User talk:ErikHaugen

Talkback

Hello, ErikHaugen. You have new messages at Talk:Nsoft.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Crepe

Four opposes and four supports? Weirdest use of the word "consensus" I've ever seen. I'm afraid I think you're very wrong in this closure and I'm mystified as to how you could possibly come to this decision, particularly as it seems likely that it is a UK/US variation (I have noticed on other such move discussions that US editors generally oppose the use of diacritics, whereas UK editors generally support them). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm an American, and I like diacritics. There was consensus, I think, about the points that I said there was consensus about. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 10:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Necro that your interpretation of "consensus" is faulty. I fail to see how there was consensus to move. The move discussion has reopened. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, I think there was consensus about what I said there was consensus about. There wasn't "consensus" there to move, I guess, but wp:LOCALCONSENSUS. Thanks for the heads-up; hopefully it will be constructive. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You severely qualified your statement, and gloss over the fact that perhaps you could have been wrong in closing the move discussion as you did. It was contrived, and wasn't a consensus in any classic sense, and at best a 'no consensus' could have been claimed. Assuming good faith, one could say it was a misjudgement; at worst, one could argue an abuse of process. In view of the huge drama that has exploded there as a result of this mistake, and the fact that long-standing namespace of the article was 'crêpe', the correct thing to do would be to reverse the move and restart the discussion from there. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "glossed over". See my response to Hans, who also claimed it was at best no consensus; he even backed up his claim with reasons. We discussed it at length at Talk:Crepe. Please let me know if there is anything new to add to that discussion. In any case, though, as I told the other editor who asked me to reverse my last closure, I do not see this as an option given the opposition to the move request that is in process. That would be an abuse of process. And I certainly wouldn't do it just because of drama. And I guess we should be careful using the word "drama", it can be seen as offensive. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Erik, now that the RM is closed with reversion to Crêpe, let me thank you for your efforts there. It cannot have been easy. This simple-looking RM turned out to be an ordeal for several editors. There may be something for us all to learn from it; but just what is to be learned is up to each of us individually. My best wishes to you as always. I recognise your integrity, and I look forward to working with you as the opportunity arises. Noetica^Tea? 06:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and thanks for all your work here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Editor Review

Hello! I've noticed that you are willing to do editor reviews of deleted edits. I'm considering another attempt at RfA, and I'd like to get a picture of how my CSD tagging is (my last one failed because of it). I'd really appreciate it if you could please do a review of my deleted edits. --Slon02 (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that it's been a week since I left the message here. I understand that you're probably busy, but I'd just like to know if you will look over my edits, or if I should look for someone else. If you aren't able to, I understand completely and it won't be a problem. --Slon02 (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I'll try to look at some of your deleted edits in the next few days. But it wouldn't hurt to ask someone else also! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review!--Slon02 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

triple-hyphen bond?

Hi,

Is the triple-hyphen bond, as here, different from a H−H bond? Just checking, in case I'm screwing something up. — kwami (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know! sorry, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 02:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's referring to a nonspecific bonding situation or a weaker attraction, not literally a single covalent bond. DMacks (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope

Hello Erik. Earlier today you moved the CFHT article by changing the hyphens of its name to dashes. I think the move is inappropriate because it is not a matter of text, to which the WP manual of style properly applies, but the actual name of a telescope and the corporation that runs it, spelt with hyphens. It isn't WP's business how an organisation should spell its name, only how it does. So I'm requesting that you undo the move to correspond to the telescope's own usage. Thanks, Awien (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think we've decided not to treat names of organizations/corporations this way. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks); the summary reads "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners." ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The styling of the name is not consistently with hyphens, though that is most common. For example, this paper uses en dashes, as does this one; and this one uses spaces; and this official memo uses spaced hyphens while this official report uses spaces. We should use WP style. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How users spell the name of the telescope is irrelevant (but you do in fact admit that the majority use hyphens). What counts is the usage of the corporation itself, which is consistently with hyphens:

http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/

http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/HawaiianStarlight/trailer.html

Nor is there anything "incorrect" or "non-standard" about hyphens, which can be analysed as linking a triple modifier (cf. blue-green algae). What's going on here is in my view misguided hypercorrection, and the corporation's own usage should be respected. Awien (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In "blue-green", "blue" modifies "green", so a hyphen is correct, I believe. At least according to our manual of style. How is this "hypercorrection"? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, the hyphen is correct in the algae, but would be wrong in "blue–green dichroism", where it signals the different meaning. I agree that "How users spell the name of the telescope is irrelevant"; but further, how the corporation styles their name is irrelevant, according to MOS and trademark guidelines; also, as I thought I showed, that corporation does not in fact use consistent styling of their own name (even their official top-level web site page uses spaces in meta name="Description" content="Welcome to the Canada France Hawaii Telescope Website"; also not very relevant, though). Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, blue-green algae was not a good example. But principle 1.3 in the MOS, far ahead of the controversial section on dashes, is "Follow the sources". The usage of the entity in question, a respected university-based corporation, is a reliable source; we're not talking a goofy brand name here. You are jumping the gun in enforcing on it a principle that has yet to be adopted in order to "correct" what is not incorrect (i.e. hypercorrection). What you're doing seems a lot like having an axe to grind, not appropriate. Awien (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There's not much controversy on the new dashes section, and quite a bit around PMAnderson's "follow the sources" section, so you've got it backwards. We are using the name of the telescope (and the corporation), but using WP's style; other sources with similar style guides so similarly. In a style that uses en dashes, hyphens are incorrect; in other styles, they're fine. There's no conflict there. Dicklyon (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point; if a particular source uses hyphens for this sort of thing, then they're going to style this and everything else with hyphens. It doesn't mean that this phrase in particular should especially be styled with hyphens. Just that we found it discussed in that source. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Awien, I don't see the "follow the sources" section as applying to things like punctuation; in those cases it is best to maintain a style consistent with ourselves. Consider again how Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) so deliberately does not follow sources wrt things like punctuation or capitalization. Spelling, yes, but not punctuation, I think? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Turns out they don't mind, so I'm dropping it. Awien (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your contribution to and interest in Wikipedia Tree of Life! Chrisrus (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had to decline that BLPPROD

Pretty much any link in an article prevents nomination under that tag, sorry about that. I suspect it's going to have to go to AfD. Best, --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I edit conflicted with you; I noticed the EL too late and tried to remove it myself, but you beat me to it. Sorry I had to decline your prod, the article had been prodded before and was therefore ineligible for any more prods. To afd we go. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

OOP advocacy again ?

Tim Lee research SCRIBD paper removed because it gives some numerical credence to critics who say just how inefficient OOP methodology is compared to, for instance, imperative/procedural paradigms?

Why can't OOP proponents provide their own evidence to show the opposite if they believe in it so fervently? I have not yet heard one convincing argument about any aspect of OOP that is backed up by incontrovertible evidence. I have not yet seen one simple and concrete example that compares their paradigm to others in any meaningful way (Let's say just adding up two binary integers for instance as a starting point (The example given in the current Object (computer science)#Mechanism article for instance is really dumb, since it can be replaced by a static - and potentially immutable - assignment and doesn't show the potential construction of up to three objects, nor code normally required for methods). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.127.235 (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of this is remotely controversial or mysterious. Different oop languages have different mechanisms for virtual calls, and their performance tradeoffs are all pretty well understood, as far as I know. I can't imagine what a test that adds two integers would prove, but anyway doing demonstrations and tests has nothing to do with Wikipedia; those would be wp:OR. By the way, is the Tim Lee paper peer-reviewed? Is it published in any kind of journal? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not comparing different OOP language mechanisms, it is comparing OOP mechanisms (in general) to non-OOP mechanisms - surely this is clear enough! Indirect assignments and comparisons for instance are inherently slower than direct assignments and comparisons. The number of separate steps necessary to simply add two integers together is relevant to how efficient a mechanism is during execution (the quantity and "clarity" of source code might also be considered here as another metric, especially considering maintenance and also in relation to the ability to follow the control flow for program walk-through/debugging purposes).

I cannot comment on the validity of Tim Lees paper and it must stand on its own merits. The code is shown in the SCRIBD article and presumably the tests can be repeated without too much difficulty by wikipedia readers to verify the results or otherwise if they doubt the conclusion. You say "doing demonstrations and tests has nothing to do with Wikipedia", but evidence for or against an articles viewpoint is frequently an issue for Wikipedia articles. Tim Lees' article is just one example of this. The problem with OOP is that exaggerated statements are made that are completely unsupported by evidence. Perhaps requesting attribution would be a better alternative to outright censorship of seemingly serious articles.