User talk:Hairy Dude

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

Note: Please add new comments to the BOTTOM of this page, unless they are in reply to something else. Hairy Dude 13:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive: /Archive 1

Thanks for nuking the non-notable[edit]

Thanks for getting rid of the non-notable World of Warcraft material on Small matter of programming. I'm usually too chicken to get rid of text which I don't see as belonging on Wikipedia, but I'm glad someone takes care of these things. Kingdon 02:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you're not sure what is notable, it's probably wise not to delete stuff - WP:BOLD does have its exceptions! :) I might add that my own idea of notability has been enhanced by the deletion of the article on a relatively major student computer society of which I am a member: we thought it was notable for what seemed like good reasons, but WP consensus disagreed because there weren't enough independent sources of information. It's very much tied in with verifiability. I suppose the confidence to get rid of NN stuff only comes with such experience. Hairy Dude 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


I messed up. Can you fix it?

The proper useage is in the plural - and I misspelled it when I tried to move it.
Thanks. --Ludvikus 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What we have now is Categoies. --Ludvikus 01:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the name of an article :) Please continue at Talk:Category (philosophy). Hairy Dude 13:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal names - feudal names[edit]

I was trying to find some information and wound up following from link to link (as procrastinators are wont to do), and wound up on the personal name pages. Is there a reason that Quixote and Lafayette are rendered in small caps? I was thinking is was some sort of vandalism, since it's next to a reference about the "disgusting name" of the musical "Man of La Mancha". Before changing it I was hoping you could let me know what's up so that maybe I wouldn't have to.

Thanks, Datsun Eleven 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Personal name. Hairy Dude 00:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Fork bomb" article[edit]

I really do not believe the fork bomb article requires references. It doesn't contain any questionable factoids. Any programmer or information security expert (or armchair expert) could verify that the information in that article is accurate. Any script kiddie could tell you how to write a program to saturate a system's process table. There are no weasel worded statements like "A common dilemma is that most Unix-like operating systems assume that all system users are trusted by the system administrator and therefore do not include protection against internal denial of service attacks." Do note, however, that the article may have too much original research or statements based on editors' experiences with this. Furthermore, if the need for references is a major issue, act on it and hit Google. However, I doubt anything you'd find would be a "reliable source" as I doubt any such source would inform people how to bring down a computer system that they can execute code on. --Victor 22:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion every article needs some references, if only to show that it's not just Wikipedia that came up with the idea. Sure, any expert could tell you what a fork bomb is, but what if the reader doesn't have access to such experts? Anyway, sometimes I add {{unreferenced}} rather than adding references myself because I don't have time. "So fix it" only works if you are able to. Hairy Dude 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I doubt most readers question the validity of Wikipedia content (which is a grave problem) but topics like these are usually lacking in decent, neutral sources. --Victor 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Blackboard Legal Issues[edit]

Blackboard legal issues - "except where it is deemed necessary" makes the pledge sound completely empty, or that they are effectively admitting to filing unnecessary infringement lawsuits)

As I recall the phrase "except where it is deemed nessecary" was Blackboard's exact wording on their website at: However, they have since changed it. The original page is not on, so I have no easy way to prove it one way or the other. Secondly, if you think that wording this casts an undue bad light on Blackboard, I think you can objectively say that filing an unnessecary infringement lawsuit isn't much a mental stretch given the company's legal track record. Romanpoet 16:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Well, I happen to agree on that last point :) However, my opinion is of course no more welcome than anyone else's (it being original research). I'm sure there are plenty of sources for criticisms of the patents - instead of casting a bad light on an unethical company, Wikipedia would prefer to reflect the bad light (and whatever good light there is) cast by other people :) Hairy Dude 21:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Simple and wrong unity[edit]

