation, or not, and get back to you as appropriate. Many thanks again. This problem was really stumping me, and I assume that your thorough explanations will make sense of it, after I have had a chance to read/digest/process them. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

OK, once you get a chance to look it all over, please let me know if it makes sense. The source of the problem seems to be defining a year as anything other than a calendar year (Jan 1 - Dec 31), which means leap days may, or may not, be included, depending on which days are defined as the "year" and which are the extra days. StuRat 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

RD: Decline

I have replied to your response in the Reference desk question "Decline". --Taraborn 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link or at least tell me which Reference Desk ? StuRat 17:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Taraborn is referring to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Decline. - hydnjo talk 02:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I managed to find it on my own. Thanks. StuRat 04:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-Euclidean?

Would you consider editing a paragraph in Isaac Titsingh?

"Titsingh returned to Europe where, among several other "firsts", he became the first to introduce the unique Wasan/Euclidean mathematics of sangaku to the West....link to sangaku overview, Princeton University...link to sangaku explanation -- digitized photos and geometry graphics (text in Dutch)'

What about supplementing this text with something like these two sentences as an in-line footnote?

Maths arising independent of any Greek foundation could and did develop a geometry un-inflected by the input of Euclid's systemic approach. And yet, the term "non-Euclidean" would be misleading or wrongly applicable to Wasan or sangaku because the modern idea of alternatives to the Euclidean proofs are inextricably intertwined with an intellectual exercise which involves modifying the basic postulates of observed reality.

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 tend to agree. Is "un-inflected" supposed to mean "uninfluenced" ? If so, that's an odd way to say it. Also, I'd say "mathematics", not "maths", since "maths" sounds strange in American English, where "mathematics" is abbreviated as "math". Finally, may I ask why you came to me with this request ? I would seem to be an odd choice. StuRat 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have presented an unwelcome query .... I simply wanted to expand a one-sentence paragraph which, I suppose, does already stand well enough on its own. I had thought you might have a valuable perspective which could help make the article better. A difficult-to-parse sequence led to my mistaken impression that you could embody a somewhat rare blend of interests in pre-Meiji Japanese history and in non-Japanese Euclidean geometry.

As for why I contacted you now: It just happens that in the past week, Nik42 made an uncommonly crisp and insightful comment at Talk:Japanese era name; and when I followed that user-link, I stumbled across your user-name. No doubt you've forgotten, but in 2006, you were asking Nik42 about an obscure Edo period controversy:

• Kan'ei 6 (1627): The "Purple Clothes Incident" (紫衣事件, shi-e jiken): The Emperor was accused of having bestowed honorific purple garments to more than ten priests despite the shogun's edict which banned them for two years (probably in order to break the bond between the Emperor and religious circles). The shogunate intervened making the bestowing of the garments invalid.

For some time, this enigmatic subject has been on my short list of things to look into a bit further ... and then I noticed that your user page mentions Euclidean distance as one of the articles in which you felt your contribution was noteworthy. Ergo, I added 2+2 and came up with a wrong sum. It was all a bit of a stretch, I know; but there you have it. I took a chance, but it didn't work out as well as I'd hoped.

It all had to do with improving Isaac Titsingh. What more can I say? This appears to be one of those times when I'm learning the hard way .... --Ooperhoofd 06:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, it makes sense now. I do indeed remember those edits, although, until now, I never thought of there being any link between them. Well, no harm done, and I hope my suggestions on that paragraph are helpful. StuRat 12:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Carpal tunnel syndrome

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)

Get well soon (is that medical advice?) & do come here when you can - you are very much appreciated. DuncanHill 17:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ! It has reduced to a level where I can contribute a bit. StuRat 17:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A.Z.'s block

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. Rockpocket 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a horrid way to conduct business. How are we to know if we should object to the block (to Jimbo Wales) and ask him to overrule the ArbComm if everything they do is secret ? It's one thing to say "this isn't a democracy", but denying the "common people" even with the most basic info of who decided to impose a block, for how long, and for what reason, seriously undermines my confidence in "the system". As for A.Z., I've seen no evidence that he is personally a pedophile, and haven't even seen any evidence that he holds pro-pedophile views. The edits of his I've seen so far appear to be rather balanced on the issue. Do you have any other edits you can point out that I may have missed ? StuRat 20:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, do you have any info on the block and locking of User:A.Z.'s talk page ? Were these actions actually requested by the Arb Comm or is User:Dmcdevit acting on his own ? (How do I find out who locked the page ?). StuRat 20:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the block of his talk page was done by User:JzG, who, strangely, doesn't even have a user page of his own. StuRat 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to front:

• JzG deleted his own user page in September per WP:CSD#G7. I don't know the reasons for protecting his page apart from his justification "Arbs can write, and A.Z. really does not need the drama in a sensitive case like this.". I'm guessing it because demands for information were not constructive, the real relevant informed discussions need to take place privately and thus anyone with anything to say should send it to ArbCom. They tried asking people to do that, but they continued to protest of A.Z.'s talk page.
• I'm the dark about this as much as you. Dmcdevit's comments seems to suggest he was acting "for and on behalf of" ArbCom and thus I don't see any reason to believe he being untruthful about that. Whether ArbCom is aware of something we are not, or have made a decision based on the same information we have, I don't know. If it is the former, was are not in a position to criticize their decision, if it is the latter, then I think it is a poor decision. Based on my experience, I'm guessing it is the former.
• I don't have any specific edits of A.Z.'s to hand, I'll see what I can find later. However, he generally espoused the view that adult-child sex isn't necessarily child sex abuse and was involved in efforts to distinguish the two from each other in article space. Those sort of arguments are not atypical among the pro-paedophilia lobby during attempts to POV-fork (though, again, I don't have any reason to believe that was A.Z.'s motivation).
• You make a fair point. How can there be oversight of ArbCom, even by Jimbo, if he is not even aware of ArbCom's actions? I don't know if Jimbo has access to all of ArbCom's private discussion, perhaps he does (you could ask him). However, I agree with you that if there are non-transparent decisions made then, there perhaps should be some mechanism through which we (the community) are at least made aware of what has happened, even if we can't know the exact reasons for it. That might be as simple as making it explicitly clear in the blocking rationale (to be fair, Dmcdevit did note he was blocking for "engaging in pedophilia advocacy, appeals go to arbcom per talk page" which would suggest it was an ArbCom decision) or perhaps there should be a page listing non-transparent ArbCom actions with a brief rationale, so we can all see what ArbCom is up to. The problem, of course, is that such a page would result in lots of people arguing with all of ArbCom's decisions (as we see with A.Z.'s case) because as far as they can tell the person doesn't deserve to be blocked. However, if the reason they were blocked was obvious to the community then there wouldn't be a need for it to be dealt with privately! The only way to break the circular reasoning is to trust the integrity of ArbCom and, as a check and balance, trust that Jimbo has the ability to oversee their decisions properly (i.e. that he has access to the same information as they do). Other things we could ask for is that, once the appeal is finished and everything is settled, a member of ArbCom provide as much information as they can for the reason behind the block in the blocked person's talk page. I find they are usually as forthcoming as they can be if you ask them respectfully and at the appropriate juncture.
• Personally I don't think it is a "horrid" system. The project has a legal and ethical obligation to respect the privacy of individuals by controlling identifying information (which, for example, is why checkuser information is limited and controlled). This means there will be occasions where evidence and information must remain private. In those instances there cannot be public scrutiny and we simply have to trust in those people elected or appointed to make the appropriate decision. In this instance the most basic information were there for those that know where to look: who decided to impose a block (Dmcdevit, "for and on behalf of" ArbCom) for how long (indefinately), and for what reason (for engaging in pedophilia advocacy). Rockpocket 21:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think they could make a lot more of the process public without violating anyone's privacy:

1) Make a copy of any discussion or decision on page-locked site with any personal info (names, I/P addresses, etc.) redacted. The page-lock will prevent people from complaining there, and the redacting will ensure privacy.

2) There is no reason why this has to wait until the process is completed. They may be basing decisions on incomplete or incorrect info, which could be remedied if those people with the info knew Arb Comm had bad or missing info they were using. StuRat 01:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Its rarely that simple. People are naturally curious (why is partly the reason we are all interested in why A.Z. was blocked), I would argue people who choose to spend their free time contributing to an encyclopaedia are at the extreme end of the curious spectrum too. I was privy to restricted information on a recent case and ArbCom, rightly so, would not say anything more about it publically because even saying what had happened in the most general terms would have sent everyone scurrying off to search, looking for anything that might fit. That serves no purpose. Either is causes people to jump to the wrong conclusions or someone makes the right conclusion and suddenly the information is no longer private. Also, while we can delete and oversight info from Wikipedia, we have no control of what happens on forks or other sites (this is partly the reasoning behind WP:BADSITES). At the end of the day, personal security/privacy trumps pretty much everything else and if that means we are all left in the dark while the case is discussed, I'll accept that. What would not be acceptable if A.Z. was kept in the dark, but we have no reason to believe that is the case. Rockpocket 01:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me some indication of what the case was you were involved with and what privacy issues were being discussed ? I still think the Arb Comm needs to follow the principles of the United States' Freedom of Information Act, which is that every bit of info should be disclosed unless that particular bit of info would cause harm (except that they shouldn't wait until the info is requested). Unfortunately, many in the US gov and Wikipedia apparently think the reverse, that everything should be kept private, unless they are forced to divulge it. StuRat 12:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, the information was an individual's home address, and the incident in question is summarized here. I would note, however, the offending edit was oversighted a week or so after it was made (completely removed from the record), so by the time that evidence was presented, it could be discussed openly because there was no way anyone could dig up the edit and find the personal information. However, before oversight was carried out, there was demands that the edit leading to the block be identified, leading to a frenzied debate on the editor in question's talk page (see here for an example, but the whole page is relevant). Its easy to oversight single edits on Wikipedia, and then they can be discussed without fear that the personal information will leak (the equivalent of Freedom of Information releases, with sensitive details blanked out). Everything gets a lot more complicated when the information cannot be oversighted and is still out there to be found. In those cases admins/ArbCom have their hands tied. This is the problem with the FOI system: it only works when you can control the flow of sensitive information.

To be honest, though, this is all speculation. For all I know there is no sensitive information in A.Z.'s case specifically. Rockpocket 22:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's beginning to look as though the blocking Admin lied about it being on behalf of the ArbComm. A.Z. sent me an e-mail saying he had no dealings with, or notification from, the ArbComm prior to the block. I asked one of the ArbComm members, and, while being evasive, he seems to support what A.Z. said, and not the blocking Admin. StuRat 03:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Toys Я Us advertisment

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,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that all ? I was thinking it was something funny. Thanks. StuRat 01:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Carols

Here's my own version of two songs:

Winter Wonderland

In the winter we can build a snow man,

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...

Then we'll make 'em walk home,

when it's twenty below...

walking through a winter wonderland,

...walking through a winter wonderland.

Silver Balls

People pointing, people laughing,

At the gym and doctor's,

I'm starting to hate...

being naked.

Silver Balls, Silver Balls...

I've taken too much colloidal silver.

Silver Balls, Silver Balls...

I've taken too much, by far.

StuRat (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Boolean logic

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)

Thanks, I'll take a look. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Boolean algebra task force

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)

regarding excess water intake!

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)

CECB List

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	Yes	Yes	Denca Industrial Ltd.	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†	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	No	Yes	No	LG Electronics	LG DT1111D	SoC Integrated	LG Innotek TDVG-H151F	Now/Next	D, L, P, V	$60 -> Circuit City

Other Features Breakdown

Other Features (see table above for which boxes have which)

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.

