Ciencias Matemáticas Computadoras y electrónica Miscelánea Humanidades Idioma Entretenimiento
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
¿Cuáles son algunos números irracionales interesantes que se utilizan en matemáticas? Usuario:OP
Bueno, siempre hay pastel. Usuario:BOB
Pero eso es 22/7, lo cual es racional. Usuario:MARY
No, 22/7 es solo una aproximación, el número real es irracional. Usuario:BOB
¿No se escribe pi? Usuario:Joe
Vaya, error tipográfico. Usuario:BOB
¿Qué tal e? Usuario:MICKEY
¿Qué es eso? Usuario:OP
Vea nuestro artículo aquí....
Otorgar
Yo, Trollderella, le doy este premio por hacerme reír con este comentario [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=27015168&oldid=27014965
¡Gracias!... ¿No sabías que mi primer premio sería por ser un tipo listo? StuRat 02:32, 1 de noviembre de 2005 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estrella de granero
¡Gracias! StuRat 19:29, 21 de febrero de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Puede que no esté lo suficientemente calificado para premiar nada, pero sin duda puedo apoyar la estrella de cine que tienes. ¡Bien por ti, amigo! Sin duda te lo mereces... (Mi dirección IP no es permanente). Como me pediste, puse las cuatro tildes. 202.161.131.69 19:17, 23 de febrero de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Gracias a ti también! StuRat 22:25, 23 de febrero de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Juegos de palabras y chistes
A continuación se muestran algunos juegos de palabras y chistes del Ref Desk:
No sé si esto se ajusta a tu petición, pero siempre me encantó la palabra "depredar": ¡orar sobre y pre-fechar! --151.51.62.111 (discusión) 11:18 24 mar 2010 (UTC)
En realidad, eso significa "aprovechar". Decir "rezar" alteraría el significado. :-) StuRat (discusión) 14:09 24 mar 2010 (UTC)
¿Pueden los perros de caza africanos convivir con los perros domésticos normales? ¿Pueden los dingos australianos convivir con los perros de caza africanos? —Comentario anterior sin firmar añadido por 62.172.58.82 (discusión) 12:12, 25 de marzo de 2010 (UTC)
Si trituras todos esos perros y los pones en una sartén con un poco de masa, y luego los cocinas durante una hora, entonces sí, todos podrían ser pan juntos, independientemente de cómo hayan sido criados por separado. :-) StuRat (discusión) 13:17 25 mar 2010 (UTC)
StuRat, tu parcialidad está por todas partes. 169.139.217.79 (discusión) 14:08 25 mar 2010 (UTC)
Si tengo prejuicios contra todos por igual, ¿no me convierte eso en una persona equilibrada (y al mismo tiempo desequilibrada)? :-) StuRat (discusión) 14:15 25 mar 2010 (UTC)
¿Qué falacia lógica es inherente al siguiente argumento (dejando de lado la cuestión de si alguna de las dos afirmaciones es verdadera): "Darwin se retractó en su lecho de muerte; por lo tanto, la teoría de la evolución debe ser falsa"? 137.151.174.176 ( discusión ) 20:04 23 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Podría tratarse de una falacia genética , es decir, que una teoría de un hombre que, por lo demás, es decente, se considera inherentemente engañosa, en función de su origen. StuRat (discusión) 20:29 23 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mesa de referencia y unicornios
A pesar de lo que pueda decir de mí el hecho de que no haya escrito a propósito de ninguna de sus respuestas de calidad a las diversas preguntas planteadas en los distintos mostradores de referencia, sino que escribo ahora sobre un comentario jocoso, debo elogiar su entrada de salto de unicornio, de la que me reí mucho. Debo decir, por supuesto, que encuentro que la mayoría de sus respuestas son excelentes en conjunto y que creo que la excelencia en la respuesta a las preguntas en los mostradores de referencia es digna de admiración, ya que el mostrador de referencia es a menudo el primer lugar en el que los no wikipedistas entran en contacto con Wikipedia y sus editores, de modo que el buen trato que se recibe en el mostrador de referencia puede llevar a uno a participar en el trabajo de edición, mejorando el proyecto en general. Joe 01:13, 19 de marzo de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Gracias! Y lograste decirlo todo en sólo dos frases, jajaja. StuRat 01:24, 19 de marzo de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
(Mi comentario sobre el salto de rana con el unicornio: " Confucio dice: El hombre verdaderamente sabio nunca juega al salto de rana con el unicornio".) StuRat (discusión) 02:17 6 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mesa de referencia
Gracias por señalar la plantilla de las capitales otomanas. Supongo que estaba demasiado ocupado buscando las capitales en el artículo como para darme cuenta. Por cierto, son muchas las ediciones que has hecho. | AndonicO 12:01, 19 de septiembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada ! StuRat 12:07, 19 de septiembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Canadá te lo agradece.
Oh StuRat, Canadá te está esperando mientras te felicitamos por tu increíble y desinteresada diligencia, similar a la de un robot, para mantener el orden intergaláctico en RD. Espero de verdad que no te metas en problemas en el trabajo por hacer esto. No estoy muy seguro de qué ha pasado con todas las solicitudes de bots, pero por el momento he empezado a diseñar un RD provisional que se pueda utilizar para transferir las páginas existentes a una nueva interfaz optimizada una vez que haya un bot dispuesto a encargarse de todo el archivo. Después de que la página principal se amplíe para incluir todas las reglas y demás, voy a añadir una nueva plantilla de RD a cada una de las subpáginas y veré a dónde puedo llegar a partir de ahí. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:02, 20 de septiembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Genial. Y gracias. StuRat 06:32, 20 de septiembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hablando de eso, he incorporado tu referencia al archivo de los meses anteriores directamente en la plantilla , por lo que ahora es parte de la barra superior: 152.163.100.136 18:21, 20 de septiembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Suena bien, pero ¿es esto nuevo? ¿Olvidé iniciar sesión? StuRat 18:53, 20 de septiembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soy un misterio, envuelto en un enigma, o eso o soy VectorPotential (: La matemática de la fecha en la versión actual de la plantilla es tan retorcida que pensé que era el único que podría actualizarla en este punto (: Incluso si estoy demasiado ocupado con el trabajo universitario para continuar con el trabajo práctico de mantenimiento de RD -- 172.147.144.217 17:44, 21 de septiembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, esa matemática de la fecha me confundió. StuRat 17:53, 21 de septiembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si tengo algo de tiempo libre este fin de semana, intentaré convertir en plantilla algunos de los cálculos de fechas para que el encabezado esté menos desordenado. Además, todavía hay un pequeño problema con los años, que será un problema una vez que lleguemos a 2007.--172.165.196.210 10:39, 23 de septiembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, genial. StuRat 10:46, 23 de septiembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, eso no funcionó, sólo lo hizo más complicado y lleno de errores. - Hamiltoniano molecular 19:19, 23 de septiembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ok, ahora funciona , pero sólo con subst--Molecular Hamiltonian 19:53, 23 de septiembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias.
Hola, solo quería agradecerte por ayudarme con mi pregunta en Reference/Science: "En las mareas, ¿por qué la octava ola es siempre la más grande?". Tu respuesta fue realmente útil. Robinoke 21:13, 2 de octubre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡De nada! StuRat 22:56, 2 de octubre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estrellas de granero
Ah, sí, pero ¿no es eso un poco racista en estos días? Además, si dijeras eso en Glasgow... ¡yo no lo diría! 8-)-- Light current 11:38, 31 de octubre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Gracias! Yo mismo soy parcialmente escocés y muy tacaño, así que me atribuyo el derecho a burlarme de mí mismo. StuRat 12:35, 31 de octubre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ah, entonces ¿fueron tú y tu hermano quienes encontraron ese centavo? 8-)
Chianti y habas,
Antes de sacar el Chianti y las habas, ...
¡Bien hecho, StuRat, bien hecho! :-)
Atlant 18:58, 3 de noviembre de 2006 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
¡Gracias! StuRat 19:03, 3 de noviembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mesa de referencia de matemáticas
Gracias por intentar ayudarme en el mostrador de referencia, me temo que las matemáticas no son mi fuerte. Además, fue muy amable de tu parte resolver el problema tú mismo. Prometo que leeré más sobre matemáticas para no molestarte demasiado con mis preguntas tontas :) Starkidstar 06:18, 9 de noviembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada. Si me cuentas cómo lo hiciste, buscaré cualquier error. StuRat 06:28, 9 de noviembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me gustaría apoyar esa idea. Legolover26 ( discusión ) 18:04 24 may 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Colores de Navidad
¡Gracias! StuRat 16:31, 4 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada, pero date las gracias a ti también; te lo has ganado y me has hecho reír mucho en el proceso. :-) | Andonic O Talk | Sign Here 17:11, 4 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias de nuevo, mi meta en la vida es hacer que todos se orinen en los pantalones. (En secreto soy el dueño de la compañía que fabrica Depends .) StuRat 17:16, 4 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pues bien, ¡ vuelve a la vida! ;-) | Andonic O Talk | Regístrate aquí 18:04, 4 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Su lema es "volver a la vida"? Yo pensaba que era "ser bueno hasta la última gota". :-) StuRat 18:53, 4 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno , eso también. :-) | Andonic O Talk | Regístrate aquí 19:42, 4 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ahora bien, si no pareciera adulación o lealtad o algo así, ¡le daría a StuRat algo! ¡Todavía no estoy seguro de qué! Esperemos y veamos qué se me ocurre. -- Light current 00:46, 5 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, le das una estrella de barnstar; no quedaría bien si le diera dos seguidas. | Andonic O Talk | Sign Here 00:59, 5 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Mi respeto por StuRat vale más que un camión lleno de Barnstars!-- Light current 01:28, 5 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo; no diré "más que un cargamento" porque parecería infantil.
Lo que necesitamos es un premio para StuRat por soportar gigatoneladas de basura irrelevante presentada como un argumento coherente y sensato. Light actual 01:36, 5 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Qué, quieres decir que no son argumentos coherentes y sensatos? ;-) | Andonic O Talk | Sign Here 01:51, 5 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Más sobre RD
Hola. Espero no haberte ofendido con mis últimos comentarios en el hilo de discusión. Tengo la impresión de que estás intentando sinceramente encontrar una solución y aprecio mucho el esfuerzo que estás poniendo en esto. Como dije, estoy ocupado en la vida real en este momento, así que no tengo (y no tendré pronto) mucho tiempo para participar en esta discusión. Sospecho que todo esto te ha molestado bastante. Por favor, no te rindas. -- Rick Block ( discusión ) 16:13 1 dic 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Gracias! StuRat 16:17, 1 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estrella de granero
¡Gracias! StuRat 20:49, 8 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
JAJAJA
Me encantó el chiste del criador de pollos. Apuesto a que lo bombardean con una bomba atómica antes de medianoche. Gandalf61 18:31, 16 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Sin duda eso sería una trampa! ¿Dónde está? Publica un enlace: Light current 18:39, 16 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Un criador de pollos tenía un gallo problemático que estresaba a las gallinas con "atenciones no deseadas" y resolvió el problema colocando una campana alrededor del cuello del gallo para avisar adecuadamente a las gallinas. Sin embargo, el gallo pronto aprendió a silenciar la campana cubriéndola con un ala, lo que le permitió volver a acercarse sigilosamente a las gallinas. Por su estudio de este asombroso ejemplo de razonamiento y aprendizaje animal, un destacado profesor recibió tanto el premio "No bell piece" como el "Pullet surprise". :-) StuRat 15:32, 16 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC)
Hola StuRat. Es un lindo juego de palabras, pero tu comentario no ayudó en nada a responder la pregunta del autor. Por favor, ten piedad de los usuarios de acceso telefónico del Ref Desk. Si quieres compartir chistes con otros editores, considera usar sus páginas de discusión o correo electrónico en el futuro. Diablos, crea una sección en tu espacio de usuario; estoy seguro de que estaría bien suscrito.
Nadie va a "bombardear" tu comentario; no ataca a nadie y es poco probable que ofenda. Solo paso para pedirte que recuerdes el propósito del Ref Desk (está ahí para responder preguntas). Si quieres contar un chiste en el Desk, intenta incluir algo de información útil en él; de esa manera, todos estarán contentos. Saludos, TenOfAllTrades ( discusión ) 19:13, 16 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Intento hacerlo, pero al menos este chiste estaba relacionado con el tema. Lo uso como requisito mínimo. StuRat 19:19, 16 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Es bueno ver que tienes estándares, Stu! 8-)-- Corriente ligera 19:22, 16 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminado. EricR 23:12, 16 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias por al menos avisarme. Sin embargo, tu comentario de que "no tenía nada que ver con el tema" es incorrecto, ya que tanto el chiste como el tema se referían al Premio Nobel. StuRat 23:15, 16 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Para estar en el tema en la mesa de referencia hay que tener más en cuenta que simplemente estar vagamente relacionado con la pregunta; también hay que ayudar a responderla. Después de todo, la mesa de referencia está para responder preguntas. -- SCZenz 23:18, 16 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Responder a la pregunta y estar dentro del tema son dos cuestiones muy diferentes. Por ejemplo, una solicitud de aclaración está dentro del tema, pero no responde a la pregunta, como este chiste. StuRat 23:23, 16 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estar dentro del tema de la página significa hacer o responder una pregunta, o hacer algo que sirva para responder una pregunta (como una solicitud de aclaración). -- SCZenz 23:25, 16 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tienes una definición completamente nueva de "sobre el tema", pero ¿realmente vale la pena discutir sobre esto? Llámalo como quieras, no me interesa pelearme por eso. Acordemos que estamos en desacuerdo pacíficamente, ¿de acuerdo? StuRat 23:31, 16 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo en que el nombre que le demos no es importante. Creo que estamos de acuerdo en que el mostrador de referencia debería utilizarse principalmente para hacer preguntas y trabajar en la respuesta, al menos. -- SCZenz 23:34, 16 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
En primer lugar, sí. Exclusivamente, no. También es importante crear un sentido de comunidad. Y, a veces, eso se puede facilitar con humor. StuRat 23:37, 16 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡No puedes hablar en serio! [9] 8-)-- Corriente ligera 23:43, 16 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Adicción a la nicotina
Gracias. La respuesta que me diste en el mostrador de referencia a mi pregunta sobre la adicción a la nicotina era exactamente lo que estaba buscando. BeefJeaunt 03:03, 17 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada y buena suerte con tu informe. StuRat 03:23, 17 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esa fue una respuesta increíble, INCREÍBLE. Anchoress 18:19, 23 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Gracias! StuRat 18:21, 23 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo contigo. Casi me atraganto con el café cuando vi eso y me reí. ¡Buen trabajo! Antandrus (discusión) 18:22 23 dic 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada, y aquí hay un enlace para aquellos que se lo perdieron: [10]. StuRat 18:24, 23 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Gracias por ayudarme!
Estimado StuRat,
Gracias por tomarte el tiempo de responder mi pregunta sobre la ecuación de una recta. Realmente lo aprecio =) Alex Ng 19:49, 30 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡De nada! StuRat 20:08, 30 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
abreviado demasiado
Hola. Independientemente de todos los temas que discuten todos los participantes habituales de Ref Desk, solo quería expresar mi agradecimiento por sus respuestas tan acertadas. ¡"Abreviado demasiado" realmente me hizo sonreír! ¡Maravilloso! Feliz año nuevo. -- Geologyguy 00:24, 31 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, eso es muy amable de tu parte. (No quiero que pienses que estoy drogado ni nada, simplemente tengo un gran apetito por los juegos de palabras, especialmente los juegos de palabras que molan. Si me olvido de un juego de palabras, siento que podría enyesar mi cuerpo). StuRat 01:18, 31 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿De qué diablos estás hablando ?-- Corriente ligera 02:02, 31 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Ése es otro más que se anotó ! ¿Algún Mohs?-- Corriente ligera 02:09, 31 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estamos empezando a acumular un gran conglomerado de juegos de palabras. StuRat 02:17, 31 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡No hay esquisto ! -- Geologyguy 03:15, 31 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, te refieres a agregado -- Luz actual 02:24, 31 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que alguien debería ser castigado por todos estos terribles juegos de palabras 8-)-- Light current 03:18, 31 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me parece que la culpa es sólo tuya. David D. (discusión) 18:49 31 dic 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Eh?-- Corriente ligera 19:18, 31 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mira hacia arriba costura. Supongo que si tienes que explicar el juego de palabras, en realidad no funciona. David D. (discusión) 19:34 31 dic 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que perdí el apetito , por mucho que me haya gustado "abreviado demasiado". No es que les vaya a hacer mucho favor, pero esto es demasiado. Es una pena que no haya ningún artículo sobre esto; su ausencia reduce el valor de Wikipedia. KP Botany 20:05, 31 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, eso es indecoroso. Escuece que ni siquiera haya un artículo sobre la canción We Work the Black Seam ; alguien debería llamar a la policía de contenidos . StuRat 20:35, 31 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, entiendo lo de la mica, pero ¿qué tiene que ver la nota con eso? ¡Tendrás que hacerlo mejor que esto con los RD! 8-)-- Corriente ligera 21:59, 3 de enero de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿No te has dado cuenta del cambio de rumbo de StuRat? Ahora vamos a pasar por una grieta con la policía a cuestas. Al menos tendremos una buena vista de los estratos mientras bajamos. David D. (discusión) 22:05 3 ene 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, pensé que podríamos duplicar nuestro juego de palabras si los criticamos tanto por geología como por música. ¿Quizás debería agregar otro tema para que podamos triplicar nuestro castigo? StuRat 22:40, 3 de enero de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Dunite . KP Botany 22:45, 31 de diciembre de 2006 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que ya lo daré por terminado, a menos que alguien piense lo contrario. -- Light current 22:07, 3 enero 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Un estalagmita sería el castigo adecuado para los que hacen malos juegos de palabras. Edison 23:54, 4 de enero de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Las estalagmitas están unidas en la parte inferior y las estalactitas en la superior, así que ¿cómo se llaman si están unidas en ambos extremos? Mitey-tite, por supuesto. StuRat 00:29, 5 de enero de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por supuesto, una forma sencilla de saber la diferencia (como me dijo una de mis antiguas novias) es que "Tites" siempre baja. Por cierto, ¿te dan un premio por tener el juego de palabras más largo? -- Light current 01:50, 5 enero 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Re: Cerveza gratis
Gracias por el comentario en mi página de usuario, el chiste me hizo reír mucho en el trabajo, lo cual siempre es bueno :D Aetherfukz 14:30, 13 de marzo de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, pero traten de no reírse mientras el jefe anuncia sus objetivos para el año. (Aquí está el chiste: [11]). StuRat 16:36, 15 de marzo de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tus juegos de palabras
Sólo quería decirte que creo que tus juegos de palabras son geniales. Me gusta especialmente el que habla del vandalismo en el artículo relacionado con Irlanda que provocó la "ira" de alguien. ¡Buen trabajo, amigo! Dismas | (discusión) 20:12 26 mar 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Gracias! StuRat 20:29, 26 de marzo de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Las travesuras de Ingemar en Mi vida de perro
Guau guau, guau, guau, guau, guau, guau, guau. (En parte por no querer revelar demasiado y por ser *jadeo* un poco mojigata.) Clarityfiend 03:58, 10 de abril de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pero tengo una mente inquieta y quiero saber. Por ejemplo, ¿Ingemar prefiere las botellas de Coca-Cola o de Pepsi? :-) StuRat 16:19, 10 de abril de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mesa de referencia
¡Gracias! StuRat 19:55, 12 de abril de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, lo merecía solo por el comentario de "dividir liebres". Un juego de palabras por excelencia . Rockpock et al. 20:04, 12 de abril de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Merci beaucoup. StuRat 20:06, 12 de abril de 2007 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Estrella de oso
Gracias. ¿"Comido por un oso" significa que fue eliminado? StuRat 15:32, 1 de junio de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Jaja. Espero que sea una broma ingeniosa (o si no, la paranoia te está venciendo). No, no significa eso, el enlace lo explica. Rockpock e t 17:11, 1 de junio de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
En realidad, ¿dónde has estado? Me hubiera venido bien tu apoyo hace poco, cuando eliminaron unilateralmente una broma inofensiva que hice. Es típico que, justo cuando necesito un poco de apoyo inclusivo, todos se vayan. Rockpock e t 17:13, 1 de junio de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tuve que hacer un trabajo de verdad (¡ja!). ¿Tienes un enlace al chiste? ¿Es demasiado tarde para apoyarlo? StuRat 01:55, 2 de junio de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, demasiado tarde, me temo. En realidad, lo que me molestó no fue la eliminación en sí (un chiste es un chiste y no voy a afirmar que algo tan frívolo merece permanecer si otro editor lo considera inapropiado), sino la acusación injustificada que figura en el resumen de edición sobre la eliminación.
Por cierto, Loomis está a un pelo de volver a ser bloqueado indefinidamente. Estoy haciendo lobby para darle una última oportunidad, aunque no estoy seguro de que se dé. No sé si tienes alguna influencia sobre él, o si te importa, pero si la tienes, sería realmente útil que pudieras convencerlo de que tiene que tomar una decisión difícil. Con razón o sin ella, justo o injusto, así es y él tiene que aceptarlo o no será bienvenido aquí por un período indefinido. Rockpock e t 08:35, 2 de junio de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
"Encarnado"
Gracias por hacerme reír, StuRat. Bielle 23:30, 25 de junio de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada! StuRat 23:35, 25 de junio de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vagabundo etc....
Gracias por la información, me encantaba la canción en los noventa pero nunca me había dado cuenta de qué se trataba...! SietskeEN 12:56, 24 de agosto de 2007 (UTC) (Pero es mucho menos decente de lo que esperaba... :-O ) [ responder ]
¡De nada! StuRat 13:13, 24 de agosto de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, pero, por otra parte, disfruto más bien de la naturaleza ambigua de las palabras inglesas, ya que eso permite la formación de juegos de palabras. StuRat 03:30, 27 de agosto de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manera de leer una frase que pretendía que sonara como una broma con un tono extremadamente serio y hacer un comentario sobre la ambigüedad presente en el idioma inglés, obligándome así a hacer una frase que es completamente inequívoca. Hasta que encuentres una manera de señalar la ambigüedad -- lucid 03:44, 27 de agosto de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hmm, ya que escribiste "inglés" en minúscula, no debes referirte al idioma, sino más bien al término que significa "darle un toque de ambigüedad", como en "ponerle algo de inglés a la pelota". Por lo tanto, tu comentario se refiere al "lenguaje de los políticos", es decir, el lenguaje de los políticos. :-) StuRat 03:52, 27 de agosto de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
No desde que Kevin Bacon presentó esa orden de restricción. :-) StuRat 04:27, 27 de agosto de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estrella de granero
¡Gracias! StuRat 20:14, 31 de agosto de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
wunderground.com
Gracias por recomendar Weather Underground en WP:RD/C . Weather.com me estaba matando con el acceso telefónico y http://forecast.weather.gov/ no tiene el pronóstico por hora. Wunderground parece superar a ambos. Qué gran sitio. / edg ☺ ★ 13:19, 4 de septiembre de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada, me alegro de que te guste! StuRat 13:26, 4 de septiembre de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Wunderground es también uno de mis sitios favoritos, y me alegra mucho ver que lo recomiendan :) Skittle 12:03, 5 de septiembre de 2007 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como en "Esperando al hombre adecuado". [13] Edison ( discusión ) 05:14 18 abr 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias... y si la joven ficticia que hizo ese comentario fuera criticada por sus acciones, supongo que siempre podría poner la otra mejilla (o quizás hacer oídos sordos). StuRat (discusión) 18:52 18 abr 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Escritorio de referencia
Gracias por tu respuesta. Este ha sido un momento muy difícil para mi amigo y a la pandilla le ha resultado difícil consolarlo. Voy a leer atentamente el artículo que me has enlazado. Gracias de nuevo. -- Endless Dan 20:12, 18 de abril de 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada. Pareces un buen amigo. StuRat (discusión) 20:23 18 abr 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
ciencias económicas
Disfruté de la conversación sobre economía. Deberíamos tener otra pronto. Leí su artículo sobre "deseconomías de escala" y me impresionó su conocimiento sobre el tema. Necesito unas 20 horas más en el campo antes de completar mi título. Me gustaría hablarle sobre algunos de los cursos electivos avanzados y conocer su opinión sobre dónde es mejor invertir mi tiempo.