What is going on here? Look to the end and you know it: Heisenberg is wrong! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 23:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ich habe Dich angesprochen, weil Du ebenfalls bemerkt hast, daß da etwas faul ist. Die Einheit J/(rad/s) bzw. Js/rad ist vorstellbar, sinnvoll und richtig. Das Argument, 1 rad = 1, also dimensionslos, ist Unsinn und muß eine Schutzbehauptung sein. rad ist eine Winkeldefinition genauso wie m eine Längendefinition ist und die kann ebenfalls nicht entfallen. Sehr deutlich wird das auch beim Drehmoment, welches fälschlich als Nm bezeichnet wird. Richtig ist aber Arbeit je Drehwinkel, also Nm/rad oder Nm/°. Nun kommt Heisenberg mit seiner Unschärferelation und das ist der eigentliche Punkt, worauf ich hinauswollte: Die richtigen Einheiten zeigen, daß die H.U. ein totaler Unsinn sein muß! Mein Englisch ist leider miserabel, weshalb ich mich nicht auf eine Diskussion einlassen kann. Daher auch nur die Kurzversion "mathematisch". Auf Heisenbergs Unsinn ist aber ein Großteil der Quantenphysik aufgebaut, mit all den unvorstellbaren Behauptungen wie Vakuumenergie, Vakuumfluktuation, Quantenschaum, virtuellen Teilchen und noch viel anderer Quatsch. Mit Heisenberg werden Phantasieteilchen erzeugt, natürlich kurzlebige. Noch etwas für Dich zum genauen Nachdenken. Die Null! Damit wird ebenfalls viel gezaubert. Man sagt im allgemeinen: 3 Äpfel - 3 Äpfel = 0. Das ist falsch. Richtig ist: 3 Äpfel - 3 Äpfel = 0 Äpfel. Das ist ein gewaltiger Unterschied. In der theoretischen Physik wird das dann mißbraucht, indem man dann z.B. bei zwei Gleichungen, wo angeblich 0 herauskommt,diese Gleichungen gleichsetzt und schon hat man eine Verbindung zwischen pionen und Elefanten geschaffen, wobei letztere dann auch sehr kurze Zeit aus dem Nichts auftauchen dürfen und wieder verschwinden. Heisenberg erlaubt dies ja :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 23:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't make up the rules about assigning units to values. What counts for Wikipedia is what is written in the literature, and that does indeed say that pairs of particles can spontaneously appear in a vacuum and then annihilate each other again, which is the principle that would be responsible for Hawking radiation. Whether this describes the truth is not for Wikipedia to decide - that would be original research, which is forbidden here. If you think radians should be considered to have a dimension, find a paper supporting this view and cite it. Actually, that should be done for the converse as well. I don't have the time or inclination to do this, though (I am not a physicist after all). Oh, and please sign your comments. Hairy Dude 16:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

gotten vs. got[edit]

There is nothing wrong with "gotten," for Christ's sake. Just because it became obsolete in England (except in "ill-gotten gain") doesn't mean it has to become obsolete everywhere else.

Kostaki mou 21:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use the dialect of English appropriate to the subject. That article was plainly on a British subject, so I thought the use of "gotten" inappropriate. And please be civil. There's no need to blaspheme over such a trivial issue. Hairy Dude 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Greyfriars Bobby[edit]

Correct. Well-spotted! Ref (chew)(do) 23:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposed: Soilent Grün → Die Ärzte[edit]

It has been proposed to merge the content of Soilent Grün into Die Ärzte. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 11:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Chain Barnstar of Recognition[edit]

removed Chain Barnstars of Recognition, Merit, Diligence and Honour added by Hpfan9374 01:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Much as I appreciate barnstars, I feel I must decline these. I don't believe that pure edit count is a sensible reason to grant barnstars, and the idea of chain barnstars is too much like a pyramid scheme for me to feel entirely comfortable with it. (Besides, who ever heard of an honour for which you have to do something unrelated to the reason you got it to retain it?) Hairy Dude 13:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dominion of Newfoundland "This Prime Minister is not that of the UK"[edit]