High Output Renal Failure

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)

Thanks. Please let me know if there's any progress. StuRat (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Humour

		Wikipedia Happy Funnel Award
		StuRat, for your merry contribution at the Refdesk here[10] 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)

Thanks ! Now if only I can think of something romantic to do with a funnel... StuRat (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You will. If anyone can, you will, : )) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

:-) StuRat (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been in extremely good form lately

As in "Waiting for Mister Right." [11]Edison (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...and if the young, fictional woman who made that comment was criticized for her actions, I suppose she could always turn the other cheek (or perhaps a deaf ear). StuRat (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RefDesk

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)

Your welcome. You sound like a good friend. StuRat (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Update on the "flaming drink" question

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)

The freezing method (or the more common evaporation method) isn't going to work to purify alcohol further. That's why they only sell 95% alcohol, it's difficult to get a higher percentage through distillation. There probably are ways, but they are prohibitively expensive, like a high speed centrifuge.

Another suggestion, why not film the flaming drink part and show that during each showing. This will get by the problem of it not lighting all the time and the potential danger. I realize it may not have quite the impact on film, but that's a trade-off you may have to make. StuRat (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

economics

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)

Sounds good. I will also try to convince you that Bush is an idiot. I think you're about the only person who still thinks he was a good President. Amazingly, fiscal conservatives aren't happy with him, due to the massive expansion of the national debt (because of Iraq and little effort to reign in social programs), and religious conservatives are mad at him for not addressing any of their issues, like banning abortion and gay marriage. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

formating hints/ ref. desk

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)

LOL, you forgot to sign. You may find I'm closer to your generation than you think, being a Fortran programmer myself. StuRat (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Gully e-card...

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)

Glad you liked it, I thought you might. The way he fed one then a dozen more showed up seemed spot on. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

They forgot to show the first gull going into an attack stance and trying in vain to defend the food from the others, before getting pushed aside and ending up with little or nothing. Now that would be true to life... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

hi

Hi, StuRat - any chance of dropping me a line? - adambrowne666athotmail.com - ta Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. You want me to send you an e-mail ? If so, regarding what topic ? Do you possibly have me confused with someone else ? StuRat (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

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)

Language of the dinosaurs

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)

I used it in my last job, which was writing CAD programs for Newport News shipyards. It seems far less prone to errors from common problems like confusing pointers, addresses, and values, and failing to add a null terminator to the end of a character string. StuRat (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I Lol'd

[12]. :) --Sean 13:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thx ! StuRat (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You're still mr. wonderfull (of toe jam) to me. Only you could pull off having your foot iin your mouth with aplombb. X-) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but when Little Jack Horner embarasses himself, he puts his foot in his mouth with a plumb. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Are you hanging with Cookatoo lately?

I suppose I'll have to, as it's too late to hang with him earlyly. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Timbre!

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)

Well, if that's the rule you want to implement, I'd be happy to abbey, although, I'm sure, others would want nun of it. StuRat (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about a "rule", that seems like process monkery, which is a cardinal sin as you know. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Acid Reflux

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)

Sorry I couldn't help more. On the plus side, if this causes you to have a healthier diet than most, perhaps you can avoid many of the health problems others suffer as a result of their poor diets. StuRat (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Removing medical questions

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)

I didn't say anything on your talk page before, with the euthanasia question removal, but started seeing a bad pattern developing with your removals, so decided to speak up. And no, don't remove something your unsure of "just because it's better to be safe than sorry". In cases like that, take it to the Ref Desk Talk Page and gather a consensus before removal. StuRat (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, consider that removing a question is like a slap in the face to the OP, and we don't want to do that type of thing unless absolutely necessary. StuRat (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, i'm sorry for being hasty with the removal but I didn't feel the way you approached me was very respectful at all. A careful comment stating your opinion would have sufficed but instead i've been labelled overzealous. You came across in a manner which, to me, is disrespectful. However, in future I will be more careful. It seemed fairly clear-cut to me at the time that it was requesting medical advice so I went with my instinct and removed it, knowing full well it wouldn't be hard to add again if people disagreed. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 22:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to soften the harshness a bit, let me say that I'm glad you left a notice that the question had been removed as medical advice, versus deleting all signs of the question. If we do run across an actual request for medical diagnosis or advice, then that is one valid way to handle it. However, I actually prefer to leave the question, post your opinion that it's about medical advice, then redirect it. For example, in the case of the medication dosage question, we could say "Always follow the recommended dosage on the bottle. If you're unsure of the proper dosage, consult your pharmacist. If you feel the dosage should be changed, consult your doctor." StuRat (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Summer!

Happy First Day of Summer!

A Beautiful Summer Field

Summer is a time for freshly grown fruits and vegetables.

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!

Give this greeting to others by adding {{subst:First Day of Summer}} on their Talk Page.

Summer Madness?

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)

Unfortunately, they will make a habit of it. I understand when people don't quite know where to post a question about how their iPod can display different languages (Science, Computers, Entertainment, Language, Misc ?), but some just seem to pick a Desk at random for questions which obviously belong on one particular Desk. StuRat (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And this one[13] even in Tagalog. Geez, (moove)... Julia Rossi (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The author of that Tagalog Q will just have to tag along for the ride to the Language Desk. StuRat (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Where they got an astonishing eruditely magnificent answer with the Greek thrown in! Jackpot! Julia Rossi (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's all Greek to me (and probably to the OP, as well). I'm glad you MOOved it to where they got a good answer, though. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Are the rich immoral?

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)

I certainly don't think that anyone who employs the poor is immoral. However, you seem to imply that anything a business does, so long as it's not illegal, is moral. Here I strongly disagree. Note that all those immoral business practices you listed were legal at the time they were practiced. A business has more of an obligation to it's employees than just to follow the laws, IMHO. For example, businesses that intentionally cut their employees back to one hour less than full time, so they can deny benefits legally, are skirting the law intentionally just to take advantage of their employees. Other businesses expect employees to work unpaid overtime, and give them poor reviews if they refuse ("not a team player"). There are countless other practices designed to intentionally exploit employees. While such practices may provide short-term benefits to the employer, I have to think they harm the business in the long run, by causing a high employee turnover rate and employees who hate the company and want it to fail. StuRat (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we're on the same side after all. I wasn't trying to imply that legal implies moral - sorry for the misunderstanding. I think that my use of the word legitimate wasn't very good because I meant it in a subjective way but I'm still struggling to articulate what I mean ("if it's not immoral then it's not immoral"?). I only entered that thread because of user:DeborahJay's use of the word "pocketed". Providers of capital definitely deserve to be rewarded for the risk they bear.

I think that we disagree on the scale of the problem. In my opinion (and limited experience), most business owners these days prefer to take care of their working-class employees, perhaps for the reasons you mentioned. But I think that you might disagree, right? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's maybe 50-50. Underfunded pension funds (which are guaranteed to collapse when the company does) are another way companies take advantage of their employees legally. Ironically, companies which put their employees and customers first may be more profitable, in the long run, than those which put profits first. Unfortunately, American companies, owned by stockholders who want to make a quick buck, and controlled by CEOs who are often replaced, have a very short-term outlook which prevents them from concerning themselves with what's good for the company in the long run. Being from Detroit, I continue to be astonished by the car company's total lack of planning for the future. It's like they never even considered that gas prices might go up. They should have had fuel efficient cars designed and ready to build when oil prices rose, but just kept designing huge SUVs, instead, because that strategy maximized profits for the next quarter. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the car companies didn't expect demand for SUVs to change despite the increased oil price. Have Americans really changed their driving patterns or their preference for "gas-guzzlers" in response to higher oil prices? Here in South Africa (where petrol is fairly cheap), I'm starting to notice people trying to get rid of their expensive cars for cheaper and more fuel-efficient ones. Note that South African interest rates are currently very high with no signs of decreasing any time soon. In the US, petrol is very cheap and interest rates are low (with potential increases unlikely) so I don't think the car companies expected much of a change in demand. If demand did change much, could it be because of the downturn in the economy in general coupled with higher oil prices? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think many people are yet abandoning their current large SUVs, but very few are going to buy a new SUV with gas prices where they (and the threat of going much higher). This is what the car companies should have known. It's not rocket science to know that when fuel prices go up, gas-guzzler sales will plummet. So, if gas prices stay where they are or for the next 5-10 years, that will get most the gas-guzzlers off the road due to attrition. If the gas price doubled, that might get people to retire their huge SUVs even earlier than planned. StuRat (talk) 20:05, 28 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)

Let's hope so... StuRat (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Phew

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)

You're welcome, and keep up the good work ! StuRat (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Re refdesk talk, the Ent desk -- has it ever been so famous?  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

...or ever so entertaining ? Personally I think the Entertainment Desk is a good place to quanrantine all our Pokemon questions, to keep them from infecting the healthy Desks. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Identifying internet bot

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)

Hi, I do understand about wikipedia bots. But sometimes it happen that IPs make edits in wikis which are actually not operated by humans. How to identify this phenomenon? How will I understand by seeing an IP address if it is a bot or not? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

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)

You're welcome. I hope this is the last we see of that troll. StuRat (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on it... ZigZap (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RD diagnoses

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)

I'm disappointed that your first response here was to revert me without discussion, and to assert a consensus that was not apparent. Before you choose to revert me again, can you please participate in the discussion at WT:RD? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have: [14]. I am very dissapointed that you removed the question without a consensus or even discussion, and then only added it to the discussion page as an afterthought. As I've stated many times in the past, if you expect people to not revert your removals without consensus, then you need to offer the same courtesy and not delete questions without consensus. And, in this case, it was quite obvious that this was a matter of dispute, based on the comments of myself and others at the question. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you see it as an 'afterthought'? I removed the diagnosis, posted here to your talk page as rapidly as possible as a courtesy, and immediately after that posted a request for comment on WT:RD. The entire process took sixteen minutes, and I did nothing in the intervening time.

Your understanding of the existing guidelines is flawed. Where there is a reasonable apprehension that a question seeks medical advice, the question (and answers) should not be restored until there is a consensus to do so. If you are certain that your position is correct, then please wait for a real consensus to be established at WT:RD—the question will be restored in due time.

I will be asking at AN/I for a neutral admin to step in, since you seem bent on edit warring in contravention of the guidelines. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, and I would say the person who first did the removal without consensus is the one starting the edit war, and that would be you. I'm also guessing that any guideline that says that anyone can unilaterally remove questions but nobody can restore them without a consensus was created in the same way (added without consensus, but with removal of that guideline requiring a consensus). StuRat (talk) 05:10, 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)

However, the consensus at the Ref Desk talk page and at the question itself is that it's not a question seeking a medical diagnosis or advice. It wasn't appropriate for Ten to bypass the consensus-building process at the Ref Desk and take it to AN/I. StuRat (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree with your analysis of the discussion at WT:RD. The OP does not state that a new tooth has erupted or that a dentist has said that a new tooth is growing, therefore, we cannot assume that it is actually a tooth and not something else. —Travis^talk 14:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you're going with the absurd suggestion that the OP can't properly identify a tooth. I will trust that the OP isn't an idiot. StuRat (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Travis, when answering, we have to assume that it is, in fact, a tooth. Things would get out of hand pretty quickly if we continuously second guessed the premises to our OPs' questions. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You two are assuming that a tooth has erupted or has otherwise been positively identified. All I’m saying is that the OP did not make it clear and that a lump under the gum is not necessarily a tooth. The OP wrote, “is growing a new tooth,” not, “had a new tooth come in.” —Travis^talk 15:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, now that the OP has clarified his question, the point appears to be moot. Cheers —Travis^talk 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Heady header

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)

Had I added a header that said "Nonconsensus deletionists at it again", then I'd agree. However, my "Tooth question" header is completely neutral, while "Tooth advice" was not, and was completely false in that no advice of any type was solicited by the OP (had they asked if the tooth should be pulled, then that would be an advice question). Opinionated headers should be avoided, as they tend to make the situation worse. I also draw a distinction between user talk pages and article talk pages, where more effort should be made to remain neutral. StuRat (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is crazy?!