Gracias
Paul Balfay NiceG3s (discusión) 13:59 26 abr 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Suena bien. También intentaré convencerte de que Bush es un idiota. Creo que eres la única persona que todavía piensa que fue un buen presidente. Sorprendentemente, los conservadores fiscales no están contentos con él, debido a la expansión masiva de la deuda nacional (debido a Irak y al poco esfuerzo por controlar los programas sociales), y los conservadores religiosos están enojados con él por no abordar ninguno de sus temas, como la prohibición del aborto y el matrimonio homosexual. StuRat (discusión) 15:27 26 abr 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me reí mucho
[14]. :) -- Sean 13:15, 15 de junio de 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Para mí, sigues siendo el señor maravilloso (de los toe jam). Sólo tú podrías meter la pata con tanta soltura. X-) Julia Rossi ( discusión ) 08:27 16 jun 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, pero cuando el pequeño Jack Horner se pone en ridículo, mete la pata con una plomada. :-) StuRat (discusión) 13:02 16 jun 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, si esa es la regla que quieres implementar, me encantaría hacerlo, aunque estoy seguro de que otros no querrían nada de eso. StuRat (discusión) 14:48 18 jun 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
No sé nada sobre una "regla", eso parece una especie de monería de proceso , lo cual es un pecado capital como ya sabes. -- tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 15:21, 18 de junio de 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Dar luz verde a una película
¡Gracias por tu respuesta! Entonces, si la respuesta es "ejecutivos del estudio", ¿quiénes podrían estar en el panel que da luz verde al proyecto? ¿Serían el productor y el director juntos? ¿O tal vez algún tipo de ejecutivo a cargo de las finanzas? -- Sonjaaa ( discusión ) 21:09 3 ago 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que habrá más de esto último. En ese punto del proceso, puede que ni siquiera se haya elegido al productor y al director. Supongo que un equipo de contables tendría que dar el visto bueno a la película antes de eso. StuRat (discusión) 21:21 3 ago 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Dónde has estado?
Hola StuRat, te extraño, espero que todo esté bien... Julia Rossi ( discusión ) 04:12 29 oct 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola Julia, y gracias por tus amables palabras. Me lastimé la espalda y no me sentía con ganas de usar mucho la computadora (sentarme en la silla me resultaba doloroso). Ahora está mejorando, así que espero poder usar la computadora al menos un poco. StuRat (discusión) 02:39 9 nov 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Bienvenido de nuevo! (perdón por el juego de palabras con goddorfl) por supuesto que significa que te recuperes pronto. Lamento tu lesión, que es muy grave. Es muy agradable ver tu puesto en el mostrador de otorrinolaringología. =) Cuídate, Julia Rossi ( discusión ) 07:19, 11 de noviembre de 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Dejaré pasar esa broma. ¿Significa eso que soy un cobarde? ¡Ojalá! ¡Esos pulpos afortunados! (¿O son pulpos? ... no, eso es un pastel con forma de señal de stop , ¿no?) {Tenga en cuenta que he incluido un enlace sobre "señal de stop", por si acaso las señales de stop australianas tienen forma de wombats.} :-) StuRat (discusión) 17:09 11 nov 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, es exactamente como los que ignoro aquí. ; ) pero siempre que hay uno de wombat, lo noto. Julia Rossi ( discusión ) 21:52 11 nov 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Entonces deberías iniciar un movimiento para que todas las señales de stop allí se cambien a la forma de wombats, para que los australianos realmente las noten. :-) StuRat (discusión) 09:08 12 nov 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Jaja, muy bueno. Casualmente, hoy paré en el cruce de tres patos (y había un cartel para patos). Awww, : ) Julia Rossi ( discusión ) 08:50 13 nov 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Una señal para que los patos crucen justo en el lugar donde lo hacen? Estoy impresionado. Los equipos de vigilancia de carreteras australianos obviamente tienen a todos sus patos en fila... :-) StuRat (discusión) 14:34 14 nov 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ah SR, si pudieras ver a nuestras tripulaciones, sabrías que son los patos los que se están uniendo, :-) Julia Rossi ( discusión ) 03:37 21 nov 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Buena forma
Me gusta verte en buena forma en los escritorios, muy funky, como siempre, servicial también – : ) Julia Rossi ( discusión ) 07:29 2 dic 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, me alegro de que haya hongos para el humor en los Desks. StuRat (discusión) 13:27 2 dic 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si no, podemos empezar un círculo de discusión. =) Julia Rossi ( discusión ) 03:29 3 dic 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hmm, sacar liendres con agujas para liendres suena tan difícil como recoger arroz con palillos chinos. :-) StuRat (discusión) 02:22 4 dic 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Supongo que cualquiera que conduzca en medio de tormentas de nieve para buscar buitres en Navidad simplemente está siendo modesto. (Podrías intentarlo con palillos chinos, este es un círculo de quisquillosos de tipo posmoderno) ; ) Julia Rossi ( discusión ) 05:54 4 dic 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tengo una camioneta con tracción en las cuatro ruedas, por lo que conducir en condiciones climáticas adversas no es un problema, especialmente si se tiene en cuenta la tracción adicional que brindan todos esos subcompactos que paso por encima. StuRat (discusión) 17:08 5 dic 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Gracias! Tenía miedo de abrir la tarjeta, pensando que encontraría un elfo asomándose desde la bolsa de un canguro. StuRat (discusión) 13:34 12 dic 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, esos zapatos de elfo puntiagudos podrían lastimar mucho a mamá canguro. (¿Quizás por eso algunos de ellos están enrollados en la punta?) StuRat (discusión) 14:04 13 dic 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Combustible para aviones
Quería darte las gracias personalmente por responder a mis preguntas sobre el combustible para aviones. Realmente me ayudó a aclarar un poco mi mente y a investigar más sobre el tema. Vitall ( discusión ) 08:46 20 dic 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada, y espero que este tipo de preguntas nunca sean prohibidas.
...ya que eso nos dejaría con preguntas que no son más que insulsas. StuRat (discusión) 14:22 28 dic 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pianoes simEl fuerte
Confío en que inventes el terrorismo musical, >)) Julia Rossi ( discusión ) 08:50 6 ene 2009 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ah, sí, arrojando un piano sobre una multitud. Y yo que pensaba que el terrorismo "musical" era esa gente que pone el estéreo de su coche tan alto que las ruedas rara vez tocan el suelo. StuRat (discusión) 17:13 7 ene 2009 (UTC) [ responder ]
También te puede interesar mi entrada en Unciclopedia sobre Ethan Allen: [15]. StuRat (discusión) 17:29 7 ene 2009 (UTC) [ responder ]
Veo que EA es tu antecesor del terrorismo de muebles. ¿ Inventó la palabra de moda terrorismo al derrotar a los franceses, oops, británicos? Parece que el terrorismo musical mantiene su definición según el coche que rebota y hay un elemento cuyo nombre no conozco, una furgoneta cerrada con niveles que hacen estallar los tímpanos de la gente en los pocos segundos que permanecen dentro. Aparentemente, el ruido les obliga a disfrutar de un breve dolor y luego a rendirse rápidamente. ¿Hay algún artículo sobre este tipo de cosas? *pista pista* :) Julia Rossi ( discusión ) 01:05, 8 de enero de 2009 (UTC) [ responder ]
Curiosamente, mi artículo en Uncyclopedia parece haber sido eliminado sin que se dieran razones. Supongo que tienen una política de "no hacer chistes sobre violencia" que se extiende incluso a la violencia histórica y ficticia durante la guerra. StuRat (discusión) 15:56 8 ene 2009 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso fue rápido. ¿Puedes hacerme una revisión de la orina? Julia Rossi ( discusión ) 09:05 9 ene 2009 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Una reseña de la orina? "Era de un amarillo pálido, con una agradable espuma...". :-) StuRat (discusión) 22:41 9 ene 2009 (UTC) [ responder ]
Éste [16], por traer de vuelta artículos condenados de la extinción (al parecer). ¡Qué asco! Julia Rossi ( discusión ) 01:14 14 ene 2009 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Y piden una revisión de orina cuando sospechan de " periodismo amarillista "? :-) StuRat (discusión) 14:20 14 ene 2009 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias SR
Me olvidé por completo de alterar el orden público, interrumpir el tráfico y todo tipo de delitos que sólo se aplican cuando el fiscal está en apuros. Pensándolo bien, si jugó lo suficientemente mal, estaría haciendo un gran ruido que eliminaría muchos ruidos más pequeños (es decir, su forma de tocar). Tal vez pueda usar eso como una defensa positiva. Phil_burnstein ( discusión ) 01:23, 8 de enero de 2009 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esto me recuerda al caso de Lorena Bobbitt . Como mínimo, deberían haberla condenado por tirar basura. :-) StuRat (discusión) 15:24 8 ene 2009 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola.
Hola amigo StuRat, soy un nuevo usuario de Wikipedia. Hoy he estado echando un vistazo a la mesa de referencia informática y observando a los demás que han contribuido. He visto que estás interesado en el campo de la ciencia y las matemáticas (tal como has publicado en tu página de usuario). De hecho, a mí también me interesan esos campos. Entonces, si yo personalmente discuto contigo sobre ciencia y matemáticas en tu página de discusión, ¿te importaría algo? Si no, ¿me permitirías hacer lo mismo? Gracias. Anirban16chatterjee ( discusión ) 16:08, 20 de enero de 2009 (UTC) [ responder ]
Claro, podemos hablar de ciencia o matemáticas aquí. Sin embargo, si tienes una pregunta específica, las páginas de Ref Desk Science o Math pueden ser mejores, ya que allí recibirás mis contribuciones y las contribuciones de otros. Sin embargo, los demás pueden ser un poco malos a veces, así que puedes venir aquí a hablar si te sientes abusado. Además, ¡gracias por la estrella del barn! StuRat (discusión) 16:22 20 ene 2009 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Muchas gracias amigo! A menudo utilizo el servicio de referencia, pero creo que es bueno para mí mantenerme en contacto con alguien como tú, que está dotado de la luz dorada del conocimiento, para mi mejoramiento. Y, obviamente, te mereces la estrella del granero. Gracias amigo, nos vemos de nuevo. -Saludos cordiales, Anirban16chatterjee ( discusión ) 16:44, 20 de enero de 2009 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias por el consejo de Beano. Te seguiré con lo del yogur con cultivos. Estoy leyendo este libro sobre la sal de Mark Kurlansky. En él menciona la elaboración de queso. Página 97, "El cuajo contiene renina, una enzima del estómago de los mamíferos que cuaja la leche para hacerla digerible". ¿Se podría tomar esta renina como suplemento? Leí los artículos de la wiki, algo sobre el desarrollo del estómago de los terneros, en el cuarto estómago encontramos este cuajo, que cuaja la leche para que permanezca más tiempo en el tracto digestivo y se descomponga durante más tiempo. ¿Podemos decir, agregar un poco de renina a nuestra Ovaltine? Saludos,--soy el kwisatz haderach ( discusión ) 20:28, 11 de mayo de 2009 (UTC) [ responder ]
Podrías hacerlo, pero puede que no tenga muy buen sabor. También puedes conseguir renina y lactasa (una enzima que digiere la leche) en tabletas aquí: [17]. Si no te gusta comprar cosas por Internet, prueba en una tienda como GNC . StuRat (discusión) 15:01 13 may 2009 (UTC) [ responder ]
Algunas direcciones IP (que ya están bloqueadas por evasión) sugirieron que tú y yo éramos el mismo usuario. ¿Deberíamos decírselo o dejarlos con la duda? ← Errores del béisbol ¿Qué pasa, doctor? carrots → 23:44, 15 de abril de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Entonces, ¿te clonaron a ti a partir de mis recortes de uñas de los pies o yo a partir de los tuyos? :-) StuRat (discusión) 04:25 16 abr 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, eso es mejor que ser un clon de Henny Penny , como muchos otros en el Ref Desk parecen serlo, basados en cómo creen que el cielo se cae cada vez que alguien hace un chiste. StuRat (discusión) 14:30 16 abr 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Buen punto. A veces me recuerda al personaje militar de Graham Chapman, que se quejaba de que los sketches de Monty Python se estaban volviendo "tontos": "¡Nadie disfruta de un buen chiste más que yo! Eh, excepto el Coronel... y mi esposa... y algunos de sus amigos... ahora que lo pienso, ¡ todos disfrutan de un buen chiste más que yo! ¡Pero no importa!..." ← Insectos del béisbol ¿Qué pasa, Doc? carrots → 14:44, 16 de abril de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bien, tenemos que enviarlos a todos a reeducarse al Ministerio de Paseos Tontos . StuRat (discusión) 15:11 16 abr 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por las imágenes ASCII que publiques en WP:RD, te concedo este premio de arte ASCII (creado por Steve Baker). Cuddlyable3 ( discusión ) 19:56 6 sep 2011 (UTC) [ responder ]
[18] Todavía me estoy riendo. Mi esposa piensa que estoy loco. ¡Gracias por eso! -- Jayron 32 02:17, 6 de noviembre de 2011 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por cierto, probablemente sea hora de archivar esta página. Se está volviendo difícil cargarla toda... -- Jayron 32 02:18, 6 de noviembre de 2011 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sólo quiero decir que este es el mejor resumen de los dos partidos que he visto nunca. Saludos. Hot Stop talk - contribs 15:28, 11 de diciembre de 2011 (UTC) [ responder ]
Quería agradecerle por el trabajo en la generación de 3D a 2D.
Primero tengo que ofrecer un millón de disculpas por no haber escrito una nota en el escritorio de referencia antes. El código que escribiste era muy abrumador (y todavía lo es) y seguí postergando el proceso de comprenderlo correctamente y convertirlo. ¡Las imágenes que acabas de agregar también ayudan enormemente! Este es exactamente el efecto que estoy buscando.
En cuanto al código, dame un poco más de tiempo. Puede que tenga preguntas adicionales para ti. Lamento nuevamente que no hayas recibido más atención mientras la pregunta era más destacada, pero me resulta muy difícil comenzar a usarlo. (Probablemente, esta sea la razón por la que no hay tutoriales muy accesibles en línea y por la que tuve que pedirte ayuda con esto en primer lugar).
Sé que eres un colaborador voluntario y no quise ser desagradecido. ¡Gracias de nuevo, es un trabajo duro! -- 80.99.254.208 ( discusión ) 18:33 14 may 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias (estaba empezando a preocuparme de que te hubieras caído muerto). Estaré encantado de ayudarte con cualquier pregunta adicional que tengas o cualquier aclaración que necesites sobre lo que publiqué. StuRat (discusión) 18:52 14 may 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Acabo de revisar mi código en el Ref Desk ( Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2012_April_18#how_hard_is_2.5_d ), y una cosa que podría cambiar es el nombre de las variables "V_SHRINK_STEP" y "H_SHRINK_STEP". "V_SHRINK_RANGE" y "H_SHRINK_RANGE" habrían sido mejores (o "VShrinkRange" y "HShrinkRange" en los nombres de variables de C). Además, notarás en mi última imagen que hacer que la imagen se oscurezca a medida que se acerca al punto de fuga realmente ayuda a que se vea en 3D. No incluí el código para hacer eso en mi ejemplo, para simplificarlo, pero me encantaría darte un ejemplo de ese código, una vez que domines los conceptos básicos. StuRat (discusión) 19:13, 14 de mayo de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por cierto, si no puedes hacer que funcione, puedo proporcionarte un ejecutable FORTRAN. Este se puede ejecutar mediante una llamada "al sistema" desde C, etc. En ese caso, haría que leyera todos los argumentos de un archivo de entrada y el mapa de bits de otro, para evitar todo el problema que ocurre cuando se intenta pasar argumentos entre C y FORTRAN. Luego escribiría el mapa de bits proyectado en un nuevo archivo. StuRat (discusión) 19:28 14 may 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ciudad Bedrock gracias
Gracias por la respuesta a mi pregunta sobre el monte Rockmore de Bedrock City. Debería haber leído el artículo de WP. -- Zanimum ( discusión ) 23:48 17 may 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada. A mí personalmente me sorprende a menudo la información que tenemos en nuestros artículos. StuRat (discusión) 02:04 18 may 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Solo quería agradecerle por tomarse el tiempo de dar su opinión sobre mis preguntas. Se lo agradezco. InforManiac ( discusión ) 20:14 26 jun 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada. StuRat (discusión) 20:26 26 jun 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Un gatito para ti!