I agree with your removal of links to the disambiguation pages for Newfoundland and Labrador, but I am wondering why you felt it necessary to specify in an article on the Dominion of Newfoundland that it was Newfoundland's Prime Minister who was involved in a scandal, as opposed to a UK PM?Silverchemist 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because a layman might think that since it was under the UK's control, its PM would be the UK's. It just makes the article a bit easier to read. Of course, if you think the clarification isn't necessary, feel free to remove it. Hairy Dude 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The clarification doesn't need to be removed; one extra word isn't a problem. At the time of the scandal, Newfoundland was not under UK control, at least not to the same extent that it was as a colony, or during Comission of Government, over a decade later.Silverchemist 22:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?[edit]

Could you please explain why you are replacing instances of Guantanamo with the accented version?

Since this is the English wikipedia, shouldn't we use the English spelling, not the Spanish spelling. I am not some kind of language bigot. But using the Spanish spelling just adds unnecessary work.

I thought there was a discussion about this, a year and a half ago, and the consensus was to use the Spanish spelling for the names of geographic locations where Spanish was spoken. So, Guantánamo Bay, not Guantanamo Bay -- but Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, not Guantánamo Bay Naval Base.

Has there been some recent review of this decision I missed out on?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your change doesn't just make maintaining the articles more difficult, but it mas text searches within the articles fail unexpectedly. And, if a reader ever has to do a text search on the title of the references, changing instances of Guantanamo to the spanish spelling will make those text searches fail.
In general, let me suggest you exercise caution in correcting errors you perceive in quoted material. If what you perceive as an error is the way it was written in the original source document I think it is almost always best to leave it as is. If, when you go and check the original source, and you find the "error" was in the original, by all means feel free to add a {{sic}} template after it, to guide other people who think it would be helpful to make a correction.
No offense, but barring a really convincing explanation I think I better revert your corrections before that gets complicated by someone introducing more changes after yours.
I cut this table from an earlier talk page discussion. If I made it today it might be longer. I continue to think that all the Guantanamo captives whose names require disambiguation should follow the same form, because most of the captives whose names require disambiguation require disambiguation from one another.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I tried to add the accent only where it was just "Guantanamo" or "Guantanamo Bay", but if I got some wrong or ended up acting against consensus, I apologise. I'll refrain from making such changes in future. Hairy Dude (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

SVG image[edit]

Seeing Image:NatGasProcessing.png in Natural gas I couldn't help but think that it would be better as a vector image, so I created one: Image:NatGasProcessing.svg. I haven't replaced it in the article since a) I wanted to make sure people didn't think it sucked :) but more importantly 2) there is a bug in MediaWiki's rendering of SVGs which makes the arrowheads invisible. Seems to be fixed upstream though so it's only a matter of time till it looks right. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hairy Dude: As the originator of Image:NatGasProcessing.png, I don't think that your svg version "sucks". But I do have two important comments:
  • My original png drawing has a Legend box in the lower left hand corner that is essential to explaining the flow diagram and your version should also include that Legend box.
  • I deliberately chose my text font sizes so that the font would be readable in a drawing that was no more than 584px wide ... since that is the maximum width that can be displayed on a Wikipedia page without horizontal scrolling or without having to use the "thumb" function to reduce the image width. On my IE browser, using the "thumb" function to reduce the size of an image reduces the appearance or resolution quite visibly. I would urge you most strongly to reduce your font sizes so that the current 744px width of your svg version can be reduced to 584px.
Obviously, the arrow heads must be visible. Without them, the drawing is no good.
Personally, I think the png version is fine as is. But if you are going to change it to a svg version, then please consider the above two points. Regards, - mbeychok (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, scaling it down will be no problem... though why 584 px in particular? Also, I thought it would be better to keep the legend outside the image, since it is basically text rather than graphics. I really don't think representing text as graphics is a good idea. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I will not change the image in the article until that bug is fixed, since I agree, it is no good without the arrowheads. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

US coins special case where greedy algorithm works?[edit]