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.

I agree completely. Removing a post is like a slap in the face, especially to newbies, and should only be done under extreme circumstances. There are more Ref Desk users who agree with this, but, unfortunatley, those who disagree are Admins and tend to ignore the will of the majority. Still, if we stick together and fight such unilateral actions, we can prevent things from getting even worse. I hope you'll stick around. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In the lawsuit-happy climate of the United States, we must err on the side of caution when it comes to anything that could be perceived as medical, legal, financial, or any other advice which could easily lead to litigation. —Travis^talk 15:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

20 minutes before travis' response[15][16][17] 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)

I can't imagine any way the question asked and answers given could possibly lead to Wikipedia losing a lawsuit. On the other hand, we routinely answer questions on explosives and such that could easily lead to that. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 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.

Look at this graphic.

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[18] for more brain workouts. Sentriclecub (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

greenlight a movie

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)

More of the latter, I would think. At that point in the process the producer and director may not even have been chosen, yet. I would expect a team of accountants would have to OK the pic before that. StuRat (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saving pages

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)

Personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alinex

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)

Where you been?

Hi StuRat, missing you, hope all is well... Julia Rossi (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Julia, and thanks for the kind word. I injured my back and wasn't feeling up to using the computer much (sitting at the chair was painful). It's getting better now, so hopefully I can use the computer at least a bit. StuRat (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! (sorry about that goddorfl pun) of course meaning get well soon. Sorry about your injury and a big one at that. It's so nice to see your post at the ent desk. =) take care, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll let that crack slide. Does that mean I'm spineless ? I wish ! Those lucky octopuses ! (Or is it octopi ? ... no, that's a pie shaped like a stop sign, isn't it ?) {Note that I've included a link on "stop sign", just in case Aussie stop signs are shaped like wombats.} :-) StuRat (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's exactly like the ones I ignore over here. ; ) but whenever there's a wombat one, I do take notice. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Then you should start a movement to have all stop signs there changed to the shape of wombats, so Aussies will actually notice them. :-) StuRat (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

haha, good one. Coincidentally I stopped for three ducks crossing today, (and there was a ducks sign). Awww, : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A sign for ducks crossing right where they cross ? I'm impressed. The Aussie road crews obviously have all their ducks in a row... :-) StuRat (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah SR, if you could see our crews, you'd know it was the ducks getting it together,  :-) Julia Rossi (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good form

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)

Thanks, I'm just glad there's 'shroom for humor at the Desks. StuRat (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If not, we can start a nitting circle. =) Julia Rossi (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, picking nits off with nitting needles sounds as hard as picking rice up with chopsticks. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I presume anyone who drives through blizzards to find buzzards at Christmas is merely being modest. (You could try it with chopsticks, this is a post-modern-type nitting circle) ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a four-wheel drive truck, so driving through inclement weather is no problem, especially when one considers the added traction provided by all those subcompacts I drive over. StuRat (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Something like that, yes

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)

OK, I don't want you to tell me, if you'd have to kill me afterwards. :-) My experience as an instructor (often working long hours, and sometimes at defense contractors) is purely anecdotal, so I guess you'll need others to point you toward the studies you seek. StuRat (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

flaminglawyer^cneverforget 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.

Thanks, and I certainly will consider giving gifts to those I've had disagreements with in the past...at least if I can find that box of exploding candy canes. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

and you can include my list. I found that very sin-spiring. Have yourself a merry little Christmas ti-ime. (I trust you to think parody, SR.) : )) from Julia Rossi (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you heard my version of Winter Wonderland ?

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)

<applause> Respek! Be sure to put out the CD in time for next Christmas and I want one!  : )) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it out on a flash drive, made especially for flashers. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You must have this...

Happy Christmas from Australia!

Happy Christmas, Sturat. After dose gypfies! "They'll steal your eye teeth" ~ wishing you every success dealing with snowmen vandals ~ from Julia R. o<| =)

Julia Rossi (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ! I was afraid to open the card, thinking I'd find an elf peeking out of a kangaroo's pouch. StuRat (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The kangaroo would be even more afraid! Ching ching ching, ching ching ching... Julia Rossi (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea, those pointy elf shoes could really hurt momma roo. (Maybe that's why some of them are curled up at the end ?) StuRat (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...

This. To be honest, I'd very much like to see said infomercial. :) · AndonicO ^Engage. 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that infomercial was pretty funny alright, right up there with the Flowbee and hair in a spray paint can. StuRat (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Jet fuel

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)

You're quite welcome. StuRat (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		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)

You're welcome, and I hope such questions are never banned,

...as that would leave us with questions which are only bland. StuRat (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

new WP:RDREG userbox

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. flaminglawyer^c 07:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I added it, thanks ! StuRat (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Pianissimo forte

Trust you to invent music terrorism, >)) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, by dropping a piano on a crowd. And here I thought "musical" terrorism was those people who play their car stereos so loud that their tires rarely touch the ground. StuRat (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You might also appreciate my Unclyclopedia entry for Ethan Allen: [19]. StuRat (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I see EA is your thought-ancestor of furniture terrorism. Did he invent buzzword terrorism in defeating the French oops British? Looks like music terrorism keeps its definition as per the bouncing car and there's an item I don't know the name of, an enclosed van with levels to burst people's ear drums in the few seconds they stay inside. Apparently the noise forces them to enjoy brief pain, then quickly quit. Is there an article on this kind of thing? *hint hint* :) Julia Rossi (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Strangely, my Unclyclopedia article appears to have been expunged, with no reason given. I'm guessing that they have a "no violence jokes" policy that even extends to historical, fictional violence during war. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That was quick. Can you get a pee review? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A pee review ? "It was a pale yellow, with a nice frothy head of foam...". :-) StuRat (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This one[20], for bringing doomed articles back from extinction (apparently). Ewww, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And do they call for a pee review when they suspect "yellow journalism" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you SR

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)

This reminds me of the Lorena Bobbitt case. If nothing else, they should have at least convicted her of littering. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello.

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)

Sure, we can discuss science or math here. However, if you have a specific question, the Ref Desk Science or Math pages might be better, as then you will get my contributions and the contributions of others. The others can be a bit mean, though, at times, so you can come here to talk if you feel abused. Also, thanks for the barnstar ! StuRat (talk) 16:22, 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)

The RefDesk

		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)

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

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 <<. Ikip (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. But how do you keep an AfD article from being deleted mid-improvement ? StuRat (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That depends if it is speedy delete or regular delete (Afd), if it is speedy delete you can add {{hangon}}, if it is a regular delete (Afd), you can add {{rescue}}. the rescue tag alerts squadron members to come and help you complete the article, by adding well referenced sources.

But as PC PRO journalist Dick Pountain found:

"For an example of the dark side [of Web 2.0] running out of control, though, check out Wikipedia...In the NYRB article Baker explains how Wikipedia continually struggles to repel vandalisation...but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight. This is such a strong claim that it needed checking, so I decided to attempt an edit myself…I wrote a roughly 100-word potted history of [The Political Quarterly]… within five minutes I received a message to the effect that this entry has no content…and has been put up for "express deletion…It seems Wikipedia has completed the journey by arriving at an online equivalent of the midnight door-knock and the book bonfire".[21]

See also Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation#Journalists, and User:I'm Spartacus!/Why I hate Speedy Deleters

If an article is deleted, you have several avenues of recourse available: User:Ikip/AfD

I hope I (over) answered your question. Please message me on my talk page, if you wish to continue this conversation. Ikip (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh you do trot them out

Egyptian pigs can't fly (and never will now) but at least one Mexican pig flu. SpinningSpark 18:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the swine flu outbreak is due to the record amounts of pork in the US budget ? StuRat (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow

I'm surprised that someone hasn't asked you to archive your talk page. I'm not asking, just that I don't think mine was this long when someone asked me to archive. Anyway I left two new responses to your Blu-Ray question (the first one). Basically the summary answer is your best bet IMHO is to do a software rip in Windows with AnyDVD HD (perhaps accessory tools depending on precisely what you want your output to be, e.g. MKV). You can then probably playback with free players+codecs including in Linux generally without problem (the good thing is once it's ripped, if you aren't using some commercial player then if it works now it'll likely work 5 years from now). You may not have menus and the audio may not be full quality but normal playback should be fine. That option should be EUR79.99 for a 2 year subscription (hopefully the FLOSS will have caught up by then). You may want to try Any DVD HD first (since it has a free trial) and see if it works as you expect. (Although I also noticed they're having a 20% discount until May 10th so if you're sure it's what you want). The main limitation/s here (well other then being Windows only but I don't think that can be helped at the moment) is that you may have to rip every time and if it doesn't work well you'll have to wait (well this can be true with commercial software players as well). Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. 80 Euros is a bit steep. Add to that the cost of a new 1080 monitor or TV, the price for the Blu-Ray drive, the price of bigger flash drives on which to store the movies temporarily, and the $4 a month Netflix fee for Blu-Ray access, and this will end up costing me over a thousand dollars, to watch only slightly better videos. (The only difference I've really seen is in reading tiny credits.) So, I think I'll wait and stick with normal DVDs for now. Hopefully there will be a free solution soon. StuRat (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Farts and Stuff

Thanks for the Beano Advice. I'll take you up on the Yogurt with Cultures. I'm reading this book on Salt by Mark Kurlansky. In it he mentions cheese making. page 97, 'Rennet contains Rennin, an enzyme in the stomach of mammals wich curdles milk to make it digestible.' Could this Rennin be taken as a supplement maybe? I read the wiki articles, something about infant calfs developing stomachs, in the 4th stomach we find this Rennet, it curdles the milk to make it stay in the digestive tract longer for breaking it down longer. Can we say, add some Rennin to our Ovaltine? Cheers,--i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You could do that, but it might not taste very good. You can also get rennin and lactase (a milk digestion enzyme), in tablets, here: [22]. If you don't like buying things over the internet, try a store like GNC. StuRat (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Medieval stuff

Hey StuRat, the "church talk" thread was archived on the RD, but if you want to keep the discussion going, we could start a new topic (since we kind of steered away from the original point anyway). I've also been translating Pope Innocent's letter about translating the Bible into French, I guess I'll stick it in my user page somewhere. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know when the translation's done and I'll take a look. StuRat (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, wikisource:Cum ex injuncto (1199) has the translation, and a link to the Latin original too. That letter turned out to be more concerned with unauthorized preaching than unauthorized translations, though. I found that there is also a letter from Gregory VII in 1079 that talks about Bible translations too, so I'm working on that. I'm also going to add more info about medieval Bible translations (or maybe as a new article). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're still interested, I've just finished a new Bible translations in the Middle Ages article. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll take a look. StuRat (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing titles of Ref Desk questions

I see, OK, I will keep that in mind. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. StuRat (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

personal RFC on sneeky edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planetary_habitability&diff=311665773&oldid=311665338
I'm curious to know, do you consider this kind of edit sneeky and/or not encyclopedic??
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing a discussion tag in the middle of the discussion ? I suppose that's bad, but why are you asking me ? StuRat (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Trauma

There are good reasons not to offer medical advice to this questioner. You may consider it best to redact your suggestion about desensitization therapy.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I made no such suggestion. I merely mentioned that this is one option a therapist might consider. StuRat (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Belated reply for Jan RD discussion

Just to let you know, I came across this Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 January 2#What if Girl fakes Rape? when looking for something else and left a reply [23]. I'm not asking that you reply simply thought you might like to know Nil Einne (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. StuRat (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desk archiving interval

There's a discussion running on the RD talk page about decreasing the archiving and transclusion thresholds to reduce the page size, perhaps to as few as four days. I don't care one way or the other, but I'd like to make sure any consensus includes input from some long-time regulars, so I'm dropping this note on the talk pages of a few that pop to mind. (I hope no one feels this is improper canvassing.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't see how it could be "improper canvassing" as I'm on the fence on this issue myself. I certainly suffer from long pages as much as anyone, having a very old Windows 98 computer. On the other hand, I don't like having questions archived before they are fully resolved, either. StuRat (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

REFDESK answer

Hello. I am just writing to note that I copied the answers from the refdesk to here, where I first asked the question. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, glad I could help. StuRat (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for answering my To Catch A Predator question on the Humanities Reference desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and here's a permalink: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2009_November_11#Legality_of_To_Catch_a_Predator. StuRat (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

US debt levels

I noticed some of your comments about the precarious financial situation the US is in, and I think I agree with your assessment of the severity of the situation, but I am unsure what to do to best shield myself from what I perceive as a coming collapse (probably in the form of hyper inflation). I was wondering if you have any ideas, and also if you would be up for discussing this issue, or pointing me to people who do have the same view and would be able to provide some insights. Regards XM (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think an economic collapse is now inevitable, but perhaps not for several decades. I don't think hyperinflation is all that likely, though, as that typically results from "printing money". That is, printing excessive quantities of money to pay off debts. I don't think the US is stupid enough to do that. However, I'm beginning to think that the US will eventually need to default on it's debts, meaning that they will, at some point, announce that they have no intention of repaying those financial obligations. Much like a bankruptcy, it may be a bitter pill to swallow, but could be good economically, in the long run, if it makes people and countries less likely to loan money to the US and if the US then learns to live within it's means, as a result.

