User talk:Posix memalign

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

Notability of[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 23:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the ref[edit]

I had no idea it was a bad ref. Thanks for fixing it. G2.0 USA (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Soul sphere[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Soul sphere, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Sabre (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Senna and Ground effect[edit]

Hi. I've just reverted your reversion of my reversion (!) at the ground effect in cars article. Although referenced, the mention of Ayrton Senna is a complete red herring. Ground effect, in the sense largely described in the article, has not existed in F1 since the 1983 season. Since then cars have had flat undersides. Although a significant amount of downforce is still generated by the underside, partly by running the cars with small amount of rake and partly through the use of a diffuser at the rear of the car, the cars now and in 1994 are far more reliant on their wings than they were in the early 1980s. In the early 1980s, there were indeed accidents caused when cars suddenly lost ground effect, but Senna's accident over a decade later is not one of them. It has variously been ascribed to driver error, a breakage in the steering column or the car bottoming out due to cold (i.e. lower pressure) tyres. The latter is when the bottom of the car comes into contact with the ground, taking load (and therefore grip) off the wheels and causing it to veer out of control. That may be what someone was thinking of, but it has absolutely nothing to do with ground effect.

Please think a little before throwing around the vandalism tag. The deletion of content, sourced or not, by a long established editor with an edit summary explaining the deletion deserves at least a moment's thought as to whether it is vandalism or not. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it is true or not if the accident in question can be (partly) contributed to a sudden lack of ground effect induced downforce (however, you are probably correct and due to my limited knowledge in this matter I will not argue), but in any regard you are of course correct about the vandalism tag, please accept my apology, it was of course completely incorrect to use that tag in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posix memalign (talkcontribs) 20:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
No worries. ;-) 4u1e (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi there. What exactly is your problem with Superkart? Yes they have a better power/weight ration than a Corvette, a Porsche, a Ferrari or most street legal cars for that matter and yes it is interesting to point this out as most people have no other benchmark to evaluate performance than the car they are driving everyday or the sports cars they are dreaming about. Yes Superkarts get around a 2.8 mi. quick Formula 1 track like Magny-Cours in France faster than a Porsche Supercup, and perform on road circuits better than many race cars :

Lawson's fastest superkart lap at Laguna Seca is 1:23.875 at an average of 100.864 mph. For reference, that time would have put him on pole for last April's Rolex Series Daytona Prototype race. It's just over a second off Nicky Hayden's MotoGP pole time and good enough for 4th on last year's ALMS GTS class grid behind a pair of factory Corvette C5-Rs and a Saleen S7R. Impressive company for any race car, let alone a 250-cc kart. (Superkarts — Super Speeds - Road & Track)

Please try to contribute instead of deleting information or requesting references and sources that you could find yourself by taking a little bit of your time. Thank you - Wikigi | talk to me | 11:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a "problem", don't be childish.
I've already stated that I like superkarts in the editing history just to avoid exactly this.
Although I will bother to answer this despite that. Comparing the performance of a go-kart to a street legal road car makes no sense; the sheer size of the two machines are so different, not to mention they are built for completely different purposes. And while you're boasting about the amazing power-to-weight ratio of the superkart, how about comparing it to a street legal R-bike? Except you don't want to do that, because an R-bike has a way better power-to-weight ratio than the superkart.
No, I don't think they should be compared to either sports cars nor R-bikes -- especially not as in this article they were already compared to the F3 machines. The superkart is a race car, the F3 is a race car, although both of completely different classes they are at least race cars built to go around a track.
Now, as for your ad hominem rant against me, maybe you should consider the fact that constructive criticism is a good thing?
All of the [citation needed] tags I posted, except one, now have a citation to a seemingly proper reference, they didn't before -- care to explain why it is a bad thing that references get added to this article, or any article? I also added the weight and the redline information of the superkart to the article, by the way, not only tags.
It is a good thing that Wikipedia can notice its own flaws, this allows them to be corrected.
As for the other statement I deleted, this is an exact quote of the original statement: "Their low weight and good downforce make for staggering cornering and braking abilities.".
Do you really think this is a good and proper statement? Lets analyze it.
  • "Low weight", this is the exception, this is plausible as the weight has been stated to be 215 kg previously, although the weight alone is useless (without knowing grip) I will say this is fine.
  • "good downforce", what downforce? Quote from the same article: "Superkarts aerodynamic bodywork includes a front fairing, larger sidepods, and a rear wing.", how does this state that the superkart has "good" downforce? As far as anyone can tell it only states the superkart attempts to make downforce by allowing bodywork, and then it is stated this downforce is of the quantity "good"? How much is "good"? And "good" compared to what? How much downforce does it actually generate? What is the frontal area, the drag coefficient and the respective Cx? And most important of all, where is the reference?
  • "staggering cornering and braking abilities", why does the word "staggering" need to be there? Staggering compared to what? The article should let the [referenced] numbers speak for themselves, give sensible comparisons (not to big sedan road cars) and not try to persuade the reader into believing a biased opinion by using words such as "amazing", "fantastic" or "staggering".
  • "staggering cornering and braking abilities", braking abilities? Because of low weight and high downforce alone? What about the friction component between the road surface and the tire? What about the brakes? Are you saying that low weight and downforce alone can make for good braking abilities?
This is what I thought about the statement and that is why I removed it. Now this statement also has references, which I think is a good thing, but I guess you don't believe in referencing?
Posix memalign (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I can see you have time on your hands.. Next time, use it to search for sources and post them in the article you're editing. Regards - Wikigi | talk to me | 19:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I make time to defend myself against groundless ad hominem assaults. I decide myself what I use my time for, adding tags that should be there is not negative in any way. Posix memalign (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

McLaren F1 LM[edit]

Did you bother to check the history of the article, to see the previous version which had already been merged into McLaren F1 just over a year ago? Besides the fact that Lewis Hamilton was offered one, you've not added anything that makes the article any more worthy of being separate from McLaren F1. The359 (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Also note that it is McLaren, and never Mclaren. The359 (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Jesus christ dude, I JUST ADDED IT, I'm working on it!Posix memalign (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. Throwing statistics ad naseum doesn't make the article any better than the information already on McLaren F1. Quoting doesn't make an article better. The article is redundant. The359 (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I see, it seems you feel that adding information is redundant in general, I suggest you go ahead and remove all statistics "ad naseum" on the McLaren F1 article then (and in all other Wikipedia articles in general). In any regard I feel your comments are hostile and overall redundant. Oh, and I'm so sorry I didn't spell McLaren with a capital L, so nice of you to point that out in a mean way. Posix memalign (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
When most of a proper article on the F1 LM would use the same information as the one on the F1, then it is redundant. What you have created is not different from the section on McLaren F1. Adding specific tire specifications and gear ratios do not cut it. You never even bothered to wait until people responded to your proposition on Talk:McLaren F1. The fact that this has been done before and reverted might be a sign that it is not what people want. So I suggest you calm the fuck down, go back to Talk:McLaren F1, and wait for people to actually agree with your proposal. It might also help if you told people what exactly you plan to add to this article that is not already on McLaren F1. The359 (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
You, yourself deleted the article by quote: "No progress on this article since it was created", now there is progress. I plan to add more information in general, I was hoping that would be obvious, the LM section in the standard F1-article is not exactly very elaborate. Why should I wait when the article was deleted because of no progress in the first place? And if everyone agrees that the article is in fact useless, then it is simply deleted again. Until someone actually starts writing it is difficult to estimate what exactly will be written and done with it -- editing wikipedia isn't exactly a permanent job with a proper schedule and agenda for what will be added when. I find it amazing you're actually telling me to "calm the fuck down", since when was I "not calm"?
A little history lesson for you. First, I didn't delete anything. I nominated this article for merger. Someone else turned it back into a redirect to McLaren F1. When he did that, he took most of the information that was on this article, and placed it on McLaren F1. Therefore the "article without progress" is the actual section of the current McLaren F1 article.
Now, had you bothered to read Talk:McLaren F1 LM, you'd see this has already been discussed. The F1 LM is a modification, and there is not enough stuff to write about it to demand its own article. The section on McLaren F1 covers the story and modification of the LM quite well. We don't need gear ratios or what brand of Michelin tires the car had. We are not a car guide.
Your problem seemed to be that the section on McLaren F1 was too short or not adequate. What exactly did you do to improve this section? Instead of worrying about creating a redundant article, what did you do to actually improve what you seem to think is so lacking? Heck, all you did was copy and paste the existing "bad" section, with non-working references and all, and add from there. Just because someone sits down and starts writing doesn't mean it's actually worth keeping. The359 (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems you have a different concept of time than I myself have. I feel that since less than 3 hours have passed it can not be expected that I alone should have written a whole lot of information. McLaren themselves keep a separate article/specification sheet for the LM and several popular websites for cars feel the LM should have its own section.
Wikipedia is not a car guide? You do not seem to feel compelled to remove various superfluous information from the standard F1 article? What is the limit on the amount of detail Wikipedia can have on cars? In any regard, the standard F1 article has more detail than the LM article.
I feel that the standard McLaren article does not have a very well structured section on the LM, the information is compressed tightly and is not very perspicuous/well arranged, if it was (if it had its own sections and headings for various information) it might take up too much room in an article meant for the standard F1.
Wouldn't it be more productive to contribute instead of wasting my time and your time arguing over this trivial matter? Posix memalign (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Time has nothing to do with it. You have nothing legitimate to actually make this a worthy standalone article. You're expected to have a worthy article when you hit save, not "oh I'll get to it". "Because McLaren Automotive's website has a separate page" is not a legitimate reason. "Because the McLaren F1 article isn't very good" isn't a legitimate reason.
It'd be far more productive if you had thought this through from the beginning, and checked various histories, rather than running around like a chicken with his head cut off and feeling you can make an article section so much better because you found a website with statistics. It's not going to cut it. The359 (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for making the assumption that time mattered to you, it does to most people. Many Wikipedia articles don't start out as very good articles in any sense but still become that in the future. Henceforth I suggest two things.
  • Stop wasting my time.
  • Stop with your childish ad hominem assaults, telling me to "calm the fuck down" and comparing me to a chicken missing its head and not to mention in general being very rude and overly hostile from the start isn't very decent. Posix memalign (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
To assume that every started article has the potential to be a good article is a mistake. Many Wikipedia articles don't start out very well and get deleted. The point is a good encyclopedia summary of the F1 LM can easily fit in the McLaren F1 article, you've just simply failed to try. The359 (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Reaper bot[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Reaper bot, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reaper bot. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Visor (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion on Smartphone[edit]

It really isn't appropriate to reply to every single comment made in the discussion, its being unfairly pushing. Please can you do a better job of picking your battles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Roxxter for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roxxter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxxter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bailo26 17:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)