I believe you originated the comment that US coin denominations are a special case for which the Greedy algorithm finds the optimal change. I believe that the more common coin system ([1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200] etc.) that is used, amongst other places, in the UK and Euroland can also use the greedy algorithm to give optimal change (I have verified this computationally for all amounts of change from 1 to 500). As such, I feel that the comment about the US being an exception (now edited since your initial change) should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I originally thought that would be sufficient, but looking at it again it seems to suggest the US currency is more special than other currencies. I've rewritten the comment to take account of that. Thanks for your input. Hairy Dude (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work[edit]

...with the beekeeping article. MisterSheik (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Hairy Dude (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects TfD[edit]

Thanks for the note, but all I did was correct some spelling errors -- I don't care whether it's deleted or not, as long as it's spelled correctly.  :-) (not watching here) ~ MD Otley (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

re Batting 1000 I see... albeit seeing one dimensionally. Didn't have the sense or maturity to ask about a tool before nominating it for TFD, and made assumptions on its use (which I may own, a piece of for the usage), contacted someone who apparently fixed a spelling goof, but not the originators like me and CBD, ignored the discussion on the Village Pumpt and in the meantime, promoted a minor bit of stupidity ("Self reference avoidance") into major policy, like it could ever trump WP:IAR.
FYI, the template was superb at preventing contextual confusion to a user, and dejunking the first few sentences of many articles—making them far less awkward to phrase or read, the many articles— where there are alternative names and spelling of names each of historical import, in particular. I would really suggest you learn to use a history tab and figure out how to find an originator. That this idiotic project doesn't mandate originator notification just makes this a hostile place to donate time... as does taking someone's tools. Better yet, learn elementary courtesy and ask a question before jumping to a conclusion. Why anyone hallucinates that taking someone's tools helps the project, really baffles me. Try editing articles forsooth. If you don't know enough English to write well, come over to the commons and sort images. // FrankB 14:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the major cleanup! It needed it! Wizard191 (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Hairy Dude (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


hey, in the pompey article you put an edit note, Cosham station is on the mainland, so might not be considered to be in Portsmouth depending on definitions) the island is called portsea and there really is no definition where cosham wouldn't be consider part of the city of portsmouth. anyway thanks for the great contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation in the article on the right of abode in the UK[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to remove the initial capitals from the term "right of abode" in this article (Right of abode (United Kingdom))! Ondewelle (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


I just noticed this edit of yours. I don't understand "thinko?" in the edit summary, but it seems like you were questioning whether your edit is correct; it is. So thanks for making it! —Toby Bartels (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for rewriting. Onnozele (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


Danite123 (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Hi there, I’m researching an article about Wikipedia, and its editors. I wonder if you I could talk to you about Wikipedia, and how you use it, for a magazine about not-for-profit organisations. If you could spare some time and wouldn’t mind answering some questions by email or phone, please contact me on, or leave a message here or on my talk page. Many thanks,



Your user page indicates an interest in Template:Primary. You may want to comment at Template talk:Primary#Toward deletion of the accompanying template.
--Jerzyt 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

Hey, thanks for all the fixes lately to various D&D articles. :) Have you seen the D&D WikiProject yet? We've got a lot of useful resources there, plus we try to get some things done on the talk page. Hope to see you around, and happy editing! :) BOZ (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem[edit]

I've just received notification of possible deletion of File:Triconegravir1 big.jpg, see User talk:andrewa#Image permission problem with Image:Triconegravir1 big.jpg. I can't remember uploading it, but according to the history I did, and I appear to have relied on Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission/Lubos Bena for the copyright clearance.