Of course, if you hold US bonds or treasury notes, this would be a disaster for you. To protect yourself I'd stick with investments with inherent value. Gold is one option, but any commodity is probably good, as those would still have value in a total economic collapse. If hyperinflation does happen, then dollars may be useless, but bags of wheat will still have value. I'd avoid investing in luxury items, though, as few may be able to afford them at some point in the future. And diamonds, in particular, are a poor investment as they are currently overvalued and prices may suddenly collapse once high quality artificial diamonds flood the market.

Also, developing nations may do well, since they would be less likely to be pulled down by financial links with the US. So, investing in basic commodities in the developing world might be the best overall strategy. What do you think ? StuRat (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Life imitating art

A tag has been placed on Life imitating art requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Mootros (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Life imitating art

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Life imitating art. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life imitating art. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Science Ref Desk

Hi. I recently posted a question on the science reference desk(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Bubbles) which you seemed to know the answer to, but if you don't mind I would like to clarify that I understood the explanation. The question was why bubbles form when a liquid under pressure, like an unopened can of coke, suddenly has the pressure released. Someone mentioned that the high pressure of the gas above the liquid increases the liquid's pressure, which inhibits bubbles from forming. If that's the correct explanation (as you vouched it was), is it true that bubble may not form below a certain depth, and that if the pressure were relieved slowly, bubbles would first form at the surface? Or did I misunderstand the explanation? Thanks! 173.179.59.66 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I would expect that relieving the pressure slowly would cause bubbles to form more slowly, but uniformly, because the pressure change will move almost instantly throughout the bottle (the speed at which a pressure wave moves is probably around the speed of sound). StuRat (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

But doesn't pressure increase with increasing depth? I would have thought that, while the surface may be at a low enough pressure to allow for bubble formation, the lower portions of the liquid would remain bubble-less. Or perhaps I'm completely missing the concept of bubble formation (which I suspect I am)... 173.179.59.66 (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Pressure does increase with depth, but the depth of a bottle of soda is so little it hardly makes any difference. Now, if you had a 100 foot tall bottle of pop, you probably would see an effect like that. StuRat (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright cool, but I am right with in thinking that it's the liquid's pressure which prevents the bubbles from forming, right? 173.179.59.66 (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. StuRat (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot. 173.179.59.66 (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

What's happening with Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities? Woogee (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I was editing when my computer locked up. I rebooted and then tried to finish my edit, but it apparently deleted the rest of the page, somehow. I went to revert it, but FiggyBee beat me to it. StuRat (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry ...

... about this. Fixed three minutes later. I hadn't even noticed hitting the button. Maybe I'm not fit for rollback. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring it. StuRat (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for your help on WP:RD/MA! PerfectProposal 19:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I took out an edit?

But it was only a sub-heading. Nonetheless, I'll keep it in mind.70.54.181.70 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Language issues on the Reference Desk

Hey StuRat! I was annoyed by Richardrj's dismissive response to your question here. After reading all of the answers, you can see that the OP meant what Americans would call "allowance" when he/she referred to "pocket money". But this sense of the term is clearly British, so since we're Americans, it's no wonder we need clarification on the questioner's intent. By dismissing you, Richardrj discouraged you from helping with this particular question. Richardrj's response implies that he understands that this term is not part of your national vocabulary. As a RefDesk regular, he no doubt knows that you are American. I see this as part of a pattern among certain British contributors of dismissing American English as a legitimate variety of English. See this exchange, which left me fuming. I admit that my use of "unimportant" was unfortunate in my last comment there. I wonder what you think of this and whether you think it is worth bringing up on the RefDesk Talk page? Best wishes, Marco polo (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support ! I'm not upset, though. When the Brits call US English inferior to British English (which they call "International English"), I find it rather silly, but not particularly insulting. Hey, we hear them as all a bunch of effeminate speakers, right ? I don't think taking it to the talk page is warranted, and would probably just cause a needless fight. I'll continue to ask for, or provide, translations where I see people using Britspeak, though. StuRat (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your vote on the List of food products article

No, I'm not mistaken you have not voted yet :-} That is why I'm dropping this note to encourage that you will. I hope it's one of support but if its not then you are still entitled to your opinion. As for me it is essential to my understanding of why nutrition facts are printed on the food product label in the first place. Balanced meals which conform to specific diet plans can only be made by combining more than one food product in the right portion with other food products to meet such stringent criteria as a diet plan provides. Please vote KEEP and save the List of food products article for posterity and everyone else. 71.100.8.49 (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

IP comment

Some IP (since blocked as an evader) suggested you and I were the same user. Should we tell them, or keep them wondering? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

So were you cloned from my toenail clippings or was I cloned from yours ? :-) StuRat (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I was cloned from the tonail clippings of Henny Youngman. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's better than being cloned from Henny Penny, as many others at the Ref Desk appear to be, based on how they think the sky is falling every time someone cracks a joke. StuRat (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Sometimes it reminds me of Graham Chapman's military character, who complained that the Monty Python sketches were getting "silly": "No one enjoys a good joke more than I do! Uh, except for the Colonel... and my wife... and some of her friends... come to think of it, everyone enjoys a good joke more than I do! But no matter!..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, we need to send them all of for re-education at the Ministry of Silly Walks. StuRat (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Sometimes I feel like I'm in The Argument Sketch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Or talking with Gumbys. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Super job!

The Refdesk Barnstar Thanks for Take Five -- exactly what I needed! DRosenbach (Talk

You're welcome ! StuRat (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

fortran

Nothing wrong with fortran for numerical computation, but jeez, man, I think you'd enjoy programming a lot more if you branched out into other languages for other purposes. You might also like Project Euler.  ;-) 69.228.170.24 (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about my recent Math Ref Desk programs, those both are for numerical computation. It's not like I was creating a bouncing ball animation or something. StuRat (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd say they were combinatorial rather than numerical. Anyway, whatever works for you is great. But it's often possible to write 3 lines of a higher level language instead of 50 lines of fortran (which is relatively low level by today's standards). 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone did rewrite my recursive Fortran program as a "C++ metaprogram", but the output looks horrid. StuRat (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe, you do realize that was sort of a joke (and a funny one). The person implemented the recursion in the C++ type system so that the expanded list came out as a compiler error message. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw the error, buy just thought it was a warning they ignored. StuRat (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I added a Haskell example. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look. StuRat (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Merging article Bracelet to Necklace (combinatorics)

I'm recommending that the article on Bracelet (combinatorics) be merged into Necklace (combinatorics).

I saw that you had previously edited one (or both) of these article. You're invited to participate in the discussion here: Talk:Necklace (combinatorics).

Thanks, Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 15:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Funding bias

Hi, based on our conversation last April at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2010 April 14#Research influenced by funding source, I finally created a stub article called funding bias. Thanks for the comments you made. There seems to be a wealth of peer-reviewed literature on this topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't been a stub for a while. Looks like you took a summer break. Welcome back. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to see we have a nice article starting to take shape. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Fecal anthropology article

Hi. I'm trying to fix the fecal anthropology article which you started. I have a problem with it because I do not believe that this is a strong enough specialty within archaeology to be a whole article, and I have never heard of it referred to by this name. Did you have a particular reason for naming the article as you did? Or are you aware of an article that this might be a good fit as a subsection of? thanks! 174.30.246.212 (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections?

I didn't realize that Arbcom elections had come up [24] - I was curious if you have any ideas regarding who are the best candidates for inclusionism and transparency? (I also asked User:Cyclopia and he had some useful answers if you're interested) Wnt (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much time to investigate that right now, unfortunately, but thanks for letting me know. StuRat (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Chat on the Ref Desk

Are you cool if I skim the discussion of Viennese Waltz's comment off to the talk page (as in, everything after VW's comment)? I'm looking at it and thinking how it might look to the OP! Seems like you'd be the only one with a legitimate gripe if I do, so I'd like to check first. 86.164.31.131 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer one of those collapse boxes, as sending anything to the talk page ensures endless discussion, and I'd rather end the thread now. StuRat (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool beans, consider it done. 86.164.31.131 (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. StuRat (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, StuRat. You have new messages at WP:RD/C.
Message added 17:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chinese name stuff

Hey Sturat! I found the Chinese name of Beltway 8 at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Chinese_questions WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference Desk Removals

user:Baseball Bugs has decided to remove a question, including your response, here. user:Mwalcoff has deleted a question, including your response, here. Both removals may be discussed on the Reference desk talk page, here and here, respectively. Buddy431 (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I appreciate it. StuRat (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Door opening and closing

I was back on AOL, and I heard the sound again. This confirms it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Good. Glad I could help. StuRat (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The weird thing is that today I was signed in to my other AOL email account, which actually ends in "aim.com", and never heard any doors. Maybe the time of day was different and no one was there.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Could be. Also, I'd expect quite a bit of variation on how many friends come and go even at the same time each day. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Making farmland out of desertMickey 63 (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello StuRat I'm mickey 63 please excuse me if I get the etiquette wrong I'm new to this type of discussion. I asked a question yesterday(18 March)if it was possible to transform desert into arable farmland,I received various answers one of which was interesting because it goes along with my own train of thought.Firstly, to construct a man made hole in a suitable place and then tow an iceberg to that place to make a lake.You would of course need a canal system to get the iceberg to the hole and for distribution,but is it possible?Mickey 63 (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No, for several reasons:

1) Iceberg would melt before you could get it there.

2) Water would soon evaporate and need to be replenished.

3) Canal would have to be huge, and if you had a huge canal, water would flow into the hole without the iceberg.