Gracias por tomarse el tiempo de responder mi pregunta (¡y seguramente otras!) en el mostrador de referencia y por proporcionar un enlace a NutritionData.com. ¡Los comentarios y los enlaces que recibí de esas respuestas fueron realmente valiosos! Un saludo,
- Jess · Δ ♥ 04:56, 9 de julio de 2012 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
De nada. Creo que será mejor que ponga un platito de leche. :-) StuRat (discusión) 04:58 9 jul 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Nominación de RFA
Su nominador ahora ha pedido que se elimine la página debido a su aparente falta de respuesta. Preferiría estar seguro de que esa es su intención antes de hacerlo. Beeblebrox ( discusión )
Sí, adelante. No me gusta la forma en que funciona aquí el "Gobierno vitalicio". Me gustaría que fuera más fácil convertirse en uno, pero que el mandato estuviera limitado y que fuera mucho más fácil que me echaran. Tal como está, parece alentar a los administradores a convertirse en una élite gobernante, y soy demasiado demócrata para apoyar eso. StuRat (discusión) 22:13 5 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
En una nota no relacionada:Esta página de discusión se está haciendo muy larga . Por favor, considere archivarla . Beeblebrox ( discusión ) 21:04 5 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
De acuerdo. StuRat (discusión) 22:14 5 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy impresionado. — Ched : ? 02:05, 6 de agosto de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
(publicación fuera de secuencia). Por tu forma de abordar la edición y, más específicamente, por tus opiniones sobre la administración. — Ched : ? 04:29, 6 de agosto de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias. ¿Supongo que estás de acuerdo? StuRat (discusión) 18:55 6 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apuesto a que podrías haber superado fácilmente el proceso de solicitud de candidatura. Es muy triste que hayas rechazado la nominación. De todos modos, sigue respondiendo mejor en el mostrador de referencia. :-) GiantBluePanda (discusión) 02:37 6 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias por la nominación en cualquier caso. Puede que lo reconsidere en algún momento en el futuro. StuRat (discusión) 02:41 6 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cuando lo hagas, por favor, házmelo saber. Serías el candidato más brillante. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:08, 6 de agosto de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Este año asistí a Wikimania y tuve que hacer cola con todos los demás para conseguir mi almuerzo. Algunas de esas personas ni siquiera tenían la opción de volver a la normalidad y, sin embargo, ni siquiera se ofrecieron a recogerme la mesa. Y tuve que viajar en metro, ¡ni siquiera enviaron una limusina para recogerme! También supuse que había un salón de administración con bebidas alcohólicas gratis ilimitadas, pero noooo. Beeblebrox ( discusión ) 16:24 6 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sé que es una película de chicas. La vi sólo porque no había nada bueno en la televisión. ¿Habías visto esta película antes? Si la habías visto antes, ¿por qué la madre falsa de Haley intentó matar a la madre biológica de Haley? ( 76.20.90.53 ( discusión ) 23:31 18 ago 2012 (UTC)). [ responder ]
Lo siento, no lo vi. StuRat (discusión) 23:35 18 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias
Muchas gracias, ten por seguro que no estaba troleando, solo estaba preocupada por mi situación con mi novio. Gracias por tomarme en serio. Gracias de nuevo, muchas gracias. — Comentario anterior sin firmar añadido por Alabamaboy1992 ( discusión • contribuciones ) 20:37, 21 de agosto de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada. StuRat (discusión) 21:16 21 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Respuestas del servicio de asistencia técnica
Hola Stu, quería señalarte algo sobre esto. Según WP:RD/G/M, en realidad deberíamos eliminar las solicitudes de asesoramiento médico, no solo eliminarlas. Sin embargo, una pequeña explicación sigue siendo algo bueno. En cualquier caso, no toqué la sección; no quiero molestarte. BigNate37 (T) 23:01, 21 de agosto de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, no recordaba cómo poner la plantilla de eliminación allí, así que dejé eso para que lo hicieran otros. Sin embargo, me opongo a eliminarlo sin ninguna plantilla o explicación, ya que el autor original no sabrá qué sucedió y simplemente volverá a publicar. StuRat (discusión) 23:06 21 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Re: Responder preguntas de la mesa de referencia en la página de discusión de OP
Solo quería que supieras que no pretendo señalarte con este comentario. Lo he visto varias veces y solo quiero que me lo aclares. 203.27.72.5 ( discusión ) 02:08 22 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Crees que se ven graciosos con camuflaje y naranja. Aparecen en el Ártico con camuflaje. No necesitan el naranja porque la falta de plantas de más de quince centímetros de alto y la nieve hacen que sea muy fácil verlos. CambridgeBayWeather ( discusión ) 02:37 22 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Yo esperaba que gastaran mucho dinero en un camuflaje ártico blanco y luego volvieran a poner el naranja brillante para que no les dispararan. :-) StuRat (discusión) 02:44 22 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
No. Gastan demasiado dinero en las comunidades para dispararles. Por supuesto, uno o dos han tenido ataques cardíacos mientras estaban cazando. Una vez vi a uno sentado en el suelo del aeropuerto sacar su rifle del estuche. Por cierto, me parece que solo los cazadores estadounidenses usan el equipo de camuflaje. No recuerdo que ninguna otra nacionalidad lo usara. CambridgeBayWeather ( discusión ) 03:19 22 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias por la ayuda con la TV
Mi amigo quería que le agradeciera la ayuda con la televisión. Logramos que su antena actual funcionara mejor, de modo que todos sus canales en el aire se reciben bastante bien sin tener que instalar una nueva, y el problema de mosaico que tenía se debía definitivamente a un problema de bucle. Por lo tanto, decidió deshacerse del cable (que había estado recibiendo por $20 al mes, pero que recientemente aumentaron a $68 por el mismo servicio) y se está quedando con Netflix, una antena en el aire y un puerto HDMI para descargas de Internet. Sin embargo, no obtendrá ninguno de los ahorros mensuales estimados. :) μηδείς ( discusión ) 20:21, 23 de agosto de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, el paquete del tacaño, eso es exactamente lo que tengo. :-) ¿Qué hizo exactamente para arreglar la antena? StuRat (discusión) 02:36 24 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pelé el cable, lo conecté a un nuevo adaptador coaxial y coloqué el adaptador directamente en la entrada RF, quité el interruptor divisor A/B y puse el cable que había estado en el divisor a través de la entrada de componentes. La última vez que hizo el cableado él mismo fue cuando jugaba Pong. Su único problema ahora es que no puede tener el cable y el VCR/DVD enchufados a la vez o recibe la interferencia del bucle. Pero ese problema desaparecerá una vez que se corte el cable. A excepción de las noticias ocasionales, el canal del tiempo, el partido de béisbol y la película TCM, no he visto televisión en bastante tiempo. Tenía curiosidad por saber si estás familiarizado con Eye TV. Un amigo lo tenía en Manhattan y obtuvo sus canales de cable de Internet de alguna manera, pagó un cargo único por el equipo y aparentemente tenía acceso a las transmisiones por satélite. ¿Sabes cómo funciona eso? Solo dime sí o no aquí y lo publicaré como una pregunta en el foro de entretenimiento. μηδείς ( discusión ) 03:05 24 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy familiarizado con eso, no, pero he oído hablar de usar tu propia antena satelital para obtener canales satelitales sin codificar. Cuando los miré, eran principalmente canales en idiomas extranjeros, y el costo inicial era bastante alto, así que descarté la idea. Tal vez Eye TV los saque de la señal satelital y los coloque en Internet. Sin embargo, creo que los proveedores de contenido eventualmente se decidirán a codificar sus canales, y perderías esta capacidad. A juzgar por la amplia gama de canales por aire disponibles allí, no creo que los canales satelitales sin codificar agreguen mucho a su experiencia de visualización. StuRat (discusión) 03:18 24 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Este tipo estaba en un hueco de un avión en Manhattan sin recepción de televisión. Me vendió mi Mac. Había cortado su cable. Desafortunadamente, se mudó y no sé cómo contactarlo. Me dijo que pagó una vez por el equipo y que de alguna manera había una o más transmisiones gratuitas en Internet, que él no vio y tuvo que visitar activamente. No sé si accedió a una URL o si la máquina recopiló las transmisiones por él. Simplemente ejecutó un programa con una interfaz tipo TV Guide con listados en los que hizo clic para "DVR" para la grabación normal. O podía ver en vivo, y no parecía ser un servicio de transmisión barato o pirata. Sé que tenía Fox News en varias versiones y descargó varios programas como Will and Grace, que supongo que no eran de pago. (Lo vi cargar estos programas desde su archivo tipo DVR y mirarlos cuando no estaban en vivo). No creo que tuviera acceso a canales pagos como HBO. Lo extraño es que cuando visité el sitio web de Eyetv no dijeron nada sobre qué canales estaban disponibles ni cómo acceder a ellos. No tuve la impresión de que estuviera pirateando, los datos parecían ser de libre acceso desde las redes. μηδείς ( discusión ) 04:12 24 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
No creo que se trate exactamente de piratería, sino más bien de un "mercado gris". Es decir, a esas cadenas no les preocupa demasiado que unas cuantas personas obtengan sus programas gratis, simplemente no vale la pena perder el tiempo bloqueándolos. Sin embargo, eso puede cambiar en el futuro, que es probablemente la razón por la que Eye TV no te garantiza nada. Puede que hubiera sido una buena alternativa en su caso, sin estaciones de señal abierta, pero no creo que lo sea cuando ya tienes una amplia selección. StuRat (discusión) 04:18 24 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tiene sentido. Uno pensaría que al menos dirían "da acceso a canales "disponibles". No quiero sonar como un zorro amargado, pero no lo necesito y temo que sea demasiado complicado para mi amigo, que en realidad solo querría ciertos juegos de pelota que de todos modos podrían no estar disponibles. Lo siento por la extraña eliminación, no puedo entender lo que hice, ya que el cuadro de edición todavía estaba abierto. μηδείς ( discusión ) 04:24, 24 de agosto de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
No hay problema. Aquí hay un sitio que habla un poco sobre la televisión satelital gratuita: [19], junto con una lista de canales en inglés: [20], y canales en HD: [21]. Necesitarías una antena parabólica con control motorizado (tanto de rotación como de elevación) si quieres ver programas de más de un satélite y quieres seguir cada satélite a medida que se mueve. También ofrecen ese servicio donde ponen las señales en Internet por ti. Como puedes ver en esa lista, esas estaciones no son las premium, se mantienen con publicidad o donaciones, por lo que te permiten verlas gratis. StuRat (discusión) 04:33 24 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sería un gran esfuerzo incluso conseguir que hiciera el Eye TV si eso funcionara, ya que estaría en contra del HDMI, a pesar de que tiene tres computadoras. (Me deja usar HDMI cuando lo visito). Pasaré de la opción de señal de Internet. Estoy bastante seguro de que la idea de las antenas satelitales giratorias sería descartada de plano. Pero la pasaré. Gracias de nuevo por toda la ayuda. μηδείς ( discusión ) 05:17, 24 de agosto de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo, no es una buena opción para él, aunque no entiendo su objeción a un cable HDMI. ¿Es que no le gusta conectar el ordenador al televisor? Una desventaja es que el programa puede congelarse cuando el ordenador está lento, lo que significa que no quieres ejecutar nada en el ordenador al mismo tiempo. StuRat (discusión) 05:19 24 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Jeje. Quiere volver a los días en que ABC, CBS, NBC y PBS eran tus únicas opciones y tenías que levantarte y girar la perilla para cambiar de canal y golpearla en el costado para arreglar el seguimiento. La idea de una computadora conectada a un cable conectado a un televisor ofende su sentido de la estética. (El mismo tipo para el que estaba interesado en el altavoz de dirección, nunca aceptaría un tapón para los oídos). Aunque de hecho lo he hecho escribir en un blog, lo que hace en mayúsculas (para llamar más la atención). ¡Jaja! La pregunta final para él es: ¿puede aguantar sin ver Greta a las 10 p. m., sin el canal del clima y puede pasar sin los juegos de béisbol locales transmitidos por Comcast? En cuanto a mí, el último programa que vi completo en la televisión cuando se transmitía fue Farscape . House y Damages los he descargado durante los últimos cinco años, y ambos terminaron ahora o pronto. Te mantendré informado. μηδείς ( discusión ) 05:50 24 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Puedo entender su deseo de tener grandes cadenas de televisión. Parece que cuantos más canales tenemos, mayor es la proporción de basura en relación con la calidad de la televisión. Algunos dispositivos permiten bloquear determinados canales (mi decodificador de señal digital a analógica lo hace, pero no para los subcanales). Esto será cada vez más importante a medida que tengamos más y más canales de basura (solo puedes soportar una cierta cantidad de basura antes de encontrar algo que te guste). En cuanto a Farscape , yo prefería Babylon 5 y Serenity/Firefly . StuRat (discusión) 05:59 24 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, cualquier cosa con Claudia Christian , quiero decir, vamos , codazo, codazo, guiño, guiño. Pero lo de Ben Browder/Claudia Black también fue muy interesante. Nunca pude seguir Serenity/Firefly a pesar de que soy libertario y fan de Whedon. Prefería mucho más Doctor Horrible y Dollhouse. Mi época dorada fue la original Battlestar Gallactica, con Tom Baker como Doctor Who los fines de semana y Spock y Kirk en repeticiones. μηδείς ( discusión ) 21:23 24 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, eso sumó un punto...
A las 20:12, 24 de agosto de 2012 (UTC), en RD/C, usted dijo:
He codificado en C y lenguajes similares, y los odio apasionadamente, por lo que me gustaría evitar hacer eso.
Ya sabes, puede que seamos iguales después de todo :-). Cuando salí de la escuela de posgrado (en la época del IBM 360), mi actitud básica era: si no se puede hacer en FORTRAN, no vale la pena hacerlo . Admito que finalmente llegué a dominar C propiamente dicho, pero C++ y sus similares, digamos, "aceleraron mi retiro" de la industria.
Sí, como mencioné antes, una vez trabajé con un programador de C, que juraba que C era mejor que Fortran, pero necesitaba que yo rastreara todos los errores en su código, que invariablemente se debían a la confusión en C de pasar variables por dirección, valor o puntero (o algún otro problema que solo existe en C). También han ampliado Fortran para incluir la mayoría de las partes buenas de C, como la manipulación de bits, pero todavía no, que yo sepa, las interfaces GUI con Windows. StuRat (discusión) 20:52 24 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Dudar!
Me decepcionó mucho verte firmar ese "premio". ¡No era mi objetivo! Estoy de acuerdo en que los pedantes, los gurús y las Gladys Kravitz deberían irse al diablo. μηδείς ( discusión ) 02:19 28 ago 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Atril
Gracias por la rápida respuesta a mi consulta . Si consigo encontrar un buen diccionario EN<>NL en línea, no ocuparé espacio en los escritorios de referencia de WP con búsquedas de una sola palabra :-) -- Saludos, Deborahjay ( discusión ) 06:48, 2 de septiembre de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias. Acabo de utilizar el Traductor de Google, pero lo rechazaría si la traducción sonara extraña. Sin embargo, los títulos cortos como este parecen funcionar bien, en general, ya que no se utiliza una gramática compleja. StuRat (discusión) 06:51 2 sep 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Zanahorias
Pero también hay coliflor morada, naranja y verde, ¿no? :>) Bielle ( discusión ) 21:53 14 sep 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tuvimos algunos pequeños de color naranja durante un tiempo, pero no los he visto recientemente, solo los blancos. StuRat (discusión) 21:57 14 sep 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Dios mío, te estás perdiendo algo. Los de colores también suelen ser mucho mejores para ti. Quizá puedas convencer a tu verdulero local. Los hay por todas partes en el sur de Ontario. Bielle ( discusión ) 22:01 14 septiembre 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
De acuerdo. No compro coliflor blanca. Si quiero tirarme pedos toda la semana, compro brócoli. :-) StuRat (discusión) 22:04 14 sep 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gasto militar y corrupción
No me gusta llamarlo corrupción porque es muy raro . "Corrupción" implicaría que hubo algún complot nefasto para obtener ganancias comprando un producto con el dinero de otra persona. Pero en los casos de los que estamos hablando: A) El vendedor no pidió el contrato; B) El usuario final no pidió el contrato; y C) Al comprador nunca se le prometió un soborno. Sí, el proceso apesta a corrupción, pero siento que debería tener un nombre más específico, pero no se me ocurre una frase más simple que cosas-estúpidas-que-hacen-los-políticos-para-ganar-votos. Someguy1221 ( discusión ) 04:12 16 sep 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Entiendo. Personalmente creo que deberíamos etiquetar como corrupción muchas cosas que actualmente se aceptan en los EE.UU., como el gasto clientelista, las asignaciones presupuestarias, la agrupación de cosas no relacionadas en un solo proyecto de ley, la manipulación de los distritos electorales, los grupos de presión, las grandes donaciones a las campañas, etc. StuRat (discusión) 04:18 16 sep 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo siento, no tengo idea de esa pregunta. StuRat (discusión) 04:24 24 sep 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ventanas 7
Hola StuRat, estaba leyendo el foro de informática; si entiendo bien, todavía usas Windows XP. A mí me pasa lo mismo: me veo obligado a usar 7 en el trabajo y no me gusta más que XP. Tengo la computadora portátil que ejecuta XP desde 2006 y "temo" que actualizar a una máquina más moderna me deje estancado con 7. También me pasa lo mismo con los cambios de interfaz de Microsoft, incluidas las cintas en los productos de Office, algunos programas de Windows y, eventualmente, el propio Explorer (ver Windows 8... ugh). ¿Qué es lo que no te gusta de 7? -- 143.85.199.242 ( discusión ) 17:39, 28 de septiembre de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
En general, las actualizaciones de Windows parecen cambiar las cosas sin razón aparente (como cuando cambiaron el nombre del "Administrador de archivos" por el oscuro nombre de "Explorador de Office"), con muy pocas mejoras reales. También tiene una tendencia a ser bloatware , donde agregan características que pocas personas querrían, lo que termina ralentizando las cosas con poco beneficio (¿recuerdas el "asistente de oficina" con clip bailarín?). Soy partidario de un proceso de mejora continua , donde solo se arregla lo que está roto y "no se arregla lo que no está roto". Si Windows siguiera ese modelo, en lugar de cambiar las cosas sin razón aparente, sería un producto mucho mejor a estas alturas. Desafortunadamente, la verdadera razón para las nuevas versiones de Windows parece ser el marketing, no la mejora del producto, lo que significa que quieren que parezca " nuevo y mejorado", no que sea realmente mejorado. Luego está el caótico sistema de nombres de versiones de Windows (Windows 3.x, Windows 95, 98, 2000/Millenium, NT, XP, Vista, 7, 8). ¿Qué podemos esperar a continuación? ¿Windows Flamingo, luego Windows C, seguido de Windows Mary y Windows 13.8.9.E? StuRat (discusión) 22:33 28 sep 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
En cuanto a Windows 7, mi principal objeción es que necesitaría comprar una nueva PC para ejecutarlo. StuRat (discusión) 22:35 28 sep 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Acabo de ver tu última pregunta en el centro de referencia de informática. Disculpas si me estoy entrometiendo demasiado, pero ¿qué te llevó a cambiar de opinión? Ahora que usas Windows 7, ¿lo prefieres a XP? -- 143.85.199.242 ( discusión ) 16:30 21 nov 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mi vieja PC se me estropeó, ver aquí: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2012_November_15#Win_XP_SP3_won.27t_boot . Intenté encontrar una PC reacondicionada con XP, pero resultó que la tienda a la que fui solo tenía Windows 7. Así que lo probé. La única mejora real que he encontrado hasta ahora son algunas capacidades adicionales con MS Paint. Por otro lado, muchas cosas que solían funcionar ya no parecen funcionar, y muchas otras cosas han cambiado sin razón aparente, lo que significa que tengo que aprender a usar mi PC nuevamente. Además, faltaban algunas utilidades bastante básicas, como las que tenían la capacidad de descomprimir archivos. Así que, más o menos como esperaba. Si simplemente agregaran la versión mejorada de MS Paint a Windows XP, me la dieran y prometieran continuar brindando soporte para XP indefinidamente, estaría mucho más feliz. StuRat (discusión) 18:11 21 nov 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
No me gusta que la gente hable
sobre mí a mis espaldas (o diciéndome que mis preguntas no tienen respuesta, porque no pueden responderlas de manera útil... o son incoherentes... o han sido mal respondidas por otras personas, etc.) así que por favor vean esta discusión aquí. μηδείς ( discusión ) 23:43 7 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias por decírmelo, aunque también agradecería que te lo tomaras todo menos a pecho. StuRat (discusión) 00:32 9 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
A StuRat le encanta comentar todo tipo de cosas que no son de su competencia. Si bien no está del todo equivocado, es bastante difícil congelar una batería de plomo-ácido, a menos que sea muy pequeña o vivas en el círculo polar ártico. Esto se debe a que el punto de congelación del electrolito es de alrededor de -7 °C y, dado que el calor específico es similar al del agua, es decir, muy alto, la temperatura interior tenderá a permanecer aproximadamente en el promedio diurno.
He tenido baterías que se congelaron y se partieron, ya que tenemos temperaturas de -7 °C (19,4 °F) todos los inviernos. Podemos tener semanas en las que nunca supera esa temperatura. Estoy en Detroit , muy lejos del Círculo Polar Ártico . Actualmente tengo un vehículo guardado y tengo que mantener la batería cargada o quitarla para evitar que se descargue, se congele y se parta. El mismo problema se aplica a las baterías en el estante de un garaje sin calefacción. Dado que aparentemente no sabe que este es un problema potencial con las baterías de plomo-ácido, pongo en duda su competencia. StuRat (discusión) 07:57 10 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
En realidad, tengo bastante experiencia con baterías de plomo-ácido, ya que trabajé como ingeniero/gerente de proyectos de energía solar fotovoltaica y estuve involucrado con el almacenamiento de UPS en salas de computadoras. Parte del rol de energía solar implicaba estimar la temperatura de la batería. También puedo consultar Wikipedia para obtener datos climáticos de Detroit. Dice que, si bien se han registrado temperaturas tan bajas como -29,4 °C, el promedio mensual más bajo es de -3,1 °C. El promedio diario más bajo será menor que eso, pero no mucho menor. Como la batería almacena calor de manera muy efectiva, el mínimo nocturno no es relevante. ¿WP está equivocado? Debe estarlo si tienes "semanas en las que nunca supera los -7 °C". Wickwack 60.230.227.185 (discusión) 08:14, 10 de octubre de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los promedios no son relevantes. Lo que importa son los extremos, en este caso los mínimos históricos. En realidad, aquí ha hecho más calor los últimos dos inviernos (¿calentamiento global?), pero en International Falls, Minnesota, la temperatura nunca superó los 20 °F durante 3,5 semanas en enero de 2011, con mínimas de hasta -46 °F: [22]. Eso todavía está muy lejos del Círculo Polar Ártico, por lo que su afirmación de que no hay que preocuparse por que las baterías se congelen fuera del Círculo Polar Ártico es claramente falsa. Su falta de experiencia parece deberse a las baterías de plomo-ácido en zonas frías. StuRat (discusión) 08:20 10 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
No es cierto. El promedio diario es muy relevante. Las características térmicas de una batería de plomo-ácido se pueden modelar como una capacitancia térmica igual a la capacidad térmica específica del electrolito (calor específico x masa), aislado del ambiente por la resistencia térmica de la caja en serie con una resistencia térmica de película de aire portadora que rodea la batería. Hay cierta conducción al ambiente a través de la radiación (insignificante) y por convección, que se puede estimar mediante la fórmula de Pressman, y generalmente es casi insignificante en las condiciones típicas de almacenamiento de la batería. Es análogo a cargar un condensador eléctrico a través de una resistencia en serie. Si comprueba dicho modelo, encontrará que la temperatura del electrolito de la batería tiende a permanecer aproximadamente en el promedio diario, como dije. Por supuesto, variará, pero no en la medida de la variación ambiental diaria, y la temperatura mínima del electrolito se retrasará varias horas con respecto al mínimo ambiental, al igual que el voltaje en un condensador se retrasa con respecto al voltaje de suministro aplicado a través de una resistencia. Wickwack 124.178.155.164 (discusión) 08:43 10 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
No entendiste lo que dije. Ese promedio de -3,1 °C para enero generalmente incluye períodos más cálidos al principio y al final del mes, con semanas más frías en el medio, donde, como dije, puede que no se llegue a más de -7 °C durante algún tiempo. Y, por supuesto, algunos años tienen un enero más frío que otros. Aquí hay un relato de 2009, cuando Detroit alcanzó los -15 °F (-26 °C): [23]. StuRat (discusión) 08:47 10 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soy consciente de que una temperatura mínima media mensual de x grados significa que algunos días serán más fríos; lo señalé. Acabo de encontrar los registros oficiales de la NOAA de EE. UU. en http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/cms.php?n=supdata. La NOAA identificó los meses de temperatura más baja recientes en Detroit como enero y febrero. En 2012, enero tuvo solo 5 días con una temperatura mínima nocturna por debajo de -7 °C, y la temperatura media diaria más baja registrada fue de -15,6 °C y se produjo el 20 de enero, el único día con una media inferior a -7 °C . Febrero tuvo su punto más bajo de -11,7 °C el 11 de febrero, el único día con una media inferior a -7 °C, con una media de -9 °C. Todos los demás días estuvieron bastante por encima de los -7 °C en la media diaria. Así que no puedo decir que estés tratando de azotar a un caballo muerto, Stu, pero sin duda es un fastidio terminal. Me he dado cuenta de que a menudo intervienes y ofreces respuestas poco fundamentadas que no se sostienen, como por ejemplo teléfonos móviles a cuerda, ojos de gato, protectores de sobretensión, ojos a gran escala y mucho, mucho más. Wickwack 121.221.224.183 (discusión) 12:18 10 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como ya he dicho, los últimos dos inviernos en Detroit han sido más cálidos de lo habitual. ¿De verdad te perdiste eso o simplemente estás siendo obstinado? Y, como he demostrado en el caso de International Falls, con frecuencia hace suficiente frío, durante semanas, mucho más allá del Círculo Polar Ártico, como para congelar una batería de plomo-ácido. Te equivocaste por completo cuando dijiste que no era así, y este es exactamente el tipo de respuesta mal investigada de la que eres culpable con frecuencia. Tu respuesta inicial no contenía ningún enlace ni investigación, así que, antes de acusarme de no haber investigado nada, aprende a investigar tú mismo. StuRat (discusión) 20:06 10 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Stu, es obvio que eres un tipo bastante inteligente. Publicas respuestas a todo tipo de preguntas y, por lo general, tus respuestas no son completamente incorrectas. Muchas respuestas son realmente buenas, pero muchas otras son bastante incorrectas. Las respuestas deficientes seguramente reducen la calidad y la cantidad de preguntas y respuestas en Reference Desk. Las personas que tienen algo que vale la pena decir mirarán, verán toda la basura y pensarán "esto no es lo que quiero". Sería mejor que te ciñas a lo que sabes o que investigaras mejor los temas antes de publicar. No soy la única persona que te ha dicho esto. Intentaste defender lo indefendible en tus publicaciones recientes sobre teléfonos móviles a cuerda. Tu publicación sobre los ojos de gato provocó esta respuesta: "Además, las respuestas de StuRat son inexactas e imprecisas, en el mejor de los casos", y eso era muy obviamente cierto. A veces, tu publicación inicial sobre una pregunta está bien, pero haces publicaciones posteriores que se alejan cada vez más de la verdad. Por ejemplo, en la pregunta sobre los kits de paneles solares, empezaste bien, pero terminaste con esta perla: "¿Alguna vez has tenido baterías recargables que duren 20 años? Las probé y parecían mantener tan poca carga después de un año o así que eran inútiles ". ¿En serio? Tengo un multímetro Fluke 45 que compré hace 25 años. Mi experiencia es que la batería recargable de plomo-ácido tipo Gates que utiliza dura al menos 10 años antes de que la capacidad disminuya notablemente. Este año tuve que comprar la segunda batería de repuesto. La mayoría de las baterías AGM y de gel de grado de consumo duran alrededor de 6 a 10 años en nuestro clima, debe ser más cálido que el de Detroit. Las baterías de automóvil suelen durar 6 años aproximadamente. Las baterías de planta que se usan en centrales telefónicas, almacenamiento UPS de salas de computadoras y similares duran habitualmente 20 años o más, admito que están construidas con estándares de calidad más altos. Las baterías de níquel-hierro, por ejemplo, tipo Saft, duran incluso más. Algunas marcas de las llamadas baterías de plomo-ácido selladas (no existen baterías de plomo-ácido selladas verdaderas, serían una bomba peligrosa. Todas tienen orificios de seguridad, aunque a menudo los orificios están ocultos debajo de una etiqueta de papel o una película de plástico delgada) no son buenas; por ejemplo, Schonnenshien solo dura alrededor de 2 años en climas cálidos, pero esa es solo una excepción de mala calidad. Wickwack 124.178.43.122 (discusión) 00:39 11 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Quejarse, en una pregunta del Ref Desk, sobre las respuestas de alguien a otras preguntas no le hace ningún bien al Ref Desk. ¿No lo ves? Si crees que mi respuesta a la pregunta actual es inexacta, entonces demuéstralo, no lo afirmes sin fundamento, como hiciste (esa parte sobre que las baterías congeladas solo son un problema dentro del Círculo Polar Ártico). Si te ciñeras a la pregunta en lugar de intentar iniciar una pelea, todos nos llevaríamos mucho mejor. Mi respuesta inicial a esta pregunta fue completamente correcta, 100% correcta, pero de alguna manera te hizo enfadar, no obstante. Ataques personales como ese no tienen lugar en el Ref Desk. StuRat (discusión) 01:10 11 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Evidentemente, no soy el único que te ha atacado, es decir, que ha cuestionado tus publicaciones y/o se ha opuesto a ellas. Si no siguieras publicando estupideces, no te atacarían ni cuestionarían. ¿Quizás tus frecuentes publicaciones improvisadas, que obviamente estás tan dispuesto a defender incluso cuando son indefendibles, sean una manifestación de un deseo de luchar? ¿Tenías toda la razón? ¡No es probable! ¿Está equivocada la NOAA? ¿A todo el mundo en Detroit se le rompen las baterías de los coches varias veces cada invierno? ¿Usan algún tipo especial de batería de baja temperatura de la que la industria parece no haber oído hablar? Creo que no. Si dices que se te rompió una batería, estoy seguro de que sí. Pero habría habido algo más. Yo también he visto baterías "selladas" que se rompen, pasa. Pero no por congelación, sino por un defecto de fabricación o por su antigüedad, normalmente combinado con altas temperaturas ambientales. Wickwack 120.145.4.160 (discusión) 03:03 11 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ahora estás creando hombres de paja al afirmar que dije todo tipo de cosas que nunca dije. Ciertamente espero que entiendas que solo una batería de plomo-ácido completamente descargada es propensa a congelarse, pero tus declaraciones anteriores parecen indicar que no lo entiendes. Mi afirmación que atacaste fue que las baterías que están completamente descargadas pueden congelarse y romperse. ¿Estás discutiendo eso? Parece que soy el chivo expiatorio favorito de algunas personas, y aparentemente has decidido subirte al carro. También tengo muchos partidarios, como la persona que me acaba de dar una estrella de barnstar a continuación. Con el volumen de respuestas de Ref Desk que doy, es probable que haya errores ocasionales en algunas, mientras que la mayoría son totalmente acertadas, pero no cometí ningún error cuando dije que una batería de plomo-ácido completamente descargada puede congelarse y romperse (fuera del Círculo Polar Ártico). Cuando dijiste que no podía, estabas 100% equivocado. StuRat (discusión) 03:14 11 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
No dije que no pudiera. Mis palabras exactas fueron las siguientes: "Si bien no está del todo equivocado, es bastante difícil congelar una batería de plomo-ácido, a menos que sea pequeña o vivas en el círculo polar ártico". No malinterpretes. Vuelve y lee tus propias publicaciones en las otras preguntas ROJAS que mencioné; hiciste todo lo que dije que hiciste. Sí, en una batería descargada, la concentración de ácido es menor. Pero no cero: el punto de congelación seguirá estando por debajo de los -7 °C si la batería sigue funcionando, y la capacidad térmica y la resistencia térmica no cambiarán sensiblemente. Wickwack 120.145.20.231 (discusión) 03:45, 11 de octubre de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Qué demonios significaba eso de que en Detroit todos los coches tienen la batería de su coche rota varias veces cada invierno? ¿Te imaginas que todos dejamos la batería del coche totalmente descargada hasta que se congela, luego la reemplazamos y dejamos que la nueva se descargue por completo una y otra vez? Eso no tiene ningún sentido. Estás dando tumbos como locos, intentando crear un argumento falaz. StuRat (discusión) 03:56 11 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
ACTUALIZACIÓN: Ahora veo que te están acusando de proporcionar respuestas incorrectas y sin referencias a Ref Desk: [24]. StuRat (discusión) 04:24 25 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
No podía creer que encontrara tantos veteranos de la Guerra Civil estadounidense a bordo jaja. Gracias por responder mi pregunta tan rápido. Si pudiera, te daría otra estrella de barnstar. Gracias Iowafromiowa ( discusión ) 11:26 12 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada. StuRat (discusión) 18:22 12 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por favor sea específico
¿Por qué mi sombrero no es apropiado? --Onorem ♠ Dil 18:29, 12 de octubre de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Porque decirle a la gente que tiene libertad para editar Wikipedia es una respuesta adecuada a cualquier pregunta sobre contenido que falta. Es decir, si no te gusta que se haya eliminado algo, siéntete libre de volver a ponerlo. StuRat (discusión) 18:33 12 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vuelve a leer la pregunta. --Onorem ♠ Dil 18:35, 12 de octubre de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale... lo siento, lo has leído... pero no estoy de acuerdo. Responderle a alguien con "hazlo tú mismo" va básicamente en contra de la idea de tener un escritorio de referencia. --Onorem ♠ Dil 18:37, 12 de octubre de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo. Uno de los propósitos subyacentes del Ref Desk es mejorar los artículos de Wikipedia, y decirle a la gente cómo pueden mejorar esos artículos por sí mismos es una parte importante de esa misión. StuRat (discusión) 18:48 12 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Puede que ese sea un propósito secundario, pero la respuesta inicial fue básicamente un gran dedo medio a la pregunta original y el propósito principal del comité de árbitros. --Onorem ♠ Dil 19:05, 12 de octubre de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
mármoles y judíos
La respuesta breve es que yo tampoco, o no habría hecho la pregunta. Parece que sí hay alguna conexión, especialmente si lees el ensayo de Adam Reed, al que hice referencia. μηδείς ( discusión ) 03:58 16 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
PD: Reed es un judío húngaro, el nombre es un sinónimo, al igual que el seudónimo de Ayn Rand . μηδείς ( discusión ) 04:00 16 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Buena suerte para conseguir una respuesta. Por cierto, ¿ Adam Reed es sinónimo de qué? StuRat (discusión) 04:06 16 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Gracias!