The image is still a useful one IMO, so any help you can give in resolving this would be appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That speedy tag is totally baseless. I got permission for all images from Lubos Bena and documented it. WP:CSD allows speedying for a few copyright reasons:
  • CSD F3 "improper license", for example "used with permission". I went through, to the best of my knowledge, what are the proper channels for obtaining permission for using images on Wikipedia. If this is improper, the entire process needs questioning.
  • CSD F4 "lack of licensing information". This is the given reason, but it clearly doesn't apply here. The evidence is linked from the image description page.
  • CSD F6 "missing non-free use rationale". I got permission for free use, so this doesn't apply here.
  • CSD F7 "invalid fair-use claim". Again, it's not claiming fair use.
  • CSD F9 "unambiguous copyright infringement". Since I (claim to have) got permission, this is not unambiguously an infringement.
  • CSD F11 "no evidence of permission". Again, the evidence is present and linked to, so this doesn't apply.
If there is a license, but its validity is disputed, deletion should proceed through WP:FfD, certainly not speedy deletion. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
'Evidence of permission' means an OTRS email or other verifiable evidence of permission (such as a notice on a site), so F11 is applicable (Requests for permission has been superseded by OTRS, and evidence of permission is required). What you have is text that is stated to have been copied from an email, which doesn't constitute 'evidence'. Have a nice day, — neuro(talk) 18:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, the reply does not indicate that the person has agreed for the image to be licensed under the GFDL. He states that he gives "you approval to use pictures and information from my own for your online encyclopedia Wikipedia". — neuro(talk) 18:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
What is OTRS? There is no indication that anything has superseded WP:COPYREQ. As for the reply, it is replying to an email explaining exactly what permission is being requested and the reply grants that. As I implied, the permission is verifiable since I sent a copy to the permissions address. BTW apologies for removing the tag, I mistakenly thought it was a speedy deletion. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. To the best of my knowledge OTRS didn't exist when I got this permission. I have no idea if the permission email is in OTRS now, but surely the way to fix this is not to say "there's no permission, delete it" but "this old-style permission should be put in OTRS". Hairy Dude (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if the emails are still accessible, they just need to be forwarded to OTRS. — neuro(talk) 21:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
That said, they still would have to clarify that the image is being released under the GFDL. — neuro(talk) 21:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the eventual resolution will be to get a new release from Lubos Bena. But this seems a strange time to do such things, in view of the discussion of going from GFDL to Creative Commons licensing. Shouldn't we wait until the dust settles on this? Andrewa (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The matter will have to be dealt with by Saturday in any case, since that's when the "no permission" tag allows the image to be deleted due to "lack of evidence". Again, I think this tag is inappropriate since there is evidence, even it may be considered inadequate. Additionally, my user talk page is not the proper forum for discussing copyright issues. I've listed the file at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_April_29#File:Triconegravir1_big.jpg, and replaced the tag on the image with {{pui}}, resetting the date to today in order to allow for debate in the proper forum.
Incidentally there are a number of other images from the same source that should be dealt with in the same way - this one shouldn't be singled out. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nude celebrities on the Internet[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nude celebrities on the Internet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  – iridescent 16:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Bullets in footnotes[edit]

I didn't know that this was bad practice. I repent, and thank you for calling attention to the problem. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Slavs and slaves[edit]

I posted a reply in your comment about "Slav" vs "slave" at Talk:Slavic_peoples#.22Slav.22_vs_.22slave.22. Not sure if it cleared anything, because I wasn't exactly sure if I got your point but anyway I added the explanation to the article. --Pudeo' 20:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Please do not use this template and delete its instances and replace with {{about}} because {{otheruses4}} is deprecated. (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So it is. I'm apparently not entirely up to date with the state of hatnotes on Wikipedia; thanks for the update. However, it's a waste of time to go replacing instances unless you have a bot to do it. In any case the deprecated template redirects to the new one, so the old one still being used is harmless. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Confusing to new editors though. (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi, You are editing all these Mariology templates all of a sudden and I have a hard time reading your versions. Please discuss before using a tractor on them all. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I got your message on my talk. It will be funny to try: Do you prefer ""one" or "two" like in the optometrist's office on these. Historically speaking, a previous editor who worked on a lot of the Mariology articles and designed the templates thought the font was too small! But he knew a few popes who dies decades ago - so I guess for the past generations, the smaller fonts are just too hard to handle. History2007 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually I am not visually impaired. But I can not see where one has a parameter to set the font to be the same as the page size font in the sidebar template. Is there? If so, I can try and experiment with it. As is, the sidebar seems smaller than the page font. And if the page font is the limit of readability, the sidebar will be too small. I left a jpg here. As you see the blue text from both of the smaller font templates is smaller than the black "veneration" that is from the article text. So can you get the sidebar text to be the same size as article text? History2007 (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