A better approach is to redirect part of a river into a natural depression, like the Colorado River into Death Valley. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2011 March 19#Calculating one variable from six others

To - StuRat (talk). Hello. I wanted to thank you for all of your help with my questions on the Math Help Desk (about the formulas for metabolism and body age, etc., that you were able to figure out from the body measurement variables). I very much appreciate all the time and effort you put into that; I also appreciate your taking the time to explain to me all of the steps so clearly. I am going to review all of your math explanations in more detail. I may get back to you with some minor follow-up questions, if that's OK. In the meanwhile, though, I wanted to express my appreciation. Many thanks! Your insight was invaluable ... and exactly what I was looking for. Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

You're welcome. Glad I could help. StuRat (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a permalink, BTW: [25]. StuRat (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to ask you a follow-up question to this issue, if I may. First of all, thanks for all your help so far. Second of all, thanks also for congratulating me on the weight loss. I had to laugh at that because, in the year 2010, I actually lost 30 pounds or so. This data is only from the start of the new year in 2011 ... so the weight loss of 5 pounds or so is only a drop in the bucket, in my mind. Thanks for the congrats, though. Third of all, my follow-up question is this. I essentially understand most of what you stated throughout the thread. However, I am confused as to where did you come up with the actual decimal point results for some of the data? For example, if the Visceral Fat Level (VFL) in my chart was listed at "8" ... how did you determine its more exact / precise value of 7.66850? You did this with all of the VFL numbers, and I was confused as to how you derived the exact decimal point results. When given a rounded result, how did you arrive at the non-rounded exact value (to 5 decimal places) of that data point? Were these just trial-and-error "guesses" until you arrived at the exact / correct result? Or was there some more precise mathematics involved that led you to the correct non-rounded values? If you don't mind, would you please explain this to me at my Talk Page, when and if you have the time to do so. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

It is essentially trial-and-error, yes. That said, the "transition points" (the top and bottom and where the rounded numbers change), are the places most likely to cause trouble. In the body age calculations, we even had one spot where the rounded ages varied by 2, from 39 to 41, so I started trying to make those numbers work, then tested my results to see if they would work at the other transitions, too. BTW, I would caution against calling my numbers an exact solution. Perhaps "one possible solution consistent with the data provided" would be better. Additional data might mean that the formulas and values would need to be revised (hopefully only slightly). Here's the data in question:

Body Age (rounded)↓   Body Age (not rounded)↓ 
-------------------   ----------------------- 
    41                   40.9                 
    41                   40.6                  
    39                   39.4                 
    39                   39.3                 
    39                   38.6                 
    38                   37.9                  
    38                   37.8                 
    38                   37.7                  
    38                   37.7                  
    37                   36.9                  
    37                   36.9 

StuRat (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks again for your help. I will have some follow-up questions in the future that I plan to post on the Wikipedia Reference Desks. The follow-up questions are somewhat related (tangentially) to this issue above. I will be posting them when I get some free time. Perhaps, if you see them, you can also weigh in on the Reference Desks. You seem to frequent those pages, it seems. Thanks again! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC))

You're welcome. I will help answer, if I can. StuRat (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Cake2.GIF

Thanks for uploading File:Cake2.GIF. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. StuRat (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Massive Cake Impression

I am glad you were able to help the OP on Humanities Desk Page. I had to use all my skills of interpretation, as the OP gave us so little to go on. I have not your skills, but what a cake! All my study of Hermeneutics, I felt called to use. I wonder what museum will benefit? What a cake! MacOfJesus (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was a challenge, due to both misinformation and missing information. As a computer programmer, I'm used to getting incomplete and incorrect specs, and having to follow up with the author. As for the cake having no seam allowances, because they intend to sew the pieces of fabric together right at the edges, that just seems crazy. In normal use that fabric would soon unravel and the seams would burst. However, if only used as a prop for one play, it may get very little (ab)use, and thus survive. I believe that sets are full of items too fragile to actually use, like walls that collapse if you lean against them (as Jackie Gleason once found out on the set of The Honeymooners). StuRat (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, here's the permalink: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2011_March_23#wedding_cake_impression. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I would not underestimate the skills of the OP, after all this will stay in a museum permanently. However, temprature changes, no matter how slight will pay their toll! MacOfJesus (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"Pay their toll" ? That's interesting. Here the expression is "take their toll". StuRat (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was using reverse psychology, in the sense that a toll is a levy, and temprature changes will "cause a payment to be made", which the "baker" of the cake will have to pay! The expression is sometimes used here (but not often) in that way! I would still like to know which museum! MacOfJesus (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

She must live in the States as she used the expression: "I don't buy that!" MacOfJesus (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly use that expression here in Detroit. Where are you ? StuRat (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

At the moment in Greenwich, with one leg west and the other right! (Sorry for the sense of humour!). MacOfJesus (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Does that make one leg an hour ahead of the other ? :-) StuRat (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, No, Britain ruling the Waves would not allow that and any seam-sewing had to be done mid-Pacific, so when "you went West a day went west". Now? Someone left the cake out in the rain! MacOfJesus (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Mid-night here! Henry Vlll has just appeared to me and said I was sitting in his chair! I'm anxious to keep my head on my shoulders, so I moved! (I'm not eating any more cake before bed-time). Sorry again! MacOfJesus (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Your humor must be too British for me, and I get Monty Python and most more recent Britcoms, too. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ref Desk Question

Hello StuRat. I asked a question on the ref desk a few months back and you were kind enough to give a detailed response to it. I still have a few doubts regarding the question, particularly what statement about bipartite graphs can be inferred and how does it follow. In context of your response I deduced that X+Y should be even for a board to have opposite squares of the same color and a nx1/1xn board with n even should always take out same number of white and black squares. I dont know how to proceed from this point. Could you help me a little please. Thanks-Shahab (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, are we still talking about removing 2×1 rectangles ? StuRat (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No. I understood the 2x1 rectangle part. I am interested in knowing the generalization and how it relates to bipartite graphs.-Shahab (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what kind of general statement is being sought, beyond those I listed with the question, such as "A) The general rule appears to be that you can't remove balanced color rectangles (or squares) from a larger imbalanced-color square (or rectangle), and end up with nothing." StuRat (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My doubt was precisely this: what statement about bipartite graphs may be inferred from all this. The question was in a graph theory book (by Douglas West). It does seem vague a little. Anyway, thanks for all the help.-Shahab (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry I couldn't help more. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Warkany syndrome

Hi StuRat. I saw your reply to the Ref Desk question on Warkany syndrome. I was also trying to answer the question and for the life of me couldn't find a real reference that defines Warkany syndrome 1 versus Warkany syndrome 2. To be honest, I never use that eponym since trisomy 8 and trisomy 8 mosaicism seem much more informative and only the mosaic form is ever really seen clinically. Can you point me to a reference that differentiates between 1 being mosaic and 2 being complete trisomy 8? Everything I can find in PubMed seems to simply use "Warkany syndrome" for mosaic trisomy 8 - the 1977 Riccardi article that is cited only uses "The Warkany syndrome" in the abstract, and I don't have a handy copy of that issue of "Birth Defects Orig. Artic. Ser." :) One of my Google hits ([26]) for "Warkany syndrome 2" describes the syndrome seen in trisomy 8 mosaicism. And of course, most of the other google hits are just sites regurgitating Wikipedia content! Thanks, Medical geneticist (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this link [27] seems to say that both the complete and mosaic forms are types of "Warkany syndrome 2", leaving me baffled as to what "Warkany syndrome 1" is. I tried to clean up our articles based on the assumptions already present in them, but perhaps they were wrong to begin with ? StuRat (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, this link seems to give a very rough description of Warkany syndrome 1: [28]. I will use that to fix our articles. StuRat (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, fixed. Please let me know if it looks OK to you. StuRat (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think your detective work explains a lot. I followed the link from the NLM site and the OMIM entry has been removed from the database, suggesting to me that this "syndrome" does not exist anymore. I also managed to get the pdf of the 1961 article on IUGR and it looks like this is one family amongst a whole lot of other cases with IUGR and not really a description of a syndrome. See my detailed response at the Ref Desk. Perhaps the main article should be Trisomy 8 with some discussion that the Warkany syndrome eponym is sometimes used, linking that to a page on Warkany syndrome that discusses the two very distinct "Warkany syndromes". --- Medical geneticist (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Siphons are a Renewable Energy source

In todays energy thirsty society, we should be exploring all clean energy sources that will help us supply our electricity needs into the future. Large SIPHONS can bring water from lakes and even rivers to any desired location away from the source as long as the outlet is below the inlet far enough. A River Siphon can run 24/7, and the water that is used to produce power can be returned back to the river without any harmful effect on the environment. Siphons should someday be classified as a Hydroelectric source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.194.237 (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks

for the answer on the computing refdesk!Gzuckier (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. StuRat (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Toothbrush Moustache

I wanted to thank you for reverting and supporting my addition of the toothbrush moustache to Hitler's legacy. It's good to know that some people here still believe in good faith. Le Douche? But of course! (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Note that neither of the people who reverted your edit thought it was a bad faith edit (vandalism), they just didn't think it was quite important enough to include in an article which is already too long. I disagreed. Perhaps the article needs to be broken up more, and a Hitler's legacy article will end up containing your contribution. StuRat (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Accordin To The Title, You Are Saying Poor Hitler Has A ToothBrush Mustache. Now That Makes Me Laugh Great.184.163.238.18 (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hoarding

Thanks for trying to improve the Hoarding article but please do not put the same un-cited and un-sourced information in again. Do some research if you like and find information and make a citation for information. The article has a problem and is tagged to remove information like the information you returned to it which is not cited with some reference citation from reliable sources. Fidel Drumbo 16:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

Thanks for at least telling me about your deletion. However:

1) I did include a link to the main article, compulsive hoarding, which contains plenty of references.

2) Do you doubt that compulsive hoarding exists ? That's the only reason I can see for your deletion. If not, then references should be added, rather than the section deleted.

3) There was already one reference before I arrived, so the tag, which stated that there were no references, was incorrect. There are now 5 refs, so I removed the tag.

4) Please include a proper signature, including a link to your talk page, when leaving comments. Fortunately I have Sign-bot active, which, as you can see, also considered your unlinked signature to be inadequate.

5) Please use either the "New section" tab at the top or the "Start a new talk topic" link at the top of this page, when adding new sections, rather than editing the previous section, as that results in incorrect indexing on the history page. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

For some reason the soft-wear of my signature does not work right, sorry about that, also I am not an expert here at how this method works.

Main article may be good but can not use Wikipedia as a reference as it is unreliable.

The references in the main article is what I am referring to. Is it really necessary to copy them all over ? StuRat (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The article was tagged for good reason about removing un cited un referenced material. I added the number one reference previously. Any material on the article previously could be deleted. I have no stake in things being true or not. As to me adding references for others material, that is not my job unless I chose it. Any info. on the article as said was removable previously, no truth involved.

It's also not your job to delete perfectly good, if unreferenced, material. I just don't get your motivation for doing so. I suppose it's easier to delete than improve, but that doesn't make it right. StuRat (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The parking, car parking information you added seems out of place. Probably best to remove that. It just does not make a lot of sense in that human section and the citation is not giving the page number of the reference or any information really on that information. I am going to remove that and the citation, mostly it appears to be information from Talmud discussion? So is moralistic or ethical information which does not seem to fit maybe. Hoarding parking places? Otherwise thanks for adding the very good citations, especially the Mayo clinic definition. Sorry but my signature thing is just not working. Not sure why, but the robot will add my signature no problem. Fidel Drumbo 02:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

Have You Ever Watched Hoarding, Buried Alive? It Is Fun To Watch And Is Educational ABout Hoarding.184.163.238.18 (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

schools

Hi StuRat. The Wikipedia Schools Project has set up a dedicated help and feedback page at WP:WPSCH/H. This for elementary/primary, middle, and high schools (often called college in the UK). It is not for universities.
If you regularly give advice to users, you might wish to send enquirers there - we are quick to respond. However, WT:WPSCH still remains the place for general discussion about the management and policy of school articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mistake

Please do not leave an unnecessary grammar mistake near the end of your otherwise well written response at the Ref. Desk. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Care to identify the mistake ? If it's "brags" versus "bragged", I corrected that right after I wrote it. StuRat (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

For people who follow international law, they are entitled to it's[sic] protections. Having identified that, I still agree with what you said. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you refer to my use of "it's" rather than "its". I take it you missed the long discussion of this on the Ref Desk a while back ? I realize this usage isn't standard, but I prefer it, to make a distinction between the possessive form and the plural form of "it". StuRat (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If someone has taught you a different definition of these words than is documented in every published grammar then you have had bad teaching. Perhaps someone has given you an impression that the rules of educated English are malleable to your preference. The reasoning "I prefer it, to make a distinction between the possessive form and the plural form of "it" " is absurd. The plural of "it" is "they". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

1) Unlike French, there's no single committee which sets the global standard for English.