De nada. StuRat (discusión) 16:00 21 oct 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Edición de la gratificación diferida
Me alegra que te haya gustado. Voy a solucionar el problema de numeración y agregar imágenes. Soy parte de un grupo de estudiantes de posgrado a quienes se les asignó esta edición. Agradeceremos cualquier ayuda que puedas brindarnos. Para simplificar, seré la cara del grupo.
01:59 31 oct 2012 (UTC) — El comentario anterior sin firmar fue añadido por Coopercog ( discusión • contribs )
Sangría modificada
Hola Stu. Me preguntaba si había alguna razón para que quitaras la sangría de mi comentario en el departamento de humanidades ([25]). No me molesta demasiado, solo tengo curiosidad por saber si la sangría que usé en primer lugar fue incorrecta. Gracias. - Cucumber Mike ( discusión ) 19:46 10 nov 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tu respuesta no me pareció una respuesta a mí, que es lo que significa sangrarla de la mía. Más bien, parecía ser una respuesta a la pregunta original, así que la sangré de esa pregunta.
En mi caso, busco en los Ref Desks por mi nombre de usuario y, si veo algún comentario que no es mío, lo leo, ya que significa que es una respuesta para mí. Tener comentarios que no son respuestas para mí causa confusión. StuRat (discusión) 22:32 10 nov 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Está bien. Supongo que lo he dejado como respuesta a ti, ya que estaba siguiendo tu línea de pensamiento, pero cuando llegué al final de mi comentario me había desviado un poco del tema, así que salió como respuesta al autor original. ¡Disculpas si te confundí! - Cucumber Mike ( discusión ) 22:38, 10 de noviembre de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
No hay problema. En un caso como ese, dividiré mi comentario en dos, uno que responde al anterior y se sangra con respecto a él, y otro que responde al OP y se sangra con respecto a él. StuRat (discusión) 23:06 10 nov 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ah, solo una idea: no tengo ningún problema con lo que hiciste, pero si hubieras dejado un resumen de la edición, habría entendido por qué lo hiciste y no habría tenido que preguntar. No es un problema, solo una observación. - Cucumber Mike ( discusión ) 22:41 10 nov 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, tiendo a ser un poco vago con esas cosas y, por lo general, solo las agrego a los artículos. (En un caso como este, el resumen de edición podría implicar 100 veces más caracteres cambiados que en la pregunta). Sería bueno que Wikipedia tuviera una lista de mis "10 resúmenes de edición principales" y pudiera elegir entre ellos. StuRat (discusión) 23:06 10 nov 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola, StuRat. Tienes mensajes nuevos en Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities . Mensaje añadido a las 07:56, 25 de noviembre de 2012 (UTC). Puedes eliminar este aviso en cualquier momento eliminando la plantilla {{Talkback}} o {{Tb}}.
No creo que la Alemania nazi perdiera instantáneamente a todos sus aliados debido a su programa de exterminio, por lo que aún puede haber una manera para que Israel haga una amenaza creíble de hacerlo y luego cumpla si nadie los acepta. — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por 178.48.114.143 ( discusión ) 22:51, 2 de diciembre de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
El mundo es un lugar muy diferente ahora de lo que era entonces. En primer lugar, los aliados de la Alemania nazi eran en su mayoría dictadores, como Franco en España, Mussolini en Italia y, al principio, Stalin en la URSS. En segundo lugar, la Alemania nazi podía intimidar a sus vecinos más pequeños, por lo que estos tenían que seguirle la corriente o ser conquistados por ella. Israel no tendría tanta influencia, especialmente sin aliados importantes. StuRat (discusión) 23:15 2 dic 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
En tercer lugar, la Alemania nazi podría haber negado de manera plausible que estuviera cometiendo un genocidio, mintiendo al respecto y utilizando películas de propaganda filmadas en el campo de concentración de Theresienstadt . En la era de Internet y los satélites, esas mentiras no se sostendrían. StuRat (discusión) 23:29 2 dic 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Has pintado un cuadro bastante claro, que puedo creer, de lo que sucedería si Israel iniciara un programa de exterminio genuino, aunque no estoy seguro de que las amenazas provocarían la misma reacción. Ahora hablemos del otro extremo. ¿Cuáles crees que serían las consecuencias de que Israel concediera a Palestina la plena condición de Estado directamente y a través de sus aliados? 178.48.114.143 ( discusión ) 23:23 2 dic 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
No veo qué diferencia supone a nivel práctico. Cambia las cosas según el derecho internacional, pero Israel lo ignora de todos modos. StuRat (discusión) 23:38 2 dic 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, yo apoyo firmemente a Israel, e Israel considera que este es un tema muy importante (es decir, que bloquea este cambio). ¿Por qué lo consideran un tema tan importante mientras que usted dice que, en la práctica, no supone ninguna diferencia? 178.48.114.143 ( discusión ) 00:39 3 dic 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo que creo que Israel debería hacer es anexionarse una pequeña porción de tierra palestina (y expulsar a los residentes) por cada cohete u otro ataque contra ellos. Esto haría que Hamás fuera mucho menos popular entre los palestinos. StuRat (discusión) 23:42 2 dic 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nuevo, no quiero ser brusco, pero la tierra es sólo polvo, mientras que las vidas son significativas. ¿Por qué no ejecutar sólo a un cierto número de civiles especialmente seleccionados, anunciados de antemano, por cada cohete? En el primer cohete mueren estas personas, en el siguiente mueren estas personas, y así sucesivamente. Entonces es realmente Hamás el que está matando a estos civiles, y no Israel. 178.48.114.143 ( discusión ) 00:37 3 dic 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Además de la inmoralidad de matar a personas al azar, eso crearía los mismos problemas que he descrito antes. Y la tierra es más importante que las vidas, para los palestinos, pero no para el resto del mundo. StuRat (discusión) 00:51 3 dic 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias. ¿Podrías responder también a mi respuesta anterior a "No veo qué diferencia supone a nivel práctico. Cambia las cosas en el derecho internacional, pero Israel lo ignora de todos modos"? 178.48.114.143 ( discusión ) 01:31 3 dic 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Las naciones se ponen demasiado nerviosas por cuestiones simbólicas como ésta (la quema de banderas es otra), y supongo que lo mismo se aplica a Israel. StuRat (discusión) 01:58 3 dic 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mi eliminación accidental de tu comentario en RD
Mis disculpas, estaba intentando dejar una respuesta inteligente (que decidí eliminar) y te toqué por error. Espero que tengas unas felices vacaciones. Richard Avery ( discusión ) 07:43 24 dic 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
No hay problema. Felices fiestas para ti también. StuRat (discusión) 07:56 24 dic 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cosas locas dichas por Mr.98 y pseudo-I/Ps de Australia:
Mr.98 me ataca personalmente después de aparentemente malinterpretar el significado de "gratis":
Ratbone afirma que las unidades de aire acondicionado nunca tienen anillos de retención (pero al menos lo admite cuando se demuestra que está equivocado):
Gracias, es una buena idea, pero es realmente difícil de leer. StuRat (discusión) 20:01 31 dic 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hecho -- Senra ( discusión ) 18:44 5 ene 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Interesante. Empezaron desde cero para crear un GIF animado a partir de un mapa satelital, en lugar de simplemente cambiar los colores de la imagen existente. Tampoco indicaron la ubicación de Hobart. StuRat (discusión) 20:54 5 ene 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, pero era gratis. -- Senra ( discusión ) 20:59 5 ene 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Puede que te interese esta discusión: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ma.27an_News Ankh . Morpork 17:18, 31 de diciembre de 2012 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si pudieras describirte en una frase, ¿cuál sería? ¿Cuál es tu nivel de educación? ¿En qué campo específico te especializas? ¿Qué tan amplia y profunda es tu especialización en tu campo y en otros campos? ¿Con qué frecuencia colaboras en Wikipedia? ¿Tienes un trabajo de día (o de noche)? 140.254.226.247 (discusión) 20:48 14 ene 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Por qué lo preguntas? StuRat (discusión) 00:31 15 ene 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Llamadas automáticas
Hola StuRat. Esta mañana estaba leyendo un artículo que me recordó tus preguntas sobre la detección automática de vendedores telefónicos. Este "teléfono banana" parece ser justo lo que necesitas. ¡Échale un vistazo! - Cucumber Mike ( discusión ) 10:51 28 ene 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias. Sin embargo, esa solución parece un poco compleja. No me molestaría, por ejemplo, introducir manualmente los números en la lista blanca. Creo que mi anciana madre podría tener problemas para introducir el código de 4 dígitos incrustado en un clip de sonido, en 10 segundos, si llama desde un teléfono nuevo. Sería mejor para mí si los números no reconocidos solo pudieran dejar mensajes, y que se reprodujera en voz alta mientras dejan el mensaje (en un teléfono fijo), de modo que pudiera atender si reconozco a la persona. También debería haber una lista negra, que yo introduzca manualmente, de números a los que cuelga inmediatamente. StuRat (discusión) 21:34 28 ene 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias. Tus comentarios me tranquilizaron, afortunadamente parece difícil que se produzca una guerra. Kotjap ( discusión ) 23:17 2 febrero 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada. StuRat (discusión) 23:30 2 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por cierto, en la frase anterior creo que te referías a "es improbable que ocurra", no a "es difícil". StuRat (discusión) 03:52 11 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias
Me surgió esa idea del fotón cuando estaba soñando. Así que estaba mal. ¿Podemos estudiar mientras dormimos? Gracias por tu explicación. — Comentario anterior sin firmar añadido por G.Kiruthikan ( discusión • contribuciones ) 06:26 3 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada. Supuestamente, la idea de la estructura de un anillo de benceno se le ocurrió a la persona que la describió por primera vez, en un sueño: benzene#Ring_formula . StuRat (discusión) 06:32 3 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada. StuRat (discusión) 03:51 11 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mientras me estoy muriendo
Hola. No me gustan mucho tus comentarios en Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#As I Lay Dying , en los que implicas que soy un niño que busca ayuda con sus tareas. Algunas preguntas en los Help Desks son, de hecho, genuinas. Si estás "en" el Help Desk, supongo que estás allí para "ayudar" o para ofrecer algunas ideas sobre las preguntas genuinas de otros editores... y no para menospreciar las preguntas de los demás como si fueran triviales, infantiles y nada más que un disfraz adolescente velado para hacer trampa en sus tareas. ¿Qué es exactamente lo que te lleva a suponer que soy un niño que intenta hacer trampa en una tarea, a diferencia de una pregunta genuina, que busca información (es decir, de hecho, el propósito mismo del Help Desk)? Y, además, incluso si esa es tu sospecha personal, ¿por qué actuar en consecuencia de una manera tan condescendiente y burlona (y muy pública)? Por favor, avísame. Por favor, responde en mi página de discusión. Gracias. Joseph A. Spadaro ( discusión ) 13:52 10 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
StuRat, estoy particularmente sorprendido/consternado/decepcionado/herido por tu comportamiento. Te he visto en estos Help Desks bastante y, de hecho, estoy seguro de que me has ayudado en los últimos años, varias veces. Esto parece fuera de lugar en ti y, como tal, es particularmente decepcionante y doloroso. Joseph A. Spadaro ( discusión )
A menos que yo vea las cosas de manera diferente a la tuya, no fue StuRat quien publicó la ocurrencia sobre la tarea . StuRat, de hecho, citó nuestro artículo : Mientras agonizaba en lo que me parece un intento útil de responder a tu pregunta. -- Senra ( discusión ) 15:53 10 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
De acuerdo, traté de ayudar lo mejor que pude. Y también agregué un chiste, en el que el blanco del chiste es el libro en sí, y no Joseph A. Spadaro. StuRat (discusión) 17:08 10 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
StuRat, dejé claro que considero que esta conducta no es propia de ti, por lo que me "dolió" aún más. Tal vez tu redacción no fue la adecuada, pero aquí está mi "interpretación" al respecto, reconociendo que mi "interpretación" puede ser inexacta. El otro editor (con desdén) afirmó: "¿Porque es una buena pregunta para la tarea?". Así que, claramente, estaba diciendo: "Es obvio para mí que estás tratando de hacer una pregunta para la tarea, y no tengo intención de ayudarte con esa tarea". Ahora, tú, StuRat, interviniste. No dijiste algo como "Bueno, oye, tal vez esta sea de hecho una pregunta legítima que no es para la tarea". Repito, no dijiste palabras en ese sentido. Lo que dijiste, de hecho, fue: "Al menos no nos pidió que expliquemos el Capítulo 19...". Así que mi interpretación de tu comentario fue la siguiente. Claramente, se basaba en el comentario (con desdén) del otro editor. En otras palabras, crear una alianza de acuerdo con su comentario; en lugar de una oposición en contra, una ruptura o un desacuerdo con su comentario. En otras palabras, usted se estaba "uniendo" a su comentario y, además, añadiendo su propio añadido a su pequeño chiste sarcástico. Su comentario añadido comenzaba con: "bueno, al menos no hizo tal y tal cosa" (es decir, preguntar sobre el Capítulo 19). Ese comentario introductorio, básicamente, dice: "Bueno, estoy de acuerdo en que está intentando hacer la tarea, pero al menos no fue un paso más allá... y al menos realmente no se degradó a sí mismo preguntando sobre el Capítulo 19" (o alguna variación de eso). Esa fue (y sigue siendo) mi "opinión". Y, como dije, mi "opinión" podría estar equivocada. Por lo tanto, estoy abierto a una explicación de la intención detrás de sus palabras y, también, cómo esperaba manifestar esa intención con las palabras que realmente utilizó (y el contexto en el que las utilizó). ¡Gracias! Joseph A. Spadaro ( discusión ) 17:41 10 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Parece que estás descuidando mi respuesta anterior, en la que intenté responder a tu pregunta lo mejor que pude, lo que no haría si pensara que se trata de una pregunta para hacer en casa. Mi broma no era una aprobación de que se trata de una pregunta para hacer en casa, simplemente sucedió que seguía esa afirmación. La puse allí porque era otro comentario aparte, no una respuesta real, y es bueno mantener juntos los comentarios aparte y las respuestas reales. StuRat (discusión) 17:50 10 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias. Entiendo lo que estás diciendo. Gracias. ¿Y puedes entender mi "interpretación" de las cosas (tal como se describe arriba), desde mi perspectiva? ¿Y cómo una persona razonable podría fácilmente tener la misma "interpretación", aunque errónea, que yo? Además, como acotación al margen, si leo el libro y pongo el enlace al artículo, ¿no es una "apuesta segura" que ya había leído esa pequeña (insatisfactoria) sinopsis dentro del artículo (que explica el incendio)... y que simplemente estaba buscando "algo más" que esa explicación superficial de una sola oración? Gracias. Joseph A. Spadaro ( discusión ) 17:55 10 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, hay mucha gente que no lee el artículo al que enlazan o que se pierde la parte relevante. Algunos de nuestros artículos son enormes y demasiado complejos, así que no puedo culparlos. Si ese es el caso, deberías decirnos de antemano que la descripción del artículo enlazado no te parece satisfactoria. (Además, es posible que algún editor bienintencionado pero desacertado haya añadido enlaces a una pregunta, lo que hace que parezca que tú mismo has colocado los enlaces). StuRat (discusión) 18:04 10 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
StuRat, respondiste a mi segunda pregunta, pero no a la primera. Por favor, avísame. Gracias. Joseph A. Spadaro ( discusión ) 21:24 10 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, puedo entender por qué podrías ofenderte si sacas conclusiones precipitadas y tomas todo de forma negativa. Espero poder persuadirte de que no lo hagas en el futuro. Ten en cuenta que a menudo es difícil discernir el tono en Internet, debido a la ausencia de señales no verbales. Esta es una buena razón para asumir la buena fe (más sobre esto a continuación). StuRat (discusión) 03:42 11 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Además, tienes que admitir que tu pregunta se parece mucho a una pregunta de tarea. Así que, si no quieres que la confundan con una, deberías explicar más. Yo habría añadido "Soy profesor universitario, acabo de terminar el libro y me gustaría saber más sobre ese evento de la novela" al principio, para evitar malentendidos como este. No confíes en que te recordemos de preguntas anteriores, ya que siempre hay gente nueva por ahí que también responde preguntas. Así que, para resumir, intenta darnos más información y sé un poco más paciente con nosotros, por favor. StuRat (discusión) 18:04 10 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
StuRat trabaja como voluntario en los mostradores de ayuda y referencia y no se merecía su diatriba. Muchos voluntarios del servicio de ayuda hacen comentarios irrelevantes y jocosos, o mejor dicho, comentarios irreverentes. Lo hacemos encerrando dichos comentarios en <small>etiquetas para marcarlos claramente como fuera de tema. Yo mismo lo hago. Algunos ejemplos recientes incluyen aquí y aquí . Me hago eco de la petición de StuRat de que en el futuro se haga una pregunta más clara. Es bastante difícil adivinar respuestas a partir de poca información en esos mostradores de ayuda y referencia. Ahora volvamos todos al tema -- Senra ( discusión ) 18:13, 10 de febrero de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Tiradora? ¿En serio? Senra, ¿sabes el significado de la palabra "tiradora"? Por favor, revisa todas mis publicaciones. Fueron bastante respetuosas. StuRat, ¿crees que mis mensajes eran una "tiradora"? Me gustaría que me respondieras honestamente sobre eso. Por favor, aconséjame. Además, Wikipedia tiene una regla/política de "asumir buena fe". Lo que significa, "supongamos que esta pregunta en el Help Desk es de buena fe y de buena fe y no un niño de secundaria haciendo trampa en su tarea". Tu sugerencia tiene un arma de doble filo. Ambos indican que debería ofrecer más información, para tratar de adelantarme a la suposición de que es una pregunta de tarea. (Pensé que "asumir buena fe" ya cubría eso). Podría fácilmente trasladar la carga hacia ti y decir... en lugar de asumir que es una tarea, por qué no hacer una pregunta aclaratoria primero... como "esto parece una pregunta de tarea. Antes de responder, por favor, avísame si lo es o no". Gracias. Joseph A. Spadaro ( discusión ) 21:19 10 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
No diría que fue una "diatriba", pero más bien me pareció una reacción exagerada. Como dije antes, en realidad no pensé que fuera una pregunta de tarea, pero podía ver por qué otros podrían pensar así. Bien podría haber preguntado, si hubiera pensado que lo era. Sin embargo, cada ciclo de plantear una pregunta de seguimiento (y esperar una respuesta y luego responder a eso) ralentiza las cosas, haciendo que tu pregunta suba en la página, más allá de donde es probable que la gente la lea y responda, y pronto se archiva. Por lo tanto, realmente te haces un favor al darnos toda la información que puedas por adelantado. En cuanto a asumir buena fe, eso también se aplica a ti. No supongas que "menospreciamos las preguntas de los demás como si fueran triviales, infantiles y nada más que un disfraz adolescente velado para hacer trampa en la tarea" ni que estamos siendo "condescendientes y burlones". Lo único de lo que me burlé fue del libro en sí. StuRat (discusión) 03:42 11 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esta situación me recuerda un poco a la respuesta habitual cuando alguien con problemas informáticos llama al departamento de TI: "¿Ya has probado a reiniciar el sistema?". La mitad de los que llaman consideran que la pregunta es insultante, ya que obviamente ya lo han intentado, y la otra mitad dice que no, que no lo han intentado. Entonces, ¿debería el departamento de TI dejar de hacer esa pregunta para evitar ofender, aunque hacerla puede resolver muchos problemas? StuRat (discusión) 03:49 11 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
preocupación/disculpa
Lo siento, debería haberte hablado de esta diferencia, pero todo lo que vi fue el problema legal con los comentarios potencialmente difamatorios sobre una empresa. Creo que deberías eliminar la referencia directa tú mismo, es problemática y no es necesaria para tu argumento. Pero tengo que disculparme por no haberte hablado directamente, solo estaba concentrado en eso y ni siquiera presté atención a la firma. μηδείς ( discusión ) 20:40 15 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, aunque el nombre no debería importar. No veo nada difamatorio en la declaración. Muchas empresas venden artículos desechables, son sólo el primer motel que lo hace, que yo sepa. En cualquier caso, no pueden demandar a Wikipedia por lo que una persona publica aquí. StuRat (discusión) 22:06 15 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Un poco de baklava para ti!