Thanks Category:Swansea geography stubs is a sub-subcategory of Category:Cardiff, so it got mistagged. I'm going through Category:Swansea to replace {{WikiProject Cardiff}} to {{WikiProject Wales}}. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 17:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Predatory Behavior", "Barrier to Entry" in Economic profit section[edit]

I Apologize for not answering sooner.

"Barrier to Entry" is a 'Technical Term used in both my (MIT and other Micro Economic TextBook) References, as well as in many other professional articles and duscussions.

I believe "Predatory Behavior" is a a Legal Term defined and used in other past Anti-Trust Court Cases. As originally Defined, it describes Microsoft's Behavior.MGMontini (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing your duplicate earlier comment and fixing your rather strange formatting. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Concealing birth[edit]

I have noticed your recent edits to this article.

The ellipsis in the revised text of section 60 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 represents a "repeal". The term "deletion" is not used for repeals.

The proviso to that section allowed an alternative verdict to be found "on a charge of murder", not "in a murder trial", because an indictment can charge more than one offence (including multiple counts of the same offence). James500 (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My intention was to make the language plainer and more easily understandable but I see I mangled the meaning in the process. Sorry about that. I hope the changes I just made fix it, but if not feel free to revert. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Order of templates at start[edit]

Hi, re this edit - the previous order was correct, see MOS:LEAD - {{other uses}} is a disambiguation link (hatnote); {{citation style}} is a maintenance tag. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I could have sworn maintenance templates were supposed to go first... Sorry! Hairy Dude (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Signing" the gallery[edit]

Oops, sorry, it was just by accident. I did not intend to sign anything in the article ("signing articles" sounds funny ;-)). Maybe I clicked by mistake on the tool-bar and didn't notice it. Thank you for your correction. --Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Template_talk:Quote's talk page.SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 00:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

West Point Cadet Sword[edit]

Thank you, and Nice Work....

Andy2159 (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The table in List of largest empires[edit]

Hey there. Thanks for fixing the table in the List of largest empires article. I was actually playing around with it recently, trying to get it to work right, and found it painful to process automatically. As such, I wanted to ask you if you used anything to parse the wiki markup in order to make it easier to process, or did you do it some other way?  — daranzt ] 18:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

  • No parsing, just Vim (via the Firefox extension It's All Text), lots of replace commands, and a good deal of patience. Knowing how to use regexes makes this sort of editing task vastly easier. Hairy Dude (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that's what I was originally doing, but I found myself getting tripped up by stuff like stray line returns or multiline cells, so I thought about looking into some way of parsing out the table instead of dealing with it through regexes only. That's obviously a non-trivial problem, though. Thanks for your response.  — daranzt ] 22:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor[edit]

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "Enable the visual editor. It will be available in the following namespaces: $1". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

fight or flight response[edit]

Hey the for writing this article.I'm in TY and I'm doing a project on how sport affect the brain and I'm looking to see if you going any pointers or tips on where to look for the answers MonaghanMurt11 (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I have anything in particular to say on the topic. All I did was copy editing. Hairy Dude (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1794 - onlyinclude[edit]

Hello Hairy Dude, I have reverted your recent change in this article to fix the affected lists. The widespread usage of "onlyinclude" and similar tags in nested lists is not optimal, but those tags serve a purpose and are not "garbage". Please see WP:TRANSCLUSION for more information, simply removing such tags damages the list's summary article (in this case 1790s). Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. I couldn't see the matching opening tag so I thought that, being mismatched, it was doing nothing. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)