2) English (and French, for that matter) is ultimately malleable, as the rules are periodically adjusted to match the current practice.

3) The plural for "it" is sometimes "its" as in "I treat all my guests equally, whether they are 'hes', 'shes', or 'its'". StuRat (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

1) There is no single committee which sets the global standard for colours.

2) Colours (and toffee, for that matter) are toutement malléable, as the colours are periodically adjusted by the committee that doesn't exist whenever I get an idea for improvement.

3) Sometimes colours are black as in "I close my eyes in a bucket of sand to make them black, whether they are red, blue or white."

4) In this way I have discovered a confusion, but luckily I have the solution. I simply write black instead of white.

5) My idea is very good and I thought of it myself. It's insignificant that universities, art schools, every painter in the entire Universe and people who compile catalogues of carpet colours say I am wrong. That happens to all Great Innovators, like Albert Einstein when she invented the elliptical billiard ball.

6) Just like Einstein (did I mention her invention?) I shall ignore the doubters who moan "Oooh oooh how can we tell the difference between white which you call black and real black?" and "There wouldn't be a problem if you pulled your head out of the bucket".

7) Everyone will be convinced I am right when they see my improvement celebrated in Wikipedia. I shall write black where the inferior standard says white, as often as I can at a reference desk. Children will learn from my example and a search engine will help everyone find my posts in the archive where nobody but me can edit them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what the heck was that ? I assume you are trying to say that the rules of spelling and grammar are as fixed as the laws of physics (the elliptical ball) and historical facts (Einstein's gender). They aren't, they are just opinions that evolve over time. I suppose our definitions of colors could change over time, though. I remember thinking that when looking at a box of 64 crayolas. "Periwinkle" ? What's that ? Can't they come up with a better way to label colors than just random words they assign to random colors ? How about a system like compass headings ? We could have RED, RED_ORANGE_RED, RED_ORANGE, ORANGE_RED_ORANGE, ORANGE, etc. That would make more sense. So, yes, that one is a good example. I don't see any possible advantage to switching the names of black and white, though.

Something else interesting is that it's so important to you that you are willing to invest so much time in it. My spelling of "it's" seems to genuinely distress you. I take it you are a "everything must be done by the book" type of person ? If even this stresses you out, you'd better learn to relax, for your health's sake. StuRat (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. The text is a parody of a person who uses the absurd claim that it is commendable to create a confusion to mitigate another confusion that doesn't exist. I am an admirer of librettist W. S. Gilbert who excelled in the comedy of satire where the subject is unaware that they are being laughed at, and to whom I owe the surrealist image of the elliptical billiard ball. Play this midi if you like. The lyrics are 126 years old but I expect you can understand them, thanks to the resilience on that timescale of the English language against vain attempts to "debug" it. There's nothing wrong with your spelling of it's, you just did it where the equivalent words "IT IS" make no sense. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to have addressed my 2nd paragraph. Why are you so obsessed with how I choose to spell the possessive form of "it" ? (I'd better not mention that I sometimes use the spelling "thru" instead of "through", or your head might explode.) StuRat (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Blah-blah. Ooops sorry, I meant Bye-bye. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Question For You Or Anybody On Your Talki Page ..

Hi StuRat. What Are The Economic Activites In China?184.163.238.18 (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an odd place to ask such a question. First, have you looked at our China article ? That should have led ou to Economic history of the People's Republic of China. Another good source is the CIA Factbook: [29] (pick the economy section). If you still need more info, try the Wikipedia Reference Desk. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding section headings to the monster thread on RD/M. I love this thread so much. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I find it much easier to edit this way. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

.PPM to .GIF

1. Do you know whether the Netpbm package runs under Windows Vista?
2. What route do you follow from plain .PPM to animated GIF? Is GIMP involved?

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

1) I don't know about Vista, I use Windows XP.

2) No GIMP. I use the ImageMagick convert command:

convert -delay 10 fubar*.ppm fubar.gif

The delay between frames is optional, of course. I use numbers in the PPM file names to control the order in which they are combined (like fubar01.ppm - fubar99.ppm). StuRat (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how ImageMagick produces the GIF color table i.e. is it fixed or derived from the source image? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Derived from the source image. In the case of an animated GIF, I believe each frame gets it's own color table derived from the image. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mistake the second

Please don't leave an unnecessary grammar mistake near the end of your otherwise well written response at the Ref. Desk. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Some questions:

1) Why don't you identify the mistake with these posts ?

2) Do you do a post like this for every mistake anyone makes on the Ref Desk ? I've seen some posts with a dozen or more mistakes. You must be very busy. StuRat (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

1) It's unnecessary.

2) No. I would need to see diffs to believe that "posts with 12+ mistakes" is not an exaggeration. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

1) And why is it necessary to withhold info which would obviously be useful to me (so I wouldn't have to search for the error) ?

2) How many errors do you count by the OP here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Entertainment/2011_May_17#The_Last_Story_in_CoroCoro_Comic_what_the_hell_was_they_thinking.21 ? StuRat (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

1) Please excuse my frankness when I say that a school system taught you English and presumably parents/aquaintances/society at large have transmitted the English-speaking culture to you. That is the way it survives through each generation. We are part of that process. You also take part in the English Wikipedia project which will be a significant gift to future generations. I presume you are literate enough to see obvious typos. Be reassured that no one witholds English grammar from you, and if you want I can refer you to excellent Wikipedia articles and guidebooks on the subject.

2) I counted many language errors by the OP at the link you give, as you also did and commented on. I add my comment that there is a difference between what one reasonably expects from an OP coming to a Ref. Desk and from a responder. The former can be a child asking for help and an OP virtually never edits their own post. (You asked the OP to rewrite!) In contrast, a responder in effect volunteers to represent Wikipedia to the OP. Responses are then archived for future reference. We hold responders responsible for what they post, especially at the Ref. Desks, because they are normally the only one allowed to correct errors in what they post. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

1) Unlike many others, I do proofread what I write and correct mistakes, when I find them. But, of course, like everyone else, I do occasionally miss a few. If not already perfectly obvious from my previous posts, I am requesting that you tell me specifically which word or words you object to, rather than ask me to proofread my post again to try to discern what you consider to be an error. Since English grammar is variable, I won't always agree with you on what is and isn't an error.

2) The errors in that post rose to the level that I wasn't able to decipher it (although somebody else was able to). When they get that bad, I feel the need to ask for a clarification. I also respond to errors when I see an opportunity for a bit of humor, as that hopefully makes it seem less critical than a correction otherwise might. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that you were one of those late last year who opined that they wouldn't mind if Cuddlyable3 pointed out their spelling and grammar mistakes in RD posts. If CA3 were to point out such errors to random (or targeted) others, they would likely attract sanctions for their ongoing behaviour, which has been found against consensus and disruptive. However it is my impression that you explicitly asked for these corrections. Is that impression wrong? Franamax (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall that, but I may have. I wouldn't mind, in general, but Cuddly does seem to point out errors in a particularly annoying manner. In addition to not telling me what the error is, they also argue with me if I choose not to change my text, and then open what they call an "RFC". Cuddly also makes larger H1 headings here, instead of the standard H2 headings (which I have now fixed). StuRat (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It is no big deal to correct one's own typo as in this example. Note the absence of ad hominem reproof or other unhealthy reaction there. I ceased to discuss your continuing eccentric deviation from the established English contraction IT'S = IT IS when you introduced nonsense about obsession and "your head might explode". I can't think why you want to tell a belligerent stalker about your page heading levels but I dislike the idea that every visitor's post to your page must begin under a H1 heading "Vicious comments from others". I don't know any other user page arranged that way and I offer a friendlier welcome on mine. BTW this is my name: Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A) You missed, presumably intentionally, the "(and a few that aren't)" part of my section heading. You're the first person to have a problem with that heading.

B) Who is the "belligerent stalker" you're talking about ?

C) I presume you don't like having your screen name abbreviated. It's a bit long to always write out, though. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

My answer to B) is nobody who is worth mentioning. I see no more questions. Thank you for fixing the "you're". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC) I

Your welcome. :-) And, as I requested, please tell me the actual word(s) in error the next time you post here. StuRat (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I leave finding the error in "Your[sic] welcome" as an exercise for the reader. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As perhaps a not so random drive by editor I find your conclusion that Stu's use of the word "your" is erroneous is itself erroneous. I believe that it was intentional and intended to bait your pedantic response. I'll be redundant and repeat his closing :-) and add ;-) Regards C3 and do try to lighten up. Any syntactical, grammatical or spelling errors in this posting are not intentional and so I don't care. hydnjo (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, C3 took the bait I left; hook, line and sinker. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

;-) hydnjo (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Polishing gym shoes )

((Moved here from where I left it in error at Stu-Rat) In my era, the shoes (and the laces) were washed first (by hand, with a scrub brush or in a washing machine, depending on dirty they were and how lenient my grandmother was feeling) and then hung to dry by their tongues on the clothesline. Once they were completely dry, you took a bottle of liquid white shoe polish and, after shaking it thoroughly, poured some out onto a rag. Using a circular motion, you covered the whole of the canvas part of the shoes. The gym teacher would test by wetting her finger and then touching the shoe. If white didn't come off on her finger, 2 demerit points. (I think it is the same liquid used by band members to apply to the straps that support drums, for example, in a marching band.) Now you know how to polish white canvas shoes. :-) Bielle (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what a waste of time. And how is having white paint on your shoes that comes off on everything supposed to be an improvement ? Also, the idea of the canvas is that it breaths, to prevent kids from getting hot, sweaty feet where athlete's foot will flourish. But plugging all of the air holes with white paint messes up that plan. If they just wanted you to do busy work to "build character", they could have had you move piles of dirt around all day. StuRat (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The canvas gym shoes I recall didn't have visible air holes except right at the arch, but the ones inherent in the weave would certainly have been clogged. There was, and perhaps still are, aspects of formal schooling that resembled the military life, where doing apparently stupid things over and over in unquestioning obedience was supposed to build character. Sometimes I am astonished that so much creativity still bubbled up in people despite their school experiences. Bielle (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the air gaps in the weave.

"When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all." - Kodachrome (song) - Paul Simon. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference Desk: Your response removed

user:Red Act has removed a thread that you participated in [30]. It is being discussed on the reference desk talk page. Buddy431 (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ! StuRat (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ref Desk Removal

Knock it off [31]. I provided a reliable source to answer a question. You have no right to remove my answer. If you don't like the question, you are under no obligation to answer it. Do Not try to try to impose your policies on me.