Gracias. ¿Tienes alguna toallita húmeda ? Me llené de miel por todas partes. :-) StuRat (discusión) 19:50 17 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ese chico sudafricano
Le informo de mi informe de buena fe. No creo que su comentario sea necesariamente incorrecto ni que lo haya hecho de mala fe, pero sí creo que se pasa de la raya en lo que respecta a nuestras directrices. Pensé que era mejor recurrir al BLP que actuar yo mismo. μηδείς ( discusión ) 04:18 25 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hombre flash
Listo. El soporte limitado se debe únicamente a que no me considero lo suficientemente familiarizado con los criterios de FL en la práctica. ¡Parece que está funcionando bastante bien! -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 16:20 25 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Has publicado esto en la página equivocada? No tengo ni idea de qué estás hablando. StuRat (discusión) 16:23 25 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soy un gran fan
¡Muy grande! Realmente aprecio tu trabajo. — Hamza [ discusión ] 16:41 27 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
No especialmente por esa respuesta. A veces leo RD por su contenido interesante, y tú lo sabes todo. — Hamza [ discusión ] 08:07 7 mar 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Meteorito de Cheliábinsk
Un artículo interesante sobre sus orígenes teniendo en cuenta tu pregunta anterior. μηδείς ( discusión ) 19:56 27 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias. Aún estoy buscando algún factor subyacente que haya causado la "coincidencia" de los dos. StuRat (discusión) 21:52 27 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Troleo de IP
Me tomé la libertad de quitar este cebo de ataque personal del escritorio de árbitros varios. Dado que tomó tu nombre en vano, pensé que te gustaría saberlo.[27] ← Errores del béisbol ¿Qué pasa, Doc? carrots → 22:53, 27 de febrero de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, pero ya vi que lo eliminaste y respondiste en su página de discusión. StuRat (discusión) 23:03 27 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ustedes dos saben que si me hubieran dejado esto a mí, habría habido comentarios mucho más ingeniosos. μηδείς ( discusión ) 23:57 27 feb 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fer sher. Deberías ir a la página de discusión del IP y señalarlo. A menos que tenga miedo de que los griegos hagan bromas. ← Errores del béisbol ¿Qué pasa, Doc? carrots → 01:18, 28 de febrero de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Discusión antigua
Hola Stu, vi que dejaste un comentario después de mí en el hilo sobre rastreo/scraping web. Como es un poco viejo, pensé en continuar aquí: Básicamente, CiteSeer solo está interesado en publicaciones académicas. Lo que hice fue poner un archivo pdf en el directorio público de www.department.university.edu/~username/ Era huérfano, en el sentido de que no había nada vinculado a él, pero habría sido visible para un comando ls o dir. Creo que CiteSeer simplemente descargó todos los pdf en cada carpeta pública de cada página department.university.edu que pudo encontrar, y luego con un procesamiento mínimo decidió que era un "documento" que deberían indexar (esto generalmente es efectivo, ya que muchos profesores publican sus publicaciones de esta manera). ¿Tiene eso sentido? Me lo he preguntado un poco a lo largo de los años. En realidad fue bastante vergonzoso, básicamente copiaron y alojaron mi contenido sin mi consentimiento, y aunque luego se publicó, la versión que incluyeron incluía todo tipo de anotaciones y discusiones que no estaban destinadas al público. SemanticMantis ( discusión ) 17:34 5 mar 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, eso tiene sentido. Además de la vergüenza, también podrías encontrarte con que alguien plagia tu artículo y lo publica antes que tú. Supongo que la lección es que nunca deberíamos publicar nada en la web que no queramos que sea visto por todos. Simplemente, guárdalo en el directorio local de tu PC hasta que esté listo para publicarse.
Esto me recuerda un problema que tuve con la casa que compré. El precio que pagué siempre se consideró un "registro público". Sin embargo, en los viejos tiempos, esto significaba ir al Registro de la Propiedad y hojear tomos para encontrarlo. Ya no es así. Ahora está en línea y cualquiera que escriba mi nombre en Google puede averiguar exactamente cuánto pagué por mi casa en un segundo. Eso es un poco demasiado "público", en mi opinión. StuRat (discusión) 17:38 5 mar 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Austeridad
Mi torpeza con el botón de deshacer ha hecho que tu comentario parezca fuera de lugar, pero creo que con un pequeño ajuste a tus palabras iniciales, sería una contribución útil al hilo. Espero que no te importe, pero tenía muchas ganas de deshacer mi edición. ¡Mira el resumen de la edición que dejé cuando pensé que la estaba deshaciendo antes! -- Dweller ( discusión ) 21:38, 5 de marzo de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, gracias, he actualizado mis palabras iniciales. Sin embargo, en el futuro, es posible que quieras usar strikeout , una vez que la gente haya respondido, para eliminar tus comentarios. StuRat (discusión) 21:46 5 mar 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias
Gracias por toda su ayuda con el problema del lagrangiano mínimo/máximo. 74.14.60.239 (discusión) 22:14 11 mar 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada ! StuRat (discusión) 03:55 26 mar 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reversión en RD:S
Estupendo,
Revertí tu edición a mi sombrero en el hilo de evaporación/sublimación. Elegí deliberadamente el sombrero después de que tanto tú como Ratbone diésemos nuestra opinión sobre la terminología, y antes de que alguno de vosotros se lanzara a ataques personales abiertos. El hecho de que hayas movido eso en silencio (y por extensión, me lo hayas atribuido a mí, ya que tengo el único metacomentario firmado allí) para tener la última palabra es inaceptable. — Lomn 15:35, 29 de marzo de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Nota: si quieres continuar con otra respuesta en ese hilo, no veo ninguna razón por la que una discusión civilizada entre tú y Ratbone sobre lo que cada uno quiere decir con los términos que están usando no pueda continuar fuera (y por encima, de hecho) del sombrero. — Lomn 15:37, 29 de marzo de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Y que dejes tu comentario diciendo que estoy equivocado y que no verifico mis datos, mientras ocultas mi respuesta, no es aceptable. Me olvidaré de todo el asunto. StuRat (discusión) 15:38 29 mar 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si hubiera dicho educadamente "no estoy de acuerdo", entonces lo habría dejado así. StuRat (discusión) 15:42 29 mar 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si prefieres que todo quede oculto, por mí está bien. — Lomn 15:56, 29 de marzo de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Seguimiento de su pregunta sobre RD: libros antiguos de la biblioteca
Hola StuRat,
No quiero provocar ningún tipo de controversia respondiendo en una discusión a cal y canto, pero para responder a tu pregunta: sí, el hecho de que sea una copia de una biblioteca normalmente reduce el valor de un libro, en parte por el nerviosismo de los coleccionistas por exactamente el tipo de razones que plantea tu pregunta (¿es un descarte legítimo de la biblioteca o fue robado?) y en parte porque normalmente han sido marcados con un precio elevado y/o han sido muy utilizados. Así que, sin darte asesoramiento legal, que sé muy bien que sabes que no debes pedir en el RD </rolleyes>, tu libro podría no valer tanto como esperas. Pero, de nuevo, en un mundo de libre mercado, las cosas valen lo que alguien quiera pagar por ellas. Mucha suerte. --some jerk on the Internet (discusión) 13:34, 11 de abril de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Una búsqueda de referencias no encontró una cobertura significativa en fuentes confiables para cumplir con los requisitos de notoriedad . Esto incluyó búsquedas en la web de cobertura de noticias, libros y revistas, que se pueden ver en los siguientes enlaces: Un punto de inflexión en la historia nacional – noticias, libros, académicos En consecuencia, este artículo trata sobre un tema que parece carecer de suficiente notoriedad .
Si bien se agradecen todas las contribuciones constructivas a Wikipedia, el contenido o los artículos pueden eliminarse por varias razones .
Hay algo reconfortante en ver tu presencia cada vez que he estado en el mostrador de referencia desde que estaba en la escuela secundaria y ahora estoy a punto de graduarme en la universidad. Durante todos mis cruciales años de formación, tu conocimiento ha sido un faro, o algo así. Todo lo que digo es que deberías escribir un libro o deberían hacer un documental sobre ti. NIRVANA2764 ( discusión ) 14:19 1 may 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, me has puesto en el séptimo cielo. :) StuRat (discusión) 18:48 1 may 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Nombramiento deUn punto de inflexión en la historia nacionalPara borrar
El artículo se analizará en Wikipedia:Artículos para eliminar/Un punto de inflexión en la historia nacional hasta que se llegue a un consenso, y cualquiera puede contribuir a la discusión. La nominación explicará las políticas y pautas que son motivo de preocupación. La discusión se centra en la evidencia de alta calidad y en nuestras políticas y pautas.
Los usuarios pueden editar el artículo durante la discusión, incluso para mejorarlo y abordar las inquietudes planteadas en la discusión. Sin embargo, no elimine el aviso de eliminación del artículo que aparece en la parte superior del artículo.
Discusión de ANI sobre Wickwack
He denunciado a Wickwack ante la ANI para ver si podemos conseguir algún tipo de aplicación de la ley, y he mencionado su historial de abusos hacia ti. Por eso, solo te dejo esta nota para informarte sobre esto. -- Modocc ( discusión ) 03:11 13 jun 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, gracias. ¿Tienes un enlace para mí? StuRat (discusión) 03:26 13 jun 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias de nuevo. StuRat (discusión) 04:20 13 jun 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
El consejo médico se derrumbó, ver WT:RD
Cerré un hilo al que habías respondido y eliminé tu respuesta, ya que era potencialmente peligrosa para el público al que iba dirigido (pacientes con alergias múltiples). Consulta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Collapsing_request_for_medical_advice. -- NorwegianBlue talk 21:12 18 jun 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
El odio de los musulmanes y los árabes hacia los judíos
En su respuesta a esta pregunta en Humanities RD , no entiendo su distinción entre "degradación de los palestinos fuera de Israel" cuando hay evidencia abrumadora, duradera y generalizada de que los árabes palestinos dentro de Israel son tratados como ciudadanos de segunda clase, literalmente, y las prácticas discriminatorias del gobierno y el ejército israelíes contra los árabes palestinos en los territorios de Judea, Samaria y Gaza. Fuera de Israel son refugiados, a veces inmigrantes. Estas cuestiones generan mucho calor; el humo sólo ofusca. Por favor, manténgase centrado cuando ofrezca respuestas. -- Deborahjay ( discusión ) 20:08 16 septiembre 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cuando digo "fuera de Israel" incluyo Cisjordania y la Franja de Gaza, donde a los palestinos no se les permite votar en las elecciones israelíes, a pesar de que los políticos israelíes electos tienen el control de facto de sus hogares. Por supuesto, también se los trata como ciudadanos de segunda clase cuando son refugiados en muchos países árabes, y tampoco quería olvidarme de eso. StuRat (discusión) 23:32 16 sep 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Por qué la gente los llama musulmanes? ¿Estás seguro de que no los estamos llamando de forma grosera y que somos simplemente angloparlantes ignorantes que no saben cómo llamarlos con un nombre que creen que significa "de Oriente Medio" en inglés? Eso es lo que me pregunto. ¿Quién decidió llamarlos así? Tenemos el término "de Oriente Medio" y el término "islamistas", así que ¿qué es musulmán? ¿Su raza o qué? ( Crlinformative ( discusión ) 17:42 5 abr 2016 (UTC)) [ responder ]
Creo que musulmán es la palabra correcta para un creyente en el Islam. No es una raza, es una religión. "Islamistas" parece referirse a musulmanes conservadores (que insisten en que las mujeres se cubran el rostro, etc.). StuRat (discusión) 19:01 5 abr 2016 (UTC) [ responder ]
Un premio para ti
Hola, StuRat.
Somos colegas de la mesa de revisoría desde hace muchos años. Es cierto que hemos tenido grandes diferencias de opinión sobre ciertos temas y hemos enfrentado nuestros argumentos con fuerza. Pero se me ocurre que usted siempre ha sido educado y nunca ha recurrido a ninguna forma de ataque personal o maldad. Por eso, le doy las gracias y, además:
Para entregar este premio a otros, simplemente escriba {{subst:User:JackofOz/PENISS}} en su página de discusión y luego firme y feche su publicación.
Saludos y feliz edición. -- Jack of Oz [cortesías] 00:07, 27 de septiembre de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, y también ewww. :-) StuRat (discusión) 09:36 27 sep 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
No sé si celebráis Halloween pero... ¡Feliz Halloween!
Respondí a tu respuesta en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Why_blind_army_ants_do_not_hunt_at_night.3F 67.71.98.182 (discusión) 06:48 5 nov 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias
Hola Stu,
"Eso es más una falacia que una falacia". Solo quería decirte gracias por alegrarme el día de trabajo. La palabra LOL se usa demasiado hasta el punto de que simplemente significa "Entiendo que te estás riendo", pero ese fue un momento LOL genuino y a la antigua usanza para mí. BbBrock ( discusión ) 13:13 7 nov 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada ! StuRat (discusión) 18:39 7 nov 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Nombramiento deTamaño de empresa socialmente óptimoPara borrar
El artículo se analizará en Wikipedia:Artículos para eliminar/Tamaño de empresa socialmente óptimo hasta que se alcance un consenso, y cualquiera puede contribuir al debate. La nominación explicará las políticas y directrices que son motivo de preocupación. El debate se centra en la evidencia de alta calidad y en nuestras políticas y directrices.
Los usuarios pueden editar el artículo durante la discusión, incluso para mejorarlo y abordar las inquietudes planteadas en la discusión. Sin embargo, no elimine el aviso de eliminación de artículo de la parte superior del artículo. Joja lozzo 01:45, 28 de noviembre de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
No dispares. Solo soy el extraterrestre que toca el piano.
Odio que mi respuesta quede archivada. "Se acerca un objeto circular brillante con un mensaje desconocido. ¿Te suena familiar?" Clarityfiend ( discusión ) 09:20 17 dic 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, gracias por la respuesta. Estaba pensando en cómo se podría usar un CD como skeet . StuRat (discusión) 09:25 17 dic 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ni el comentario ni el documental Making the Earth Stand Still hablan de la rampa. Sin embargo, imágenes fijas de los planos del platillo muestran:
Un pequeño carro con ruedas que se utiliza para extender la rampa.
Anotaciones en tres de los planos (a veces un poco difíciles de descifrar):
"NOTA: APUNTÉN Y REPARA TODAS LAS UNIONES PARA HACERLAS INVISIBLES CON CINTA"
"BISAGRAS SECUNDARIAS DE LA PUNTA DEL ALA PARA PERMITIR QUE LA RAMPA DE DESCARGA SE DESPLIEGUE / VER DETALLE / POR FAVOR, COLOQUE EN TODAS LAS JUNTAS DE LA RAMPA / PROPORCIONE CINTA DE ENMASCARAR PINTADA PARA ??"
"¿PENDIENTE? ¿PUNTA DE ALA PARA SER CONSTRUIDA CON YESO LISO?" Clarityfiend ( discusión ) 20:30 22 dic 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias. Me sorprende que hayan conseguido que un carro se mueva con tanta suavidad. Habría esperado los característicos tirones que se producen cuando las ruedas chocan contra los granos de arena, etc. Deben haber repasado su recorrido con una lupa para eliminar todos los granos. StuRat (discusión) 20:42 22 dic 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Control del tiempo
Por suerte, mi calendario me dice que es hora de desearte una feliz Navidad y un próspero y saludable Año Nuevo. Richard Avery ( discusión ) 14:08 24 dic 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Gracias! Y un saludo navideño genérico para ti también (¿incluye Festivus ?). :-) StuRat (discusión) 14:22 24 dic 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Ah, sí! Especialmente Festivus. Richard Avery ( discusión ) 08:25 25 dic 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
StuRat, eres muy amable!!!
Realmente aprecio tu comentario en lo que respecta a otras personas en la Sección de Referencia. Uno de los problemas para mí ahora es que trabajo a tiempo completo en un puesto de responsabilidad, aunque puedo "robar" unos minutos cuando no estoy ocupado para publicar una o dos preguntas. Por lo tanto, tendré que avanzar más lento de lo que podría esperarse. A veces llego a casa y solo puedo comer y dormir. El proyecto que intento llevar a cabo en la Mesa de Referencia no tiene nada que ver con lo que estoy haciendo ahora en el trabajo (soy médico), pero sí con lo que estaba haciendo hace años y tuve que revivir ahora que obtuve una patente para ello. Es un poco difícil hacer malabarismos con todo, pero estoy seguro de que eventualmente lo lograré. Ya me has ayudado mucho y lo aprecio enormemente. Hice mucho desarrollo de software hasta hace unos 3 o 4 años y espero que ahora vuelva a ser así gradualmente. Otra cosa es que el negocio del software se está desarrollando tan rápido, ya hay tantas cosas nuevas, es asombroso. Muchas gracias, pero rechazaría la oferta de escapar de la Mesa de Referencia. Puedo defenderme por mí mismo si es necesario. -- AboutFace 22 ( discusión ) 21:12 30 dic 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
"¿Cómo pasó de programar computadoras a ser médico?" - Bueno, en realidad fue al revés. En algunos puntos de mi carrera tuve tiempo suficiente para dedicarme a varias aficiones y las computadoras eran una de ellas. Trabajé en un consultorio privado por mucho tiempo e intenté escribir mi propio software. Ahora la situación ha cambiado. Trabajo para un estado y tengo que dedicarle unas 9 horas diarias. En realidad es un trabajo muy gratificante, pero sucedió otra cosa. Tenía un proyecto que comencé hace mucho tiempo y hace unos 18 meses, en un impulso, solicité una patente para la idea. Primero presenté la solicitud yo mismo y me la rechazaron con una sugerencia que implicaba que la recepción por parte de la USPTO era buena, pero mi presentación era defectuosa. En términos muy claros me recomendaron que contratara a un abogado de patentes. Afortunadamente, conseguí uno muy bueno. Me otorgaron 5 patentes en unos 3 o 4 meses, no recuerdo bien. Cualquier realización de estas patentes requiere muchos cálculos matemáticos. Así que empecé con un llamamiento para que me indicaran cómo contratar a un programador para el trabajo. Verás, durante los últimos 3 o 4 años no he hecho mucho en términos de programación y recuperar las habilidades no es fácil cuando se trabaja a tiempo completo. Parece que he encontrado al menos dos personas interesadas y hablaré con una de ellas en una semana y posiblemente con la otra también pronto. No obstante, estoy tratando de salir adelante con mi propia descarga de software y tratando de conseguir al menos una ventaja inicial. Sin embargo, no puedo hacer nada durante la semana laboral, estoy demasiado cansado al final del día. Gracias por su apoyo. -- AboutFace 22 ( discusión ) 18:41, 4 de enero de 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, cuéntame cómo te va, me encantaría saberlo. StuRat (discusión) 18:48 4 ene 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gonzales veloz
Creo que su lema real era ¡Arriba! ¡Arriba! ¡Ándale!, que significa aproximadamente "¡Levántate! ¡Levántate! ¡Vamos!" — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por Baseball Bugs ( discusión • contribs ) 03:22 7 ene 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esta es la segunda vez en los últimos minutos que no he podido seleccionar una o más tildes (es irónico, dado el tema español). ← Errores del béisbol ¿Qué pasa, doctor? carrots → 03:30, 7 enero 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias. Mi ortografía en inglés es mucho mejor que la del español. StuRat (discusión) 14:05 7 ene 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Por qué no hay una página detallada sobre Adam Lanza? Como por ejemplo los tiradores de la escuela secundaria de Columnbine, Dylan Klebold y Eric Harris. ¿Wikipedia es una organización independiente o hace lo que se le dice? — Comentario anterior sin firmar añadido por 69.130.159.177 ( discusión ) 08:08, 10 de enero de 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Discusión:El tiroteo en la escuela primaria Sandy_Hook sería el lugar para preguntar. Es de suponer que no quieren que matar niños sea un camino fácil a la fama, para desalentar a los imitadores. StuRat (discusión) 15:47 10 ene 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
ES UNA PÉSIMA RESPUESTA. ¿Y SU MADRE O SU PADRE? NO HAY DETALLES SOBRE SUS VIDAS. BUSQUEN A TED BUNDY EN WIKI. TODA SU VIDA CON GRAN DETALLE... PERO NO HAY ADAM, NI NANCY, NI RYAN LANZA... LO QUE PODRÍA DAR LA RESPUESTA CORRECTA SERÍA... LA FAMILIA LANZA NO EXISTE. POR ESO NO PODEMOS ENCONTRAR NINGUNA INFORMACIÓN SOBRE ELLOS — Comentario anterior sin firmar añadido por 69.130.159.177 ( discusión ) 20:41 16 ene 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Escarabajos
Simplemente me quedé con la pregunta. No soy el autor original. Rojomoke ( discusión ) 21:31 18 ene 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, no podemos dar consejos médicos, pero sí podemos identificar a los escarabajos. StuRat (discusión) 22:54 18 ene 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
John, Paul, George y Ringo. Son bastante fáciles de identificar. Dos se han extinguido debido a las actividades humanas, pero los otros dos siguen en pie. KägeTorä - (影虎) ( DISCUSIÓN ) 22:27 21 ene 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Jajaja, no te olvides de todos esos "5th Beatles", como Stu Sutcliffe . StuRat (discusión) 22:33 21 ene 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
RE: Lana
Saludos, Stu, eso realmente responde a mi pregunta. Curiosamente, nunca lo consigo cuando estoy con una chica que lleva un suéter o jersey de lana, sino solo cuando yo lo llevo. También lo consigo en la sección de fragancias de los grandes almacenes. KägeTorä - (影虎) ( DISCUSIÓN ) 22:23 21 ene 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Quizás sea una alergia real a la lanolina, ya que la utilizan en muchos cosméticos. Por otra parte, es posible que simplemente tengas otra alergia o sensibilidad al perfume. A mí también me molesta.
Por cierto, en tu página de discusión no sé cómo cerrar el cuadro que quedó abierto en la sección de aplausos. StuRat (discusión) 22:31 21 ene 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
La segunda venida y el medio ambiente
Cuando digo pronto, me refiero a muy pronto. Hago esta pregunta porque hay algunos cristianos que afirman y creen que Jesús regresará y que el mundo terminará muy pronto. Creen que hay señales de la Segunda Venida y muchas de estas señales ya se han cumplido. Por ejemplo, mira este artículo. Jesús habló sobre estas señales en Wikisource:Biblia (King James)/Mateo#Capítulo 24, Wikisource:Biblia (King James)/Marcos#Capítulo 13 y Wikisource:Biblia (King James)/Lucas#Capítulo 24.
Cierto, pero como muchos otros han señalado, la gente ha estado prediciendo que Jesús regresará "pronto" desde que murió, por lo que apostar todo a la predicción del último hombre tiene poco sentido. StuRat (discusión) 00:37 4 feb 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pregunta de Refdesk
Hola Sturat,
Gracias por tu respuesta en el foro de referencia sobre el diseño estructural del estadio O2 de Londres. Para responder a tu pregunta, tiene columnas de apoyo en la parte delantera. Hay algunas fotos en este foro. [28] Clover345 ( discusión ) 13:57 10 feb 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
En ese caso, los que se encuentran en el nivel inferior tendrían una visión parcialmente obstruida, si el balcón se extendiera más allá de su posición. Esta es una buena razón para no extenderlo demasiado. StuRat (discusión) 14:45 10 feb 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que la limitación del estadio O2 es que está construido dentro de una estructura existente. El techo del estadio se construyó fuera del lugar y se levantó desde el piso hasta la parte superior de la estructura mediante un mecanismo elevador. Clover345 ( discusión ) 15:42 10 feb 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esta era la pregunta sobre por qué no extienden el balcón más hacia adelante, ¿no? Si es así, no estoy seguro de cómo afectaría ese método de construcción del techo. StuRat (discusión) 16:14 10 feb 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Se trataba de por qué no había un nivel superior en la parte delantera de la arena. Pensé que debido a la forma en que estaba construida, tal vez esa era la razón por la que no pudieron hacer que la arena fuera lo suficientemente larga para acomodar un nivel superior. Clover345 ( discusión ) 18:40 10 feb 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Trato igualitario?
Hola. Hice lo correcto. ¿Hay alguna posibilidad de que tú también hagas un gesto similar? -- Jack of Oz [cortesía] 02:44, 26 de febrero de 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Imágenes interesantes. ¿Cómo se consiguen las gafas adecuadas para la imagen en 3D? μηδείς ( discusión ) 21:44 26 feb 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Gracias! Puedes encontrar esos anteojos rojo-azules en muchos lugares. La tienda Dollar Tree los tenía por $1 en algún momento, y Wendy's los regaló con las comidas de los niños recientemente. Supongo que cualquier tienda de pasatiempos probablemente los tendrá, aunque es posible que tengas que comprar un cómic en 3D o algo así para conseguirlos. También puedes hacerte un par tú mismo pegando trozos de transparencias de colores rojo y azul a un par de anteojos. O simplemente puedes preguntar por ahí, probablemente algún amigo o pariente tenga un par que te pueda prestar. (Ten en cuenta que hay otros tipos de anteojos 3D más caros, como anteojos polarizados o con obturador electrónico, pero esos no funcionarán con mi GIF). StuRat (discusión) 03:49 27 feb 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Notificación de enlace de desambiguación para el 2 de marzo
Hola. Gracias por tus recientes ediciones. Wikipedia agradece tu ayuda. Sin embargo, notamos que cuando editaste Anti-flash gear , agregaste un enlace que apunta a la página de desambiguación The Guns of Navarone (verifica para confirmar | soluciona con el solucionador Dab). Estos enlaces casi siempre son involuntarios, ya que una página de desambiguación es simplemente una lista de títulos de artículos del tipo "¿Quisiste decir…?". Lee las preguntas frecuentes • Únete a nosotros en el WikiProject de DPL .
Gracias, StuRat. Es bueno que me hayas respondido cuando otros simplemente eliminaron mi pregunta :) Que tengas un buen día, amigo — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por 78.148.110.69 ( discusión ) 21:48, 15 de marzo de 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada, y tú también. StuRat (discusión) 21:53 15 mar 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Notificación de enlace de desambiguación para el 3 de abril
Hola. Gracias por tus recientes ediciones. Wikipedia agradece tu ayuda. Sin embargo, notamos que cuando editaste Telemedicine , agregaste un enlace que apunta a la página de desambiguación Injection (verifica para confirmar | soluciona con el solucionador Dab). Estos enlaces casi siempre son involuntarios, ya que una página de desambiguación es simplemente una lista de títulos de artículos del tipo "¿Quisiste decir…?". Lee las preguntas frecuentes • Únete a nosotros en el WikiProject DPL .
Hola. Acabo de darme cuenta, después de todos estos años, de que tu nombre es un anagrama de Rattus , el nombre científico de la rata. Así que, después de todo, eres una rata. No creo que lo niegues, así que...
Te he puesto un nombre taxonómico que recuerda a ti mismo: Rattus sturatticus .
Genial. Que tengas un buen día. -- Jack of Oz [cortesías] 20:13, 8 de abril de 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Suena como el nombre de un gladiador, StuRaticus Maximus (lo cual funciona bien, ya que mi primer nombre es Stu y mi segundo nombre es Max). StuRat (discusión) 22:14 8 abr 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Extraño. Todo este tiempo pensé que su nombre era un anagrama de "stuart". :D Yashowardhani ( discusión ) 00:55 4 may 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Se revirtieron los cambios en su página de usuario
Solo para informarle, revertí algunas adiciones de cuadro de usuario a su página de usuario agregadas por nuestro amigo en el RD que sigue publicando probablemente tonterías de Copyvio sobre bacterias en el RD. Nil Einne ( discusión ) 04:38, 9 de abril de 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias. Me pregunto por qué me atacó. No tuve nada que ver con eso. StuRat (discusión) 04:53 9 abr 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Las ratas merecen todo lo que les pasa. :) ---- Jack of Oz [cortesías] 11:44 9 abr 2014 (UTC)[ responder ]
Animación 3D
¡Hola! Vi algunas de tus animaciones en 3D. ¡Son increíbles! ¿Cómo las haces? :) Yashowardhani ( discusión ) 15:47 3 may 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Gracias! Escribí programas Fortran para crear cuadros individuales y luego los uní para formar GIF animados usando ImageMagick . Si sigues los enlaces que se encuentran cerca de esas animaciones, encontrarás algunas de las discusiones que surgieron con respecto a dichas animaciones, junto con ejemplos y códigos de muestra. StuRat (discusión) 15:54, 3 de mayo de 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo intentaré. ¡Me estás haciendo arrepentir de no haber optado por la informática en la escuela secundaria! Yashowardhani ( discusión ) 00:23 4 may 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Aún no es demasiado tarde. Incluso hay cursos gratuitos en línea a través de edX , etc. StuRat (discusión) 00:31 4 may 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias por el sitio. Lamentablemente, solo ofrece cursos de nivel universitario. Yashowardhani ( discusión ) 00:49 4 may 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si todavía tienen cursos de Introducción a la Programación de Computadoras, no son demasiado difíciles de manejar. Y no es que pagues por ello, así que si tienes que abandonar, no hay penalización por eso, así que más vale que lo intentes. También había un curso de Gráficos de Computadoras, pero no te lo recomendaría hasta que te sientas cómodo con la programación. StuRat (discusión) 01:39 4 may 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Está bien, le preguntaré a mis padres al respecto. Yashowardhani ( discusión ) 03:44 4 may 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Su respuesta reciente en el servicio de referencia
Hola. Solo quiero decirte que probablemente puedas mover tu respuesta más reciente de Reference Desk (sobre lo que hacen las personas más ricas de los EE. UU. con su dinero) directamente a tu lista de respuestas "Correct Reference Desk". :-( RomanSpa ( discusión ) 18:31 3 may 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tal vez debería discutir esto contigo en tu página de discusión o abrir un nuevo hilo para esto, porque de alguna manera desvía la pregunta original del OP (bioquímica del silicio). Double sharp ( discusión ) 11:23, 6 de mayo de 2014 (UTC) [ responder ]
I think it's close enough to their original Q to stay there. I doubt if they meant "Tell me about silicon based life but please don't mention any other possibilities". StuRat (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't feed the trolls
Hi StuRat,
It would be best to treat Alex Sazanov as a troll. Don't feed the troll. Just ignore him until he goes away.
If you provide an answer, it triggers others into answering.
Some folk have given him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he is using machine translation, which can certainly put out what seems to be garbage. However, the variety of posts he's made make trolling far more likely. A very obvious thing to do when using machine translation is, after translating your native text into the target language, get the machine to translate it back again, and compare it with your original input. He's claerly not doing this. And he inventing words not existing in English, and for which there is no plausible source in Russian. He's been repeatedly asked to either use Russian Wikipedia, or type in his own language, with no apparent compliance.
But his Q's don't seem trollish, they seem like serious ones. Maybe he's just barely literate in Russian, then uses a machine translation to English on top of that. StuRat (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Comparison of PPM and animated GIF.PNG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Odor
Per WP:COMMONALITY, neutrality isn't about finding a NPOV or unoffensive word, but about finding common ground between spelling variations. You say "odor", I say "odour" - no big deal, but spelling differences are best avoided. I thought "smell" was a synonymous word, but perhaps there is a subtle difference in meaning. But I can't think of a better alternative: "aroma" and "bouquet" aren't appropriate in Flatulence, nor are "stink" or "stench". "Smell" does not seem to be inappropriate to me, but if you really don't like it, then please revert to "odour" as this spelling would be consistent with the rest of the article, per WP:ENGVAR. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your link above (and in the edit summary) doesn't work. It takes me to the top of Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and that gave me no clue you were talking about English variants. I'll go ahead and make it "odour". StuRat (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link works for me. MOS is a long page though, so perhaps it takes time to fully load before jumping down to the relevant section. I don't really see what the problem with "smell" is, but anyway, I won't argue with your last edit. Cheers, 23:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
What about "AC power"?
That distinguishes most household "non-mains power" from the mains within an inch of plugs that rival cul-de-sac pipes in thickness. There's "off-grid power" if you want short specificity that your outlet power happens to not be coming from real mains (which might still too small to equal the smallest non-electrical mains, at least one wire at a time). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs at AN/I
You have been mentioned in a discussion at WP:AN/I. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those various redlinks and IP's are from a banned user (which one, I don't know - possibly Cuddlyable3) and that's why they keep getting reverted. At this point, it's best to not respond to their questions. Give the admins a chance to block them and zap their questions. I'll try and do likewise. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but which ones are and aren't banned users ? Is there any easy way to know ? StuRat (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an IP from Venezuela, it's him. If it's a redlink whose first entry is of the same obvious bent, or a redlink who has made some useless entries just to get confirmed and get past the semi, it's him. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please-please-please don't edit-war over the quiet-as-possible removal of edits by banned users. It's exactly what the troll wants. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but an absolute minimum requirement is that any removal must list the reason. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any comment in the edit summary feeds the troll. However, if it will make you happy, I can say "wp:deny" instead of leaving it blank. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Otherwise we are headed to a situation where anyone can delete anything for any reason, with no explanation given. We also shouldn't delete good faith answers. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And stop reverting the deletion of banned-user questions + answers. Banned users are not allowed to edit, and anything they post is subject to deletion on-sight. And deleting the question and leaving the answer not only renders it nonsensical, it feeds the troll. Stop it already. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And also, by the way, the user you've been edit-warring with, Minky543, is actually that same user, playing both sides of the game and loving every second of it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't delete answers by non-banned users. Box it all up, if you like. StuRat (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave this alone for a little while, and let you and Schultz slug it out with the admins who are trying their best to counter the troll. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possessive its versus contraction it's
Stu, I read your replies on the Reference Desk often and appreciate your insights and helpfulness. However, I have noticed that you often use "it's" (the contraction) when you mean to use "its" as a possessive pronoun. --Thomprod (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's intentional. I believe "it's" is more consistent with other possessive forms, like "Bob's" and "Mary's". I realize that my usage is nonstandard. StuRat (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Offensive comment
I find your comment highly offensive and ask that you choose your words more carefully in the future. It's not my fault if your comments are so unclear such that they were legitimately misintepreted by me and as I've said, it's not the first time you've asked to be clearer. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody considers being accused of nitpicking to be "highly offensive". And there does seem to be a popular game here to try to misinterpret someone's comments, then say they are wrong (under that misinterpretation). It would be damned near impossible to write anything that couldn't be intentionally misinterpreted. I am reminded of the Sheliak species in the Star Trek universe, who wrote a half million word long treaty in an attempt to remove all ambiguity: [29]. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Risk assessment
If I can ask you to be clearer on something else, how does "increased risk in flying over a war zone where 3 aircraft had already been shot down is a no-brainer" measure up with "Looking at the past record is only one way to determine risk, and not a good choice for infrequent events."?
Not trying to be a dick, just curious to whether you think flying there would be more, less or just as risky today. InedibleHulk(talk) 04:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Is there some reason why you didn't add a new section ? In any case, I did it for you.)
I meant the past record of the actual event in question, in this case shooting down a passenger jet. Related events, such as shooting down of military jets, are also useful for risk assessment, especially where those related events are more common.
Ironically, flying over that area would likely be safer now, even as the perception of risk is much higher, since the militants probably realize that they screwed the pooch big time, and the resulting threat of serious sanctions may cause them to lose vital support from the Russians. StuRat (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Not trying to say you're wrong or right, just wondering. Didn't add a new section because it seemeed relevant to misunderstandings. My bad. InedibleHulk(talk) 05:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
I would like to apologize for getting a little snippy on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Dataflow_driven_programming_framework. I know you're just trying to help. :-) I think you caught me in a bad mood, and took it too personally, since I've already put so much effort into understanding and accounting for every little detail of the system and putting checks in place to catch as much unexpected behavior as possible. Obviously I agree that it is always good advice to assume you haven't accounted for everything and have a backup plan in place. :-) Katie R (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've just seen so many programs that failed to handle conditions which they assumed could never happen, that I always try to plan for them: "The best-laid plans of mice and men (and women) often go awry." StuRat (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The software I work on tests things that put mice and men and women into space, so I try to be careful. :-) Katie R (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better not send any mice to the Moon, in case it's made of cheese. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speculative "answers"
Hi Stu. I thought it would be more polite to post this here, and not distract from the thread.
Do you see how this [30] is an example of why your un-cited claims bug people? Why make stuff up? Sure, it sounds reasonable that you can't use the wind to go faster than the wind -- but that's incorrect, as you would have known if you'd read the info on wind turbine land vehicles in Katie's link. It's also common knowledge among people who've been sailing, and is often mentioned as a fun factoid the first time a newbie boards a sailing vessel. It's a reference desk, not a "sounds reasonable" desk. I suppose you could say it doesn't matter because your error was quickly corrected, but for better or worse, people might believe the things you say, and there's not always someone right there with the time and knowledge to set the record straight. I'm not trying to be mean spirited. I didn't want to search through your extensive post history to find examples of this sort of thing, but when one popped up this morning, I thought I'd bring it to your attention, in light of the previous talk page thread. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather skeptical. The only source I found in that article appears to be this one, from an admitted amateur: [31]. And that seems to violate the conservation of energy law. So, like cold fusion, I need more proof than one experiment, before I accept it. What that source might be saying is that it can move slower than the wind, store up energy, the use that to sprint ahead of the wind for a short period. If so, that seems possible, but that still limits your average speed to below that of the wind. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source I found, which says "Even professional aeronautical engineers can’t agree": [32]. So, if I'm wrong, at least I'm in good company. StuRat (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies
I apologized for my snappy remark and mischaracterization in the unhealthy ingredients question - I misread what you had written and responded poorly, my fault entirely.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ! I think we are really both saying about the same thing, perhaps with me putting a bit much more emphasis on individual ingredients than you. I certainly agree that processed food should be avoided, whenever possible. StuRat (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mason jars
The term for a mason jar lid that doesn't have a separate ring and gasket lid is "storage lid" or "storage cap" - search those terms on google/amazon etc. [33]. Good luck, SemanticMantis (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, StuRat (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CRT
"On my CRT monitor...." LOL. You should let your family know what to get you for Christmas. :-) Axl ¤[Talk] 08:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be bad for the environment to dump my CRTs (3 TVs + 3 monitors) in the landfill. And sending thousands of dollars to a non-democratic and increasingly militaristic power, the Chinese, seems socially irresponsible, to me. StuRat (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These things are cheaper now. Less than 1000 overall and I think most aren't even made in China anymore. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 1 Adar 5775 00:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat, would you kindly examine my GFortran post at LinuxQuestions.org.
StuRat hi. I know you are an expert on GFortran. I recently had a problem and posted at a linux forum. In the end I solved the issue myself but I still do not understand why my FORMAT statement did not work.
My question is: "What is wrong with my FORMAT statement" If for some reason you will not be able to see the thread, I will post it here. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will take a look. StuRat (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did get an error when trying to view it, apparently you must be a member of that forum to view it. So, please list it here. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In real file the semicolons were absent. The total number of lines was 256.
program main
real :: val1,val2,val3,val4,diff1,diff2,dcent1,dcent2 integer :: reason = 0, ii = 0, jj = 75 100 format (I4,f15.6,f15.6,f15.6,f15.6) ! for reading from unit 1 file 200 format ("reason = ",I10," jj = ",I10) 700 format (f8.3) ! for writing into the unit 3 file 500 format (I3,". val1= ",f11.7," val2= ",f11.7," diff1 = ", f8.3," or ",f6.2,"%", " diff2 = ",f8.3," or ", f6.3,"%") ! for writing into stdout; unit 6 open (unit=1, file = "gray_h_20.dat", status = 'old') open (unit=3, file = "diff_h_20.dat", status = 'old') DO WHILE (reason .eq. 0) ii = ii + 1
I get this error, and also one line of "output" which is no output at all:
Quote:
reason = 5010 jj = 75
1. val1= -0.0000142 val2= 0.0000000 diff1 = -0.000 or -0.00% diff2 = 100.000 or 0.553%
This is how I resolved it and it began working.
read (1,*,IOSTAT=reason) jj,val1,val2,val3,val4
I would like to know why the first FORMAT statement failed.
Thanks --AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One question, do you have a blank at the beginning of each line in the input file ? If not, try that. I believe certain format statements expect the first character to be a special control character, and that might mess things up.
Also, instead of just using blanks to separate the columns, try commas. StuRat (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat hi, It is kind of interesting but unfortunately impractical. Someone else supplies the input file for me and it is not in the format I am using. This person sends me columns of numbers in .xlsx format which is Office Excel. I cannot use it in Ubuntu, at least I don't know how. So I copy about five columns at once to the clipboard and paste them into a .dat file in Ubuntu Terminal. Inserting commas manually is not for me.
Now the blank at the beginning of each line? There are no blanks, but entering the blanks manually? I can try that to prove the principle because this thing puzzles me. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me know how it goes. You can delete all but 2 lines, insert a space at the start, do one test, then add commas for a 2nd test. Once we know if either of those are the problem we can look for a solution, if you want to go beyond unformatted input. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the first 10 lines one position to the right thus giving each line a blank byte at the beginning. The formatted input did not work as before. This is what I got in the output file: ******** (one line only). --AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you try the commas ? I suspect that without those, it will read by column. For example, an I4 read will try to read 4 characters and plug them into an integer. If part of the next number is in that 4 characters, things will go haywire. StuRat (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not do it yesterday. I did it now and it gave the same result: ******** . Just one line if it can be called a line. I inserted the commas as you suggested. Even if it worked I probably would not do the commas. It is kind of ridiculous to do it by hand on a large file given the fact that unformatted input works so well. So the problem has no answer. You can actually take my code and run it and confirm. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I've had a similar experience with formatted FORTRAN reads. They are extremely particular that everything be in exactly the right place. Unformatted input is safer. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention one interesting thing. I failed to remove the commas and the line shifts one position to the right. The unformatted READ ignored the nuisance as it were not there and read the real stuff: floating point numbers.
This will close the discussion, he, he. Thank you, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, and good luck. I think the formatted reads go back to Hollerith cards, when each space on the card was specifically reserved for one data type, not like the CSV files we tend to use today, where spacing is ignored. Back then, space was at a premium, so they would put one number right up against the next, not using any spaces or commas in between, and the formatted reads were designed to decipher that. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Req Technical Advive
Hi, Stu.
You've been helpful before with TV questions. My parents have done away with cable entirely. The live 20 miles or less SE from downtown Philly and get all the Philly stations in normally very good HD reception. They have a 40-y/o outdoor antenna which works but could use replacing.
My Dad wants to install an in-attic antenna. He's looking at price and quality, but he's also interested in a hi-range antenna, since he lives 75 miles or less SW from NYC.
He'd like to get an antenna that would get the NYC stations, since it would easily double there number of stations, although much of the programming may be duplicate.
I suggested he look here http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&field-keywords=hdtv+antenna+indoor+150+mile+range
I have three main questions. Is a hi range TV that will also get NYC going to have to rotate every time he changes channels? (Frankly I think with his proximity to philly he can probably just keep the antenna aimed at NYC and get the philly due to the mere proximity of the signal.
Second is there any specific brands you can either recommend or warn him away from.
Third, is there any other issue I might not be thinking of that you suggest I pay attention to?
Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really wouldn't recommend trying to get a digital TV signal from 75 miles away, but, if you're committed to it, it will take everything you can possibly do to get it to work, and then you can still expect to lose the signal regularly. (It's not like analog TV where a weak signal is still viewable, just with some "snow".) Some additional thoughts:
1) Some antennae are highly directional while others are somewhat directional or omni-directional. For that kind of range, though, I think you want a highly directional antenna. The directional ones also usually receive signals well from the opposite direction, and sometimes from a few other directions, as well. You might want to use both the new directional and old omni-directional antenna together. You can hook them up to a switch box at the TV you can use to select between the two. I have this setup.
2) Rotating antennae can be a bit of a pain. You need to use a remote control to rotate them, it needs to be lubricated periodically, you need to keep the area clear to allow for rotation, and you have to wait for it to rotate every time you change channels. I'd avoid those.
3) In-attic might not work. It may need the additional height you get by putting it on the roof. At 75 miles, you might have the Earth in between your antenna and the broadcast antenna, due to the curvature of the Earth, unless you go higher. 75 miles is really pushing the limits, so you'd have to go all out to make it work.
4) Something else to consider is the frequencies you are trying to receive. Different antennae are more sensitive to different frequencies. Note that under digital TV, the channel number no longer corresponds directly with the broadcast RF (radio frequency) signal. So, you'd want to determine the frequencies of the TV channels you're trying to get and select an antenna good at those frequencies. You won't be able to get low VHF at that range, because they are restricted on power output. For this reason most digital TV stations are broadcasting in either high VHF or UHF. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, that was very clear and helpful. My dad wasn't set on the NYC channels, and there was a miscommunication between us, he wants the antenna in the house itself, not the attic. His concern is that he gets pixelation when it's bad weather. He might go with on-the-roof, but he's 76 and it's not like Walmart will install it. (I can do inside wiring, but I have overpowering acrophobia (I got locked out of my apartment once and had to climb the fire escape from a 4th story to a 5th story window, which took about 30 minutes for me to do in inch by inch increments.)) The NYC signals come out of the Twinless Tower so they are pretty high, there are no mountains in between, he lives at almost the highest elevation in SJ, but that's like 100ft, so not much help.
One last question. Since almost all of the channels he gets are at 10 degrees west of due north from him, and they come in fine now on his 40 y/o antenna, is there any point in a unidrectional antenna? There are other stations, mostly PBS, which they like) that come out of Vineland and (S) Atlantic City ESE) and Trenton (N). Not knowing the right word, would an omnidrectional (?) antenna be a good idea, if there is such a thing? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are, but none are 100% omnidirectional, or 100% unidirectional, for that matter. What channels get the pixelation ? If those are the ones 10 degrees west of north, then a directional antenna for those and an omnidirectional antenna for the rest might work. As for brands, Winegard and Channel Master seem to usually have the best antennae. But as for putting it inside the house, and not in the attic, you have to realize that directional antennae are big and ugly, not the type of thing you want in your living room. Maybe if he has a utility or storage room, that might be appropriate, but you also have the antenna wires to deal with. StuRat (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For his convenience, he wants an omnidirectional antenna in the living room one in the botom center of the home that will get better than the one on the roof 30 ft up. I know this will cause my mother to have apoplexy. He also doesn't want to have to run wiring other than by the current route, which is down the West side of the house from the roof and across the garage into the living room. I am going to try to convince him either to put a new antenna where the old antenna is, or perhaps one in my sister's old room which is rarely used and has a northward view from the second floor. The Channel that comes in poorly is 23 PBS out of Camden, which can't be more that 1-3 degrees away from the Philly transmitters from his transmitters.
The problems at this point seem ones of effort, esthetics, and emotion, so again your advice has been helpful. He was going to get the Channel Master C2 if I remember (don't have my email open) but was going to try to fit that in an almost below ground room in the center of the house, in an 18" space behind and south of the TV. Thanks for all the practical advice, I will pass it along shortly. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, but be sure to explain to him the huge difference in reception he will get due to the elevation difference. If he wants to put a directional antenna behind the TV in that small space, it would have to be the bay type (http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=4228-hd is a good one). However, he would be quite limited in where he could aim it.
Also, you might be thinking that a new antenna would have to outperform a 40 year old one. This is not necessarily true. Very little improvement has been made to TV antenna technology over the last 40 years, because people have been switching to cable and satellite TV. There have been improvements in cell phone antennae based on fractal geometry, but so far AFAIK nobody has tried to adapt this to TV antenna. StuRat (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Library - ScotlandsPeople - You've got mail
Hello, StuRat. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Philg88 ♦talk 06:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your graphics software
StuRat, I want to know what graphics software you are using. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the animated GIFs from my home page ? As I said "I generate the panes using FORTRAN programs I write, then use ImageMagick to stitch them together into animated GIFs." You might wonder why I do it this way instead of using some off-the-shelf program. Well, my goal was to learn the basics, and I wanted to start from scratch to do this. StuRat (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember those animated pictures and this is why I asked you this question. My goal is actually different. I am not interested in animation. I was wondering if GFortran has intrinsic graphics capabilities. That was the impression I had when you showed that stuff to me. I currently use gnuplot which is outside GFortran, so I have to fill up a file with floating point values and then use a short file with gnuplot code and issue a simple command to display the graphic. There are numerous graphics program on the web. Thanks, ---AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've not found any. I believe I asked this Q at the Ref Desk some time ago. I do everything manually. The Netpbm format allows you to output a human-readable ASCII graphics file, which can be displayed directly. However, those are huge and slow, so you likely will want to convert them to another format. You could also theoretically output binary graphics files directly from FORTRAN, but debugging is problematic, since you can't read the file directly anymore. (I've actually been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet, so if you do, I'd love to get a copy.) Then graphics file compression is another issue, and even if you create binary files, you'd still likely want to use another program to compress them. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Emilie claire Barlow
I did send a self addressed stamped envelope and I got nothing. Please help me.Venustar84 (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How long ago ? If they answer their mail personally, it can take a very long time to get caught up. StuRat (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A year ago. Venustar84 (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They still might still answer after that long, but I'd also try your other approach of catching her in person. StuRat (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, glad we could help ! StuRat (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crudités, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salsa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being bullied by Baseballbugs
Any chance you could intervene here?
Every time I create a new question of the ref desk this particular editor swoops in with arbitrary removals of my question. This bully boy approach is really unhelpful and I have no idea why he feels compelled to pick on me personally. When questioned, he is unable to explain his actions. Which suggests to me that his behavior is purely driven by malice.
See my revision page.
Your Q "Why did Jimmy cross the road" seems to have been removed for good reason. If you meant something like "What was Jimmy Wales' motivation for starting Wikipedia ?", then you should have said so. Unfortunately, that question marked you as a troll in BB's mind. I suggest you sign up, then he won't recognize you. And avoid any more silly Q's like the crossing the road one. Your Q on Wikipedia biases seems reasonable to me, and I wouldn't have removed it. I'll put it back and see if he leaves it there now. StuRat (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"::This time he's blocked for a week. ←Baseball Bugs"
Sort of.
And you were contradicted more reasonable, fellow Wikipedian's who kept my most current question live. Whereas you wanted to delete the whole lot. Friendly tip : best you keep that ego genie in the bottle. We all know he knows best, don't worry.101.108.214.59 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it without comment because it was an obvious attempt at a BLP-attack on Wales. Please, don't start another troll-feeding bout. Revert yourself without comment. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted it on Wales' talk page so he can decide what it's about, if anything. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all obvious to me. Take it to the talk page and try to garner a consensus. StuRat (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ref Desk proposal
Hi Stu, I don't know if you've been following the recent threads on the ref desk talk page, but based on some review of that material, I have a simple proposal that I'd like your feedback on before I shop it to the whole group. It's very simple: For a trial period (1 month?), we agree to not remove or hat any questions for reasons of seeking medical/legal advice (and perhaps extend to include requests for opinion). Rather than a free-for-all, we first respond with boilerplate or a template, something along the lines of this:
At that point, we can remove any responses that diagnose, proscribe, treat any illness or legal situation, but allow links to RS. Perhaps even demand that any responses include references, or risk removal. Would that seem ok to you? The thing is, we really don't get that many medical legal questions, and I like how this puts us in the position to police ourselves as respondents, rather than posters. As I see it, this proposal is consistent with our guidelines, and it might forestall some debates, because hopefully the use of a template will warn all our regulars (and irregulars) to be on their best behavior. On the upside, we can then provide useful information, such as links to other people's opinion pieces, links to WP pages that are about medical topics, peer-reviewed literature, etc.
So, any thoughts? Would you support such an experiment? Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that would work, as written, because of editors like Medeis, who think anything related to biology is medical advice. Give her the ability to delete responses without consensus and she would delete even more than she does now. If you add that deletions can only occur after a consensus is garnered on the talk page, then I could support your proposal. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we could do it that way. I'm certainly open to tweaking the details. The main thing I want to promote is to focus on responses, not questions. I see it as our job to behave ethically, not poster's jobs to read all our guidelines and know how to not even look like a hint of a troll or advice seeker. I was actually keeping Medeis in mind. My thought was that she could feel happy by adding that template to certain questions, and she might be less likely to delete a regular user's posted answer (i.e. not "drive-by IP" as some of them say), especially since theoretically further responses would be very careful to give advice. Oh well. Thanks for the feedback. I'll see what the others I've asked say, and maybe post on the talk page about it over the weekend. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give an example. Say somebody asks how many teeth an adult human should have. Under current rules, Medeis would hat the question as requesting medical advice, then everyone else would ignore her hatting or remove it, since it obviously isn't a request for medical advice. Under your proposed rule, somebody would give the answer, perhaps with a link, and Medeis would then delete it. Others wouldn't know the correct answer was deleted, and waste time providing their own answer, which she would then delete again. That's not an improvement. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the question were "How many teeth does an adult human have?", then that's not asking for medical advice, and I think if anyone tried to remove it, they would be resisted. And drama would ensure. I think my solution could make it better - here's my scenario - if we agreed on a template, it could be added to the question (even though I think that would be erroneous, I wouldn't mind) Then someone can say "see our article on Human_tooth#Permanent_teeth, which says that a normal healthy human has 32 permanent teeth" - and if anyone tried to remove that answer, they'd be wrong to do so, and I'm fairly confident our community would act to restore the response. Btw, have a look at Medeis' talk page. I dropped a line there too, and she seems basically amenable... SemanticMantis (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Her argument would be that if we tell them how many teeth a normal adult human is supposed to have, that they would then conclude that they either have the correct number or incorrect number of teeth, which is a medical diagnosis, and we should not assist people in self-diagnosis. She's renowned for this type of absurd misinterpretation of the rules. Also, since some people have wisdom teeth and some don't she would also argue that we are not qualified to answer, and that they must consult their dentist.
And yes, her deletions would be reverted, if anyone knew she made them. They will only show up on our watch-lists until the next edit to that Ref Desk is made. I for one don't comb through the history of each Ref Desk page every hour to check to see what else she has deleted, and I doubt if anyone else does, either. So, the problem with unilateral deletions is they can easily slip under the radar. Not so for hatting or consensus deletions.
And I'm not at all surprised that she would favor any proposal that allows her to do unilateral deletions. StuRat (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in no way trying to encourage deletions - exactly the opposite is my goal - to use a template instead of deleting. How about just the template, instead of hatting/closing? With nothing about further responses, neither explicitly preventing them nor allowing them. Something like this:
The idea was just to get something fairly innocuous that we could agree on, that might both keep people from needlessly deleting things, and also help teach readers and posters about our guidelines. This form doesn't change any of our guidelines in any way, but it is designed to avoid any need to delete posts. If I can get Medeis (and others) to agree to post this template (or something similar) instead of deleting, wouldn't you call that progress, or at least a small improvement? I know I would, but I'm trying to see how others feel, so that I don't waste my time on a huge talk thread that accomplishes nothing. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That looks OK, as long as they sign it. An unsigned template like that makes it look like it's a consensus statement, when it's really just one person's opinion. Is there a way to make a template always add the signature of the person who left it ? StuRat (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Piscine retribution
Gentle...
...on My Mind, as sung by Ethel Merman. I doubt there's a recording of it anywhere. It was something I saw on a TV variety show back in the 60s. You've heard the expression about a singing voice that sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard? This was worse. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Turns out it was on the Carol Burnett Show, March 3, 1969. So it might still exist somewhere. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stu, would you consider adding in some of your areas of interest/expertise to Wikipedia:RD_regulars? I know you're pretty expert on some types of computer stuff, maybe some physics and probably other things I don't even know about :) I'd like to get more people to participate so that it might become a useful resource for all of us. Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
a user who may need a friend
hello StuRat it is dfrr this user who goes by the name User:Trimethylxanthine has not been getting messages from anyone but me in fact only one other user has sent him a message when he first came here to wikipedia. so lets send him him barnstars wikiloves messages anything to make him feel like people know he is here at wikipedia. thank you and have a great springDfrr (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darnell
Since you just brought it up: Was Darnell wearing a red shirt? The article doesn't mention it. — Sebastian 02:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The pic (is that Darnell ?) seems to show a blue shirt. They weren't very consistent on shirt colors in Star Trek:TOS. StuRat (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which pic? — Sebastian 02:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right after my link to the article. Looks like he fell victim to the killer frog. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or leeches, I would imagine. — Sebastian 02:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation
Inequality
Hey Stu! I believe that you have your second inequality backwards over at WP:RDMA#Algebra.
Presumably Clover's wording was imprecise. Cheers! -- ToE 23:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, good catch. Fixed now. Thanks, StuRat (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's still funky! The inequality shifts between both the first and second equation and between the second and third, though I can't quite tell which way Clover intended. BTW, I am somewhat confused at how someone who asks such a simple question can follow up with question about Rosenblatt transforms. -- ToE 00:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The tricky part is "If x < y, then 1/x > 1/y, when x & y are both positive or both negative". We don't actually know that the left side is positive, do we ? I'm not sure what to do in this case. StuRat (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If L is a real number, then e(-1/L) is positive. Also, I now see that Clover was clear about which inequality sign they meant where, with the first equation and the final answer using "greater than or equal to" and the intermediate equation using "less than or equal to". -- ToE 07:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Heading
Stu, you are well aware section headings are supposed to neutrally state an issue, not attack a single person. I am not the sole person who disagrees with you, keep you edits to the discussion because if you edit war over getting my name in the header I'll take action. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you well know, listing a person's name in the header doesn't make it not neutral. I mentioned your action and why you claimed you took it, and nothing else, in my latest version. Your "Answering opinion with opinion" header was not even close to being neutral. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ref desk problem - edit conflict?
Hi Stu, you seem to have inadvertently removed some other responses here. Did you have an edit conflict? DuncanHill (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I undid your edit so as to restore what was there before. Could you re-add your response, as it will be helpful to other readers? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He probably shouldn't re-add it, as it was wrong. "Random" referred to the random order of cards in the machine, according to the magazine article (and common sense—random access is a feature of every filing system ever, so it wouldn't be a selling point). -- BenRG (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the earliest computer systems could only read sequentially, and being able to access data non-sequentially was a real selling point. Of course, now it's like "stereo", so widespread you don't really need to say it anymore, but some people still do.
As for being able to retrieve any cards in the specific order, regardless of the order in which they are loaded, that's the same thing I was saying. StuRat (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Duncan. I got an edit conflict, but when I looked at it it seemed to take my changes, so I left it, not realizing it had somehow wiped out the conflicting edit. StuRat (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change of section header
[38] It's Viennese Waltz, not Vienna Waltz. --Viennese Waltz 14:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the correction. And I striked out the comment, not because what any men think, but because Deb didn't like it. StuRat (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, although I don't agree with your reason. Men are just as entitled to object to sexist humour as women are, and their objections should carry no less weight. Your argument is like saying that a racist joke is acceptable as long as a black person finds it acceptable. --Viennese Waltz 08:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a racist joke, but saying things like "You my nigga !", which is acceptable in some black cultures. When everyone starts worrying about 3rd parties possibly getting offended, it becomes a political correctness nightmare. To put it in legal terms, you lack "standing" to object. StuRat (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Period
I'm sitting here wondering if all that, at RDL and the talk page, would have been avoided if I had simply ignored the comment from Dodger67. If I accomplished nothing but stirring the pot, I apologize. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate it, anyway. Jayron never misses an opportunity to make a personal attack on me, amazing behavior for an Admin. I chose not to engage on either page, as that will just give them more opportunities for personal attacks. There seem to be a large number of people at the Ref Desk whose main purpose is to attack others, whether posters or responders. They all need to be more tolerant, and have a sense of humor. If the Ref Desk was as dull as they want to make it, I suspect it would die, because few would be interested in responding in their grey, boring world. StuRat (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ptolemaic numbers
Many thanks for your answer, which opened up several other interesting sidelines! I came to the conclusion that the original context must have meant Greek numbers, pity they didn't say Greek instead of Ptolemaic but it does sound more interesting / mysterious this way. Followed up Ancient Egyptian and Latin but they wouldn't work in the context:
http://www.artisandice.com/order/kanji-and-runic-d20s/
Yes, this is the inoffensive link which caused me to start hunting. I really appreciate such an expanded and encompassing answer. It's a win!14.2.30.233 (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to his article, you should find all the refs you need. StuRat (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pay attention
You do realize, of course, that the editor involved has been blocked indefinitely, that the question is not a request for references, and that the link will not go anywhere once the items are archived, so the clutter will serve no purpose whatsoever? Can you please explain why this material should be retained for any ref desk reason? μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It will remain in the archives as a record of what occurred, and is far more accessible there than if we needed to look through the history to try to find it in the future. But none of this really matters, as there was no valid reason given for a deletion. Having a dead link in no way qualifies as a good reason. StuRat (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat is spot on. DuncanHill (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Medeis: Re the link, you can wait until the target has been archived and then modify the link to either a wikilink or a permalink to the section on the archive page. It takes less than a minute, no fuss, no muss. Whatever the arguments involved here, the link shouldn't be one of them. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Latin
Hi Sturat, can you please add your reference to your answer about the use of Latin being linked to democracy (here [40])? Thanks. 184.147.127.87 (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you misunderstood my use of the word. I didn't mean democratic forms of government, per se, but rather "the little guy having more say in the world". The form of government is one way that can happen, but also technology changes like the internet now allow everyone to have a say (for example, by rating businesses), whereas only a few in the media had a voice before. To look at one example, let's say your lawyer throws Latin phrases at you rather than say them in simple English (say "writ of habeas corpus" versus "an order to charge or release the prisoner"). You can leave a review of that lawyer that says he does that, and find another lawyer who doesn't, all using the internet. Eventually that lawyer will learn to use simple English or lose all his clients. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ISIS
Why on God's green earth did you feel the need to restore respond to that troll's speculations about biological warfare? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't look like trolling to me. I can certainly understand how someone might think "We defeated millions of enemies in WW2, so why can't we easily defeat a few thousand crazies ?". I haven't seen it explained on the news, either. So, I explained it. StuRat (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I almost never see eye-to-eye with user Fgf10, and we both agree it's trolling. The IP would be blocked already except the admins are asleep at the switch at AIV. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will give them the benefit of the doubt until then. StuRat (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I evaluate the Q, not the OP. If the Q seems reasonable, I answer it. Now if the OP gets banned, I will respect that, but I don't intend to start looking through all the contibutions of every OP before deciding if I will answer their Q. StuRat (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering my question. Hats off to you for breaking the mold around here and helping a questioner.