Also, you should have notified me when you made that removal, as well as User:Willminator when you removed his correct (though admittedly unsourced) response [32]. I have done what you should have [33]. If you have a problem to my response, bring it to my talk page, or the ref. desk talk page. Buddy431 (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I knew the answer to that Q as well, but didn't feel like helping a kid cheat on his homework. (If there was any question of it being a homework Q, that would be different.) Why do you want to help him cheat ? There's absolutely no sign of him making any effort to figure it out himself. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As for notification, I certainly believe in that for "innocent bystanders", but not for people who knowingly violate the rules, like you. StuRat (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I provided a reliable source (a news article) that gives a decent amount of information about the subject. You don't have to answer the question if you feel it is wrong, but do not prevent others from doing what the reference desk is for (providing references, hopefully reliable). How is it "cheating" to use resources at your disposal, including the internet, to do your assignments (provided it's not specifically prohibited). And how am I "helping him cheat" in providing a news article that describes the topic in some detail (and yes, includes the answer to the question). The article I provided is probably ten times as long as the brief mention the subject gets in the presumed student's textbook, where we would otherwise be telling him to look.

I get sidetracked, though. Even if this was me blatently helping a student cheat (which I don't think it was), you have no reason, whatsoever, to remove my valid, correct, on topic, and referenced response. You can worry about what you post, and I'll worry about what I post. How's that? Buddy431 (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

1) The answer is right in the title of your link, so he doesn't have to read a word of the article.

2) He doesn't learn a thing about how to do a web search.

3) No, the Ref Desk is a collaborative effort, and we each police each other. Do you feel you can just ignore all the rules ?

4) You should also know that I very rarely delete anyone else's contributions, but this case was one of the most blatant homework questions I've ever seen. Now, if you had suggested how to do a web search, instead of just giving him the answer, that would be different. StuRat (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Could the U.S. hock Taiwan?

You might like to repair the error in your otherwise well written post at RD/H. Location: Verse 2), Sentence #1, Word #9, Character #3, ASCII code 0x2C. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You already know my usage of "it's" as the possessive form is intentional, and therefore not an "error". StuRat (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That logic is faulty because it reduces to the untenable axiom "what I do is inerrant just because I do it". Wikipedia, an encyclopedia project that is written in English, explains that its and it's can mean:

• it's, a contraction of it is or it has
• its, the possessive adjective and possessive pronoun form of the personal pronoun it.

These should have been taught to you and if not then it is time that you learned them. Thousands of your fellow editors wish to use these words correctly so what possible satisfaction do you gain from letting us all down? Your jeering post above shows that you derive some kind of malicious glee from interchanging the correct usages of these words. I see bad attitude that is toxic to the project. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

An error is "an accidental wrong action or a false statement not made deliberately", so this clearly isn't an error. And you're the only one who gets upset at this, which says more about you than me. Learn to relax a bit. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You quibble. I originally used the word "error" in polite assumption that your mistake was innocent. I withdraw that assumption and call your distorted wordage "erroneous" which means incorrect, inaccurate, mistaken, deviant, from L. erroneus "vagrant, wandering". It is dishonest to prevaricate now that your wrong action is accidental after you have brashly stated that it is intentional. You seem intent on acting out the truism "The wise one welcomes a correction because it guides towards perfection, but the fool only defends his error making." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are you accusing me of lying ? I never claimed it was an accident, that was you. As you well know from our previous exchanges, I choose to use "it's" as the possessive form, knowing full-well this is non-standard. You're the dishonest one, here, by continuously pretending it's an accident, every time I use it. StuRat (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The accusation of lying is indeed strong and I owe everyone an explanation of how I have reached that opinion. StuRat argues that a wrong act is not an error if he does the wrong act deliberately. That argument is sophistry. It is irrelevant for an editor to speculate on a writer's motive because the editor's proper function is to put text right. A textual error is identifiable as such and there is no special class of wrong text that "looks obviously wrong to a normally educated English reader but is really correct because StuRat willed it". The presumption that StuRat has standing to justify such Special pleading would be a lie. It was unnecessary to confront StuRat with that castigation initially and I did not do so. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite aside from the deliberate use of "it's" as a possessive, do you also use "her's" and "he's", or some other variant using an apostrophe for the other persons? I don't recall seeing any such, so I am just curious. If you don't, why is "it's" singled out? This is a genuine question, unrelated, except as to proximity, to Cuddly's stand. Bielle (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I would use "her's" as the possessive form of "her", yes. We already have a distinct, possessive form of "he", that being "his", so there's no need to create one there. StuRat (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides being grammatically untenable (see below) the above post is sexist. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Now what crazy idea have you gotten ? It's not my fault that "he" has the possessive form "his", while "her" does not have a unique possessive form. If there was a word "heris" or "hris" or some such thing, then there would be no need for "her's", and, conversely, if there was no word "his", then I'd write "he's", instead. StuRat (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"Hers" is a "unique possessive form", though, is it not? Is there some other use of "hers" I am overlooking? Bielle (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The plural, meaning more than one "her". Not common, like the plural of "it", but still a valid word. And "her's" obviously means "belonging to her", to any reader, while "he's" or "hi's" would cause confusion. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I am just sorting through the logic here. There is no such thing, as far as I know, as a "her". Can you give me an example, aside from contrived grammar such as "The 'hers' in that sentence should all be 'hises' (another non-word)? And, just for the record "it's" is as likely to cause confusion as "he's", for example, isn't it? Perhaps we should all go back to: mine, thine, yourn, hisn, hern, ourn, yourn, theirn. Ah, yes, no "itn", is there? Bielle (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding to StuRat's nonsensical justification for abusing "it's", StuRat displays ignorance of such basic grammar as used in the sentence: She retrieved her wallet because it was hers but she left the money because it was his. However things that are more disturbing than StuRat's real or pretended incorrigibility in handling pronouns are

• StuRat's near-megalomaniacal assumption than the English language is waiting for StuRat to heal it by StuRat's supposed improvements, and
• StuRat's language abuses make the kind of mess that is routinely fixed by other editors in article mainspace, but instead StuRat posts them in ref. desk responses where generally only StuRat is allowed to correct them. I have yet to see that happening.

Since StuRat's ideas for posessive pronouns with apostrophes have a snowball's chance in hell of acceptability in any Wikipedia article I suggest StuRat watches [film], noting the film's title. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Since there's more than one female in that clip, they must be using "hers" as the plural of "her". :-) StuRat (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Not funny. Have a massage, listen to country music, watch another film and wise up. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in

Disclaimer: I was unaware of the above discussion when I wrote what follows.
Stu, I think you're taking your it's thing too far. It's bad enough that you mix your abbreviatory it'ses with your possessive it'ses in the same sentence (...but if it's not long enough to merit it's own article). Now, verbs are getting the apostrophic treatment too (if it get's too big). Desist, or I'll sool Cuddlyable3 onto you.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, that one actually was a mistake, I will fix it. Does "sool" mean "sic" in Aussiespeak ? StuRat (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

While you're at it, you might want to do something with "Most of the planet's (all, now that we exclude Pluto) orbits ..." at the Planets question on the Science desk. That looks like you're talking about the various orbits that one single planet has, but the logic tells me you're actually talking about the orbits of the planets (plural) - hence "Most of the planets' ... orbits".

Yes, we also use "sic my dog onto you", but "sool" is well known too. However, not so well known that it merits a mention in wiktionary. Here's an online reference. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, good catch, I'll fix that one, too. StuRat (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you acknowledge "get's" is a mistake, but you make no such acknowledgment for "merit it's own article". You've made it abundantly clear that you're more than fully conversant with the rules, but you still intend to do it your way. That doesn't alter the fact that "it's" used possessively is a mistake, because no amount of conscious, deliberate intention to do a wrong thing somehow makes it right. Cold-bloodedly and calculatedly killing a person with malice aforethought is an even worse crime than killing a person in the heat of the moment. That principle applies exactly the same to deliberately making spelling mistakes - as you proudly do all the time with "it's" - as compared to making inadvertent typos, as we all do from time to time. There's no law against being a stubborn, obstinate rebel. But the honest thing to do would be to accept and acknowledge that "it's" used possessively is wrong and ipso facto a mistake, even if you fully intend to go right on using it that way. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 14:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A "mistake" or "error" must be accidental. You can argue that my usage is "incorrect", but not that it's a mistake or error. When correcting others' English, you should endeavor to use correct English yourself. To use your killer example, it's as if you accused a murderer of negligent homicide; they are two different things. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In 19th century France, crime passionnel was a valid defense in murder cases. The modern equivalent is a temporary Insanity defense. Is this where StuRat is going? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't remotely equivalent. While being found to be insane may get the verdict "not guilty"; being a crime of passion today may only get the sentence reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter, in the US: Murder_(United_States_law)#Degrees_of_murder_in_the_United_States (although I don't see why people who occasionally go nuts and kill people around them deserve a lighter sentence). StuRat (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I deliberately didn't get into precise legal terminology, because crimes are differently defined and named from place to place. There's no "negligent homicide" in Australia, for example. I was simply comparing a deliberate, intentional, conscious, wilful, planned act with one done inadvertently with no pre-thought.

But of course I can argue your use of "it's" is an error. You yourself have admitted this by acknowledging the rules outlaw it. Now, whether a mistake must always be accidental - I'd argue against that idea, too. Have you ever spent some money on something and then later discovered you could have got it at half the price somewhere else, if only you'd known? and then kick yourself for not doing as much research as you might have done? When you purchased the item, it was intentional, conscious, deliberate, with absolutely nothing "accidental" about it. But in retrospect, you now see it as very much a mistake. Very much so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that could be considered a mistake, if you didn't know that there was a better deal to be had elsewhere. But, if you had full knowledge of this, then it would not be a mistake, any more than using "it's" knowing full well that it's non-standard is a mistake. StuRat (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

So what's the "better deal" with writing stuff like "merit it's own article"? What is more important to you than doing what the rules and conventions say? There has to be something in it for you. Like cigarette smokers. I was one myself, for years after I knew how harmful they were. Yet I kept on smoking, because that immediate "fix" was more important to me, in the moment, than any thoughts of how my hip-pocket nerve or my lungs and general medical condition were being affected. Once I stopped, I fully realised what a colossal mistake it had been all along to be controlled by that momentary, temporary, fleeting "fix" - but that's what addiction is all about, I guess. So, that's my story of why I ignored all the best advice and did it my way. Whats yours with possessive "it's"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Geez, didn't we cover all of this long ago ? I prefer to make a distinction between the possessive form and the plural form of "it". Also, my way seems more consistent with the addition of apostrophe S (or S apostrophe for plurals) when making a proper noun possessive. StuRat (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but what plural form? As for consistency, adding apostrophe S is consistent with the rule for making nouns possessive, but "it" is not a noun so those rules don't apply. Not even with attributive possessive pronouns like "Whose book is that? It's mine/yours/his/hers/its/ours/yours/theirs". Why not add apostrophes to yours, hers, ours and theirs if you're so keen on consistency? No, I don't believe consistency is your real motivation here, Stu. You don't have to divulge it if you don't want to, I'm just curious, that's all. No way am I trying to make you change anything. I gave that up as futile a long time ago. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The (rare) plural forms are in the sentence "How many "hes", "shes" and "its" can we expect ?" I do use the apostrophe with "her's" because "belonging to it" or "her" both make sense, but not "belonging to your" or "our" or "their". StuRat (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

StuRat repeats a claim that has already been tried at RD/L. It will hoodwink only someone who cannot tell the difference between a plural and a plurality. Any child can write "sheep" twice and then boast of her ability to write many sheeps but that is not discovering a rare new plural form. StuRat's concern is with the posessive use of an apostrophe to the exclusion of all else. But in English the apostrophe (see article) serves all these purposes:

• The marking of the omission of one or more letters (as in the contraction of do not to don't).
• The marking of possessive case (as in the cat's whiskers).
• The marking as plural of written items that are not words established in English orthography (as in P's and Q's, the late 1950's). (This is considered incorrect by some but the use of the apostrophe to form plurals of proper words, as in apple's, banana's, etc., is universally considered incorrect.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think "hoodwink" is a little harsh. I've never known StuRat to be malicious; he's always a proper gentleman. But I will say this: He uses a non-standard spelling to avoid confusing the possessive "its" with the so-called plural of "it". That plural is so extremely rarely encountered in real life as to be virtually unheard of. So, to alter the spelling of a word we all use every day of the week, to defer to a word most of us never encounter even once in our entire lives, that's if it's even a word at all, is ... well, lame hardly begins to cover it. But that's what he's telling us. Still, the man is entitled to make whatever mistakes he chooses, as are we all. Maybe we should leave him alone now. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (except for the lame part), but you're still using the word "mistake" incorrectly. StuRat (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I do believe you're the one who's mistaken on that score, but we can agree to disagree. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There are eight possessive pronouns in modern English: mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs, and whose, plus the antiquated possessive pronoun thine and the Middle English yourn (see also English personal pronouns). The word "its" is, however, rarely used as such (almost always it functions as a possessive adjective). Among these, "its" and "whose" are properly distinct from "it's" (a contraction of "it is" or "it has") and "who's" ("who is" or "who has"); however, these and other misspellings with apostrophes ("her's" to mean "hers", etc.) are common. - my underlining. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And you imagine that quoting the "rulebook" will get me to change my mind ? Or, when you encounter a deceased equine, do you enjoy thrashing it's Earthly remains ? StuRat (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not create rules, instead they report verifiable information collected from reliable sources. I quoted above from the article Possessive pronoun which hardly surprisingly is the work of hundreds of editors working in consensus. Can correct information enlighten an obdurate mind? It would be nice to imagine so but StuRat's talk of thrashing suggests it may just feed StuRat's Martyr complex. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your thought processes seem rather disordered. I've said nothing to imply I feel like a martyr, as I am a live rat, not a dead horse. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Rats may be charming pets (really!) or infectious vermin. Their language skills are minimal and legend says they are easy to mislead. The rats at the Karni Mata Temple are destined for reincarnation as Hindu holy men but that does not make them competent to teach English. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an English teacher, since, even with my modest efforts at reform, it's still far too random and illogical for me. StuRat (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I had exited this discussion, but "my modest efforts at reform" demands a response. You now finally admit that you are using "it's" possessively in an attempt to influence others to do likewise. You want people to play by your rules. Yet you refuse steadfastly to play by the rules that have been solidly cemented in by convention over a very long period of time, about when to use "it's" and when to use "its". That's the crux of this; it's not some silly apostrophe, that's trivial at the end of the day. It's your insistence on doing something your way, even if the whole world is telling you you're wrong. You've used logic as an argument (even though exactly how logic applies to most of the English language escapes me), to mask your real motivation here. It's your way of having control over something, no matter how (relatively) minor and inconsequential it may be in itself. Well, I can understand that, I really can. We all need a sense of control about stuff; the trick is in picking which stuff to try to control. Sure, you get to control what letters and symbols you use to communicate your thoughts; you can choose whether to talk about bricks, or to talk about mortar; but you can't choose to refer to bricks as "zxqrtlpfgf", simply because nobody would understand your communication. You might spell it as "briks", and people would probably "get" it. So, why not do that? It'd work. It's more "logical", it's more efficient, it has everything going for it. But once you start doing that sort of stuff, you're committed to widening your campaign; you can't stop at just one word. Yet you have, as far as I can tell, stopped at "it's", which tells me it's not a serious and committed attempt at "reform" of the language. There are so many illogicalities in English, that picking just one word to fix is futile and pointless, less than a drop in the ocean. You call it "modest". To the extent that it's the understatement of the century, I agree with that. So, we come back to you having a sense of control, and now that you've told us what this is really all about, you don't need to keep on doing it. Do you, Stu. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The above psychotherapy session was provided pro bono, as a public service. Future consultations will attract my usual fee.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I might consider ignoring all the idiotic rules of English, and just start spelling things phonetically from now on, but then ... evrywun wud think I was ignorant uv the rulz, rather than just having contempt for them. However, I do sometimes use the "thru" spelling and refuse to put the double quote after a period ending a sentence, since "the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step". StuRat (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good thing (not having a double quote after a period). Logic does indeed have its place in language. Some languages are highly logicsl in their structure, spelling and pronunciation. English is ... less so. That's not a criticism, just an observation. Because where does it say that languages have to be 100% logical? They are what they are. English is now virtually the world language, despite all the flaws, illogicalities, inconsistencies and internal variety it exults in. That's not to say it can never change; it changes all the time, as any healthy language does. But to try to force a change based on your idea of what the "logical" thing should be is doomed to failure. It's like deciding who to fall in love with and marry, based on some scientific, rational assessment of potential candidates. It just doesn't work that way. Same with language; language employs logic where it meets a need, but it is essentially and at its core non-logical (that's not illogical, although it sometimes is that, too). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Psychotherapy begins with Psychoanalysis which provides many theories and few sure cures. It would be harsh to subject StuRat to such probings without his prior agreement that there is a mental condition that needs attention. We are not qualified to conclude any such thing, far less treat it. We can only ask questions and observe behaviour in Wikipedia. StuRat displays the following peculiarities.

• Contempt for the rules of English, that StuRat derides as idiotic and illogical, supported by his claim to have exposed the ambiguity of ITS. This if it were a novel discovery would make StuRat a Notable Person.
• Activism. StuRat clearly intends to continue exploiting the protected (against editing) environment of the ref desks as a platform for demonstrating his preferred modifications to English.
• Irresponsibility. The effect of StuRat's unorthodox writing inserted alongside other responses in normal English, particularly on those who ask for help at the desks and often are not themselves skilled in English, doesn't seem to register to him. StuRat attempts to isolate himself from all responsibility by his fatuous claim that his actions are not errors because he wants to do them.
• Asociality. StuRat is aware of possibly upsetting others but not in any sympathetic way. He uses upsetting as a ploy. Thus my questions must be because I am unreasonably "upset", and if StuRat thinks he has baited someone, that is cause to jeer.

I don't think that a yearning for control, as Jack suggests, explains all of this. Returning to the analogy of the little girl and her "sheeps", she decides that she will call woolly animals "sheep" in singular and "wolf" in plural. Thus the problem is solved, and you can't blame a little girl for liking to get attention. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Chiming out

I agree with Jack's posts here. StuRat makes valuable contributions to the ref desks and has recently helped me personally. We seriously need closure on this subject that if unchecked will continue to disrupt ref. desks in public view. StuRat has rightly said:

• (to Buddy431) "..the Ref Desk is a collaborative effort, and we each police each other. Do you feel you can just ignore all the rules ?"
• (to Jack of Oz) "OK, that one actually was a mistake, I will fix it....I'll fix that one, too." Good to his word, StuRat fixed both mentioned mistakes.

I think enough time has been spent on StuRat's observation that ITS can in a rare context be a plurality of IT. The general reaction is "So what? English has lots of unlikely and seemingly illogical features." Consensus is that StuRat's argument gives no justification for one responder at the ref. desks to deliberately deviate from conventional English. I think StuRat must stop his unilateral effort at reforming English grammar in the "front window" of Wikipedia. StuRat's unconventional punctuations that until now have been under administrator's radar can, if continued, develop into a perceived WP:POINT disruption. That serious situation will not be helped by claiming that the unorthodox writing was done deliberately for an allegedly good cause, because the ref. desks shall not be used for language experiments.

It would be good to have an assurance from StuRat that he will stop his campaign for a new system of English punctuation. He remains free to discuss punctuation both on his page and as a subject at RD/L. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You seriously think any admin would "take action" because you are upset at my punctuation ? I would think the reaction to your last "Request for comment" would show you how unreasonable it is for you to pursue this further. Admins enforce Wikipedia rules, not spelling rules on talk pages like the Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Deliberately flouting WP:MOS on ref.desks where you should be cooperating with other editors is disruptive. The MOS has clear rules about standard English punctuation, as you well know. If you want to persuade anyone that the language we use in English Wikipedia needs your idea for reforming, you must seek consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style Talk:MOS. You have not tried that, nor do I see any post from you at Talk:Apostrophe or even Talk:ITS. Please think carefully about what you are doing, not just about how long you may "get away with it". In this thread you appear to be obdurate in opposing the MOS, myself and Jack of Oz. If you don't have anything constructive to add, WP:WQA is indicated as a first step towards resolving our dispute. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Manual of Style applies to articles, not to talk pages, like the Ref Desk. You've annoyed me quite enough now, please go away. StuRat (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, you may have missed me saying above that I have long since ceased trying to make Stu change his ways. My sole interest here now is curiosity ("Lord, grant that I may seek to understand than to be understood.") Oh, sure, it'd be nice if he listened to the voice of reason that you and I have been speaking, but at the end of the day he's allowed to spell things any damn way he pleases, for whatever weird or sane reasons he may have. I do believe you're treating this as if he's broken some law and is hurting innocent people. It's only spelling. It is not the stuff of formal disputes. Time to let go and move on to more productive pursuits. If you choose to continue, you won't have my support. Best. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

I was so tempted to revert your edits to that page in bulk. Due to this edit and this edit. Speaking down to other editors like that does not help the goals of the project. In fact, one of those editors is under mentorship for his behavior so poor examples like this do not help. In the future, try to be a little more civil and maybe take a look at Wikipedia:Etiquette. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to tone it down, but it's frustrating that so many seem to think "Question" or "mmm..." is a useful title. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no problem with the title being changed, it was just the comments that irked me. Sadly, the reference desk isn't the only place where poor section titles are left. The help desk is usually full of poor titles; although, I don't see many right now. Anything is better than no section title though, don't you think? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have more patience with that type of error, since it probably just means they don't know how to use a wiki. That is a more specialized skill than knowing how to come up with a title. Everyone learns that in elementary school. StuRat (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflicted with three comments at once) Yeah, the comment made me respond back in tone (“Oh...umm...then can you please help me with my question? to “Oh...umm...(to be “blunt”) then do you mind to kindly help me with my question?”). And not “everyone learns that in elementary school”; that's an assumption. Just a comment. An editor since 10.28.2010. 05:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

hi (What's wrong with random section titles ?)

Hi. Please tell me how this (shortcut) is “incredibly useless”. An editor since 10.28.2010. 04:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

His reasoning was that "mmm" gave no indication to the subject of the question/problem you were having. If you look at the section directly above, you will see that the issue was discussed already. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your title was just "mmm...". We see that title in at least 5 places:

1) Right above the question. This is probably the only place you had considered, thinking we could read the actual question to find out what you meant to ask.

2) At the table of contents at the top of the page.

3) On our watch-lists.

4) In the history page.

5) As the search term in the archive pages.

In all but the first case, we have the question title only, and no actual question, so it's critical that the title give us some clue as to what the question is about. Otherwise, all those lists become completely useless.

Also, the title of this section ("hi") is also of no help. A section title should describe the contents of the section. Therefore, I will change this title, too. StuRat (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, obviously you can change titles on your own talk page, but I see the other change as somewhat disputable. I thank you for the explanation (as that is the only reason I came here for). An editor since 10.28.2010. 05:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and sorry for being so harsh. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You better be sorry :) (to clear any miasunderstanding, the preceding was a joke and not in any way an insult, as you can see from the “:)”. any insulting or offending statements are coincidential and unintentional. I see you have received multiple and numerous barnstars for your humor, so I see you have almost no problem with this)

(edit conflict)Actually, it is not disputable at all. Please read this quote from WP:Talk page guidelines.

* Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant. In order to ensure links to the previous section heading (including automatically generated links in watchlists and histories) continue to work, one should use one of the following templates to anchor the old title: {{formerly}}, {{anchord}}, {{anchor}}.

Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

To be “blunt”, did you not read it? I said “I see the other change as somewhat disputable”. I. Sorry, don't have enough time to read a long quote, may read it later. An editor since 10.28.2010. 05:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)