Pissing against the wall
You asked:
I wonder if it meant "males over a certain age", as male babies wouldn't be able to "piss against the wall". I also wonder why the translators chose the word "piss", versus "urinate", which comes from Latin and is considered the more refined choice. StuRat (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]
I don't know if the phrase means to exclude babies but in general it is considered to include even young children. I kind of doubt that babies would be excluded though because the purpose was to eradicate the male line altogether. Maybe one should not understand the present "pisseth" too literally. Biblical Hebrew finite tenses and verbal adjectives have, as far as I know, more imprecise temporal implications than English (or Modern Hebrew) equivalents. The so called verbal aspect is as important. Maybe "a pisser against the wall" would be closer to the meaning of the Hebrew (see, btw, Wycliffe's translation below). Because the Hebrew word that is translated by "pisseth" is a verbal adjective, not a finite tense, it can mean "a pisser", i.e. someone whose nature it is to (maybe not today but one day) urinate against the wall. As to your second question, some of the more recent translators do use "urinate" and some forgo the metaphor altogether and put instead some such equivalent as "male" or "male child" etc. As to why the KJV uses "piss" instead of "urinate" I don't know. Maybe "urinate" was not yet commonly used in English. EtymOnline gives 1590s for that word but maybe it was still specialized medical terminology. The oldest translations all seem to use a derivative of "piss". Wycliffe's Bible has "a pisser on the wall" or "a pisser to the wall". Since Wycliffe's is translated not from the Hebrew but from the Latin Vulgate I would assume that Jerome too picked an earthy Latin word to translate the Hebrew (but I have not checked the text of the Vulgate). Amazingly Young's Literal Translation (literal!) uses "sitting on the wall" (!) which is completely wrong. But what do you expect from a Victorian translation? In any case the earthiness of "piss" is not meant to reflect any connotation of the word in Hebrew, I don't think, since the word used is the only one for urinating (in Biblical Hebrew). This said, the Hebrew Bible does uses circumlocutions for some bodily functions, e.g. it is said to use "covers his feet" for "defecates" for example in 1 Samuel 24:4 (לְהָסֵ֣ךְ אֶת־רַגְלָ֑יו) (in fact, as far as I know, no root for "defecating" has come down to us from Biblical Hebrew, or at least not in the text of the Bible), but I don't completely understand this because this is not a verb that is used in Modern Hebrew for "covers". In any case maybe the use in Hebrew of the literal word for "urinating", especially in this phrase, instead of a circumlocution, is, after all, a popular, earthy idiom used on purpose, for stylistic reasons, by the (highly sophisticated) writers of these texts. Some day I will try to see if this Hebrew root for "urinating" is used in the Bible other than in this specific idiom. ContactBasemetal here 17:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps when they said "defile" they meant "urinate" (could be "defecate", too). "Cover the feet" seems like a bizarre euphemism for defecate. They don't mean "cover the feet with feces" I hope. Maybe they just meant putting on shoes, in order to go outside to defecate ? StuRat (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it is not "cover the feet with feces", and not only because that would be gross and entirely out of character with the habits of primitive people and in any case would take some doing given the standard squatting position which was general before the invention of the toilet seat. It is unthinkable that defecating on your own feet would have been such a standard modus operandi as to give rise to a phrase, even if it could conceivably occur as an accident to a particularly clumsy or hurried crapper. However that doesn't get us close to the origin of the phrase. If the ancient Hebrews had worn pants I could imagine "covering your feet" meant pulling down your pants. (This, btw, reminds me of a particularly funny scene in "Don Quixote") But they didn't. A robe on the other hand would be more likely to be pulled up than pulled down. Maybe the ancient Hebrews wore some kind of underwear, even if it was just a piece of rag, and that was pulled down and "covered the feet" so to speak, even though you'd better cover only the front of your feet, for obvious reasons. I'll ask someone who knows Biblical Hebrew well. ContactBasemetal here 20:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of something interesting I heard on the radio last night. Apparently an estimated 550,000 people in India still defecate outdoors. They seem to prefer it, even when an outhouse is available (I would guess because of the smell). But, as you can imagine, this leads to the spread of disease, and sure doesn't do much for tourism. So, the local governments have started using "walls of shame", where they snap pics of offenders "in the act" and post them in town. That seems to be having the desired effect. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing they don't put it on the net, Instagram or Flickr I've often wondered why homo sapiens is so poorly equipped for mass communal defecation When you see those seal colonies or penguin colonies or any seabird colony with millions of animals all happily defecating next to each other (try to imagine that) without any adverse effect (I'm not sure about the seals and sea lions, maybe they do it in the sea) it makes you wonder. (Do you know what the guano in Peru is? There's literally mountains of that stuff!) It is true cats are also very particular. It seems, as far as that is concerned, homo sapiens behaves more like a cat or a tiger or a predatory animal, than a social animal like a monkey ought to. I've got only two cats, but if I don't clean their litter box everyday its a revolution. I'm basically my cats' tattiwallah (or whatever that is called in India). Ok, I have to take out the turds everyday, but I've got three or four days to change the litter. But, seriously, only about half a million people? That sounds to me like a huge underestimate. The Times of India and The Hindu put it at more like 600 million. Besides hygiene and tourism there is that of domestic animals, such as dogs, eating the feces, and if it's too far from the village, the problem of attacks by wild animals, of scorpions, snakes, etc, and for women, the danger of rape, especially if done after dark. Btw, it's not always the fault of the people practicing it given the ghastly state of public toilets. I'm sure there are technical solutions to this problem (which is a problem in India and elsewhere, see article Open defecation). In my opinion, at least in the countryside, one has to start by having every family have their own toilet (preferably a composting toilet) of which they take care personally as opposed to public toilets. Relying on public toilets and professional "toilet cleaners" especially those belonging to a specialized caste who operate with minimal technology is bound to fail and the toilets will remain in that horrible state that drives people to prefer open defecation. Every family in the countryside should take care of its own toilet. In the cities, though, you have to have public toilets of course, and the problem is different. Paradoxically it seems the problem, at least in India, is more acute in the countryside. ContactBasemetal here 21:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I missed a set of zeroes. That's 550 million. As for other animals, I think it does spread disease and shorten lifespans, this being one reason why most animals live longer in captivity, since we clean up the manure. StuRat (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A documentary on bathroom repair in ancient Israel here ContactBasemetal here 11:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sturat
The issue I presented at Refdesk\Computing wasn't really resolved after all... It's wired, please see there. Would thank you dearly, Ben. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination of Teazle (video game) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Teazle (video game) 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/Teazle (video game) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. – czar 21:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
stool thread
Stu, if you check that IP's contributions, you'll see that the thread you restored was already posted and is already being discussed on the misc desk also. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The Science Desk seems like the proper place for it. I suggest cross links and/or moving one. StuRat (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Losing fat without aerobic exercise or eating excess protein
[41] cites several studies. The main problem with low-fat diets is that they tend to replace the missing fats with increase carbs, including bad carbs like refined sugar and white flour. Those cause a sugar spike followed by an insulin spike followed by converting that blood sugar into body fat. StuRat (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
was this nasty?
am I being nasty?
But I am right, am I? I have had it with these people, what do they think the internet is? Asmrulz (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should try to be more patient. I would have just stated that I doubt if anyone would get enjoyment out of that and ask if they can provide any sources that prove otherwise. StuRat (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I toned it down a bit for less drama Asmrulz (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Control F
Re. your post here, I now have the same problem after chrome updated when I did a weekly re-boot on one of my devises (PC). Thought I let you know. Cheers, --TMCk (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. At least if it's something they did, we can have some hope they will fix it, too. Seems like there's a logical problem that both the search pop-up window and the window to be searched need to be "on top" for it to work, but only one can be on top at a time. Not sure how they ever got around this. StuRat (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's them who screwed up. So now at least you know there is nothing more for you to do other than waiting and hoping for a fix soon to be implemented ;) --TMCk (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, Stu
This looks personal. Not how you usually operate. Come on, for consistency's sake you could probably create volumes of such diffs for a majority of users (including User:Stu Rat). ... ---Sluzzelin talk 23:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Jayron is the chief hyprocrite, and I intend to have links handy the next time he asks for refs on something completely obvious (thus not requiring refs). My links will have cases where a link is really needed, but Jayron refused to provide them. I may very well add other editors refusals to provide links to the list, if they start launching hypocritical attacks like Jayron has. StuRat (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
revert
This edit reintroduced a bunch of archived content which the bot dutifully archived a second time. So now it may be in the archives twice; I don't have time (or battery life on this chargerless laptop tonight) to investigate further. --Steve Summit (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was trying to fix the revert before that, which seemed to have inadvertently deleted all that, as well as restoring other material. Did the archiving and his revert all get combined into a single edit somehow ? StuRat (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. I'll look at it some more tonight. --Steve Summit (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like the revert before yours was proper, and did not need reverting.
this edit. at 17:12 on November 11, basically reverted back to 14:31 on November 9, after the bot archived November 1 but before it archived November 2. So it restored three days' worth of archived content, and deleted everything that had been added since
this edit. at 17:18, perfectly reverted the previous, deleting the re-added archived content and restoring the deleted content
but then your edit re-restored the archived content. --Steve Summit (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Archives finally cleaned up. (I don't know what 5.81.235.234 (talk ·contribs) has been up to. --Steve Summit (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding...
this - when are you going to start paying attention to what's going on? Do that kind of thing one too many times, and someone's going to suggest banning you from the ref desks. Don't let it get to that point, please. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His edit summary just said "(Reverted edits by 80.44.165.173 (talk) to last version by Paulscrawl)". Absolutely no mention that he was reverting a banned user. We can't be expected to read minds. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The revert came 2 minutes AFTER the IP was blocked for block evasion.[42] No mind-reading about it. When an admin reverts without comment, it behooves you to pay attention to what's going on. Before you think about re-reverting, check to see if the reverted user is blocked. If you're not in the habit of doing that, you had best start. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea that was an Admin, I've never seen him before, And it's not our responsibility to research a revert to try to figure out the motivation behind it, which could take every editor who looks at it quite some time, it's the responsibility of the person doing the revert to state the reason explicitly in the edit summary, which takes one person 30 seconds. StuRat (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Stu, you're wrong here. And this is the same case as the one just above.
When you looked at the history before the revert you made, you would have seen this:
• (cur | prev) 18:51, 14 November 2015 Elockid (talk | contribs) m . . (86,079 bytes) (-5,611) . . (Reverted edits by 80.44.165.173 (talk) to last version by Paulscrawl) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 18:50, 14 November 2015 80.44.165.173 (talk) . . (91,690 bytes) (+5,611) . . (For the lowdown on Future Perfect at Sunset see User talk:Dweller#Shenanigans at the reference desk.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 17:49, 14 November 2015 Paulscrawl (talk | contribs) . . (86,079 bytes) (+164) . . (→Dali's Mustache (St. Petersburg): Which artist?: and the name is ... ?) (undo | thank)
Now, look at those numbers. +5,611, -5,611. It sure looks like Elockid reverted the immediately-previous edit by 80.44.165.173. This sort of thing happens all the time. It is your job to make the determination whether Elockid or 80.44.165.173 was the vandal, perhaps by clicking on the diff links. Yes, this is a nuisance and takes a little more time. But if you fail to do so, then vandals such as 80.44.165.173 will trick you into doing their work for them, which is exactly what happened here.
This pattern happens a lot. The vandal picks an old version, edits it, and submits it. The edit therefore looks like (as you were asking me about earlier) a combination of deletions and insertions. Any insertions between the old and the current version get deleted, but any deletions between the old and the current version (such as done by the archiving bot, or by other vandal fighters, etc.) get re-inserted.
It's absolutely fine to do a simple revert of such an edit, as Elockid did, simultaneously restoring the deleted content, re-deleting any improperly-restored content, and deleting the vandal's addition. (And please don't blame Elockid for not supplying the edit comment you wish they had, because vandals have figured that out, too, and will use edit comments like "rvv" when they're committing vandalism, in hopes of tricking gullible editors like you into supporting them.)
You're not helping the project when you unrevert vandal-fighting reversions in cases like these. It probably took me an hour, spread out over several days, to clean up the mess that resulted after the last time you did this (when your unreverted content stuck around long enough to get archived a second time). If you can't be bothered to be a bit more careful when fighting vandals, please leave the work to people who can. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me why the Admin failing to write "Reverting banned editor" was a good decision on his part. As for me, I did look at the changes, and didn't see anything obviously wrong with the content. That, in combination with a deletion with no explanation given, by somebody I never saw before, made it look like that was the vandalism. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has been discussed over and over and over again, on the talk page, that when reverting trolls, it is best to be as low-key as possible. Your unwillingness to look at these situations serves to feed the trolls. Please stop feeding the trolls. Look at the contribs of the two editors and find out what's going on before you draw conclusions or take action. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the "Reverted edits by xxx to last version by yyy" edit summary is the default one provided by Undo or Rollback or one of the other similar streamlined reversion tools. As far as I know, there is no requirement that users tweak the default message (and I believe that's especially true when one is mopping up after vandalism in a hurry). I know that, when I use these tools, I don't always take time to tweak the default message. I know that, when I see these default messages in edit histories, I tend to assume they're vandalism reversion.
It's fine to wish that people routinely did more in terms of edit summaries on reversions, but I think policy and common practice are currently against you. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Detroit sidewalks
Since you answered my sidewalks-in-Detroit question at WP:RDH several weeks ago, I thought you might be amused/saddened/somethingelse by looking at this image, taken in Poletown East when I made another Detroit photo trip a couple of weeks ago. No money for most things, but they've just put in tactile paving on these never-going-to-be-used sidewalks. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that they got a Federal grant to do that. That's good for Detroit in that they aren't diverting other funds needed badly to rebuild Detroit, and presumably employing Detroiters to install them, but of course bad in the big picture, in that the Federal government should spend the taxpayer's money more wisely. Hopefully something will be built there eventually and they will be put to good use. StuRat (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This trolling speaks for itself Stu. See the current discussions at both Talk and ANI
(cur | prev) 14:31, 22 November 2015 Favonian (talk | contribs) m . . (66,882 bytes) (-1,184) . . (Reverted edits by 190.237.42.153 (talk) to last version by Future Perfect at Sunrise) updated since my last visit (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 14:30, 22 November 2015 190.237.42.153 (talk) . . (68,066 bytes) (+1,184) . . (Undid revision 691872456 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk)) updated since my last visit (undo)
(cur | prev) 14:22, 22 November 2015 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) . . (66,882 bytes) (-1,184) . . (rv proxying for block-evading troll) updated since my last visit (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 14:22, 22 November 2015 StuRat (talk | contribs) . . (68,066 bytes) (+142) . . (→Car 'hood' and cold weather.) updated since my last visit (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 14:11, 22 November 2015 StuRat (talk | contribs) . . (67,558 bytes) (+818) . . (Undid revision 691870427 by Medeis (talk) Is there a specific ban on this user somewhere at ANI ? If so, link to that ban.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 14:06, 22 November 2015 Medeis (talk | contribs) . . (66,740 bytes) (-818) . . (Undid revision 691870178 by 178.33.138.104 (talk) see WP:ANI) (undo)
(cur | prev) 09:27, 22 November 2015 Elockid (talk | contribs) m . . (66,740 bytes) (0) . . (Changed protection level of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous: Persistent disruptive editing ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 17:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 09:26, 22 November 2015 Nil Einne (talk | contribs) m . . (66,740 bytes) (-818) . . (Reverted edits by 95.68.148.0 (talk) to last version by Nil Einne) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 09:22, 22 November 2015 Nil Einne (talk | contribs) m . . (66,740 bytes) (-818) . . (Reverted edits by 125.2.114.28 (talk) to last version by Nil Einne) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 09:20, 22 November 2015 Nil Einne (talk | contribs) m . . (66,740 bytes) (-818) . . (Reverted edits by 69.156.106.97 (talk) to last version by Nil Einne) (undo | thank)
Hi, 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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2
You're an island of calm in a sea of storms. Or have you not checked your talk page history in recent weeks? :) Have you thought of having your page semi'd? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need for that. I've just been ignoring it all. StuRat (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat, would you mind archiving your talkpage? You've got >200 threads on this page, spanning almost 10 years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2016
Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conservatory of Lliria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sax. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're requested to comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Future Perfect at Sunrise as a party
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Future Perfect at Sunrise and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, --QEDK (T 📖 C) 09:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration case request motions proposed
There are two motions proposed (here and here) regarding an arbitration case request where you are a named party. For the arbitration committee, Liz Read!Talk! 13:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Case request
A motion has been enacted in lieu of a full case. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand any of their questions. Maybe you mean that that one is even more incomprehensible than most. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can decipher most of them, but not that one. StuRat (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least they are not a troll, just unable to communicate in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing off-topic debate
Keeping murders down to a minimum is good thing, and if severe penalties act as a worthwhile disincentive, well and good. Mind you, the most severe possible penalty is execution, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the death penalty is not a disincentive, which is at least part of the reason why most countries have abandoned it. And if the death penalty is no disincentive, why would any lesser penalty work either (assuming one considers spending 25 years to the rest of your life behind bars to be a lesser penalty than death). But let's leave that argument aside for now.
I believe those studies showed the death penalty was not a disincentive WHEN COMPARED WITH LONG PRISON TERMS. That is, both are about equal disincentives. (Some people prefer death over long prison sentences, some are the reverse.) StuRat (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of what you say does not bear examination. As you always do, Stu, you've confected an argument in order not to have to change your position, or back down, or admit you misspoke.
Having a severe penalty for murder (not to mention other high crimes) does not mean the law assumes all citizens to be potential murderers, and I challenge you to produce any evidence to say that it does.
The law realises that human beings are imperfect and sometimes do things that are unacceptable to society, and when that happens, there has to be a system to deal with it. The crime must precede the response. Which is why if you go to the police and claim your neighbour is planning to murder you, they will demand evidence of actual threat, or actual plans to carry out such a deed, other than "He looked at me in a funny way". In no jurisdiction on Earth can someone be apprehended on the grounds that someone else believes they are intending to break some law, but without anything that would constitute evidence. So, no, the law does not assume everyone to be a potential murderer.
Equally, just because there are penalties for corruption, insider trading and all the rest of it, does not mean that all people engaged in public affairs (including politicians, lawyers, judges, police, financial advisers, accountants, property developers, salespeople and on and on) are assumed to be potentially corrupt or dishonest. It's just that, if they do act in a corrupt or dishonest way, there's a price to be paid. Would you have it any other way? Sure, laws have been toughened and tightened to respond to the changing landscape, where new and creative ways to make a quick and dirty buck or gain/stay in power are always being dreamt up. Laws will surely continue to change. But this is a very far cry from the law assuming all politicians to be dishonest.
If an individual wishes to take the position of distrusting all politicians, that is a matter for them. But that would be a very ill-thought out position to adopt, imo. You don't distrust your personal financial adviser / accountant / lawyer / doctor / dentist / car repairer just because some financial advisers etc have been known to be corrupt or act unprofessionally. Do you? You must lead a pretty sad life if you do. And just because you've managed to find a truly honest financial adviser etc, does not mean that all other people in these categories are dishonest. Or even that the majority are dishonest. Or anything remotely like that.
I know, how about you distrust all human beings because, let's face it, all human beings are fallible and make mistakes and cause harm/pain to others. Best to be protected. Sounds like a plan. Good luck with it. The trick is, how do you manage to trust yourself, the only person on the planet worthy of your trust? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 21:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do distrust all professionals:
1) I wouldn't give a blank check to a financial adviser or accountant. Would you ?
I would never give a blank cheque to anyone, ever. Not because I distrust everyone, but because it's a really, really imprudent thing to do. Pieces of paper can sometimes land in the wrong hands, through no fault of the trusted person you gave it to. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 22:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2) I would get a 2nd opinion for any major procedure recommended by a doctor or dentist. Wouldn't you ?
Not as a general rule, no. In a particular case, I might; but I've never had cause to do so thus far. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 22:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3) I wouldn't pay a garage fully, in advance, and would insist on a written estimate. Would you ?
Who ever pays a garage in advance? Never heard of such a thing. For major work, any garage worth its salt would offer a written estimate without waiting to be asked; but I'd certainly ask if they didn't offer one. But that's not because I distrust them. If that were the case, I wouldn't be using their services to begin with. It's just that I might be able to get a better deal elsewhere, and a written quote could help to sway the deal. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 22:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, there are penalties if they misbehave, from losing their license to operate to fines to prison time, so there is a disincentive for such behavior. If there were no legal checks on them, then I'd need to research each extremely thoroughly to determine which are the honest ones.
That demolishes your own argument. You now acknowledge that NOT ALL professionals are dishonest, contrary to your statement above. But even if you take the position that they're all "would-be dishonest if only there weren't those pesky penalties", at the end of the day it's how they actually operate that matters to you. If they treat you in a honest and legal manner, you'd never know whether it's because (a) they're naturally honest and always act that way, or (b) they'd have rather ripped you off but they considered the risk was too great. Either way, you wouldn't care. Unless you're one of those people who suspect people's motives even when they're behaving completely appropriately. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 22:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone isn't dishonest, everyone is POTENTIALLY dishonest. Specifically, different people evaluate the risk of dishonesty versus reward equation differently. For some, they would cheat even if they had a 99% chance of being punished, while others wouldn't with even a 1% chance. Of course, the actual punishment matters, too. And I don't particularly care if they act honestly out of fear of getting caught if they are dishonest. All I care about is the result. An interesting fact is that many psychopaths don't go around murdering people, just because they are afraid of punishment. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for not arresting people for being potential murderers, of course not, since that's not illegal. There have been some cases where the police assumed somebody could not possibly be a murderer, due to their position in society (such as fellow police officers), only to be proven quite wrong.
I recently had a case of a minor fender-bender, with no visible damage, and the other guy later said he needed $600 in repairs. After I asked to see the estimate from the garage, and he never contacted me again. Would you have just paid up ? StuRat (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. What does this have to do with what we're discussing? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 22:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I trusted everyone, I would have just paid him and not asked for proof. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who ever said we should trust everyone? I never said anything like that.
It's wise to act prudently, and mitigate risks, and not unnecessarily expose oneself to risk, and insure one's property even against unlikely threats. But you're advocating distrusting ALL professionals, specifically ALL politicians. That is a completely different matter. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 23:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any difference. I don't trust random strangers because they are potentially dishonest. Whether you admit it or not, this is why you don't trust them either. StuRat (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant points you made at Entertainment Ref Desk were:
(John M Baker) If you believe that honest politicians don't exist, you ensure that they never will. You have to be willing and able to identify and reward honesty in politics. To refuse to do this is to work actively against honesty in the public sphere. John M Baker (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]
I disagree. If we assume them to be honest, they can get away with dishonesty. If we assume them to be dishonest, and put in enough checks on them to counter this tendency, like Freedom of Information Acts, Abuse of authority laws with severe penalties, and whistleblower laws to protect those who turn them in, etc., then we can hopefully put in enough of a disincentive to dishonesty to get them to behave. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's Utopian about assuming the worst of politicians and taking actions to at least limit the damage they cause ? StuRat (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then you changed tack from "all politicians are dishonest" to "all politicians are potentially dishonest":
You asked "...does this mean that people are generally assumed to be murderers?". My answers is yes, we are all be assumed to be potential murderers, and thus we need to maintain a system where murderers are likely to be severely punished, in order to keep the number of murders down to a minimum. To continue your analogy with politicians, we should similarly maintain a system where corrupt politicians are likely to be severely punished, in order to keep the number of politicians who engage in corruption down to a minimum. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assume all politicians to be dishonest, because they are all potentially dishonest. Maybe "assume" means something different in Oz. Here it doesn't mean that it is the case, just that you prepare as if it were. StuRat (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, it can only be because all humans are potentially dishonest. It's not as if a previously honest person becomes instantly dishonest the moment they get elected to political office. But you talk as if this is a real possibility, from which you must protect yourself. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 05:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all people are potentially dishonest, but certain professions, like used car salesman and politician, select for those who are dishonest. Just like a used car salesman that tells you everything that's wrong with the car and how little he paid for it won't make many sales, a politician who tells everyone he will raise taxes and lower benefits won't get many votes. There are also jobs that select against dishonesty. For example, I just had a waitress bring me a stained plate, and when I asked her for an unstained plate she said "they're all like that" and refused. I've eaten there before, and know they aren't all stained, so she got a minimal tip. StuRat (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're doing what many people do, but about which you ought to know better: using single anecdotes to make a general case. That just does not stack up, and I know you know that. Look, I know it's a common thing to decry politicians, used car salesmen, lawyers etc as being the scum of the earth in the honesty stakes. ("How do you know when a politician's lying? When his lips are moving - that sort of thing.) But you talk as if this general perception is valid material to justify a belief and attitude that each and every individual politician is a lying corrupt scumbag. I know you know that is far from the truth. So, you're committing two errors: (1) using specific cases to prove a generality; and (2) using a (perception of a) generality to prove specific cases. You simply cannot do either of those things, as long as you wish to be considered a person of a reasonable cast of mind and mature intellectual demeanour. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 20:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't seem to understand what I was saying, let me try again: NOT ALL POLITICIANS ARE DISHONEST, BUT MANY ARE, AND MORE WILL BE, IF THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, SO WE SHOULD TAKE PRECAUTIONS TO DETERMINE WHICH ONES ARE, AND PUNISH THOSE ENOUGH TO ACT AS A DISINCENTIVE TO OTHERS. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you loud and clear. But I naturally object to the "but we should assume they are" bit and all that follows.
I can see I've got you angry now, so I'd better quit while I'm ahead. :) Let us agree to disagree. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 20:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still thinking "assume" means something different in Oz. Let me give an example to explain it. Police officers are trained to assume that everyone has a gun and wants to shoot them. This does NOT mean that they should shoot everyone to protect themselves. This means they should watch the hands of each person and try to identify what they are holding and where it is aimed (if it could be a gun), and react accordingly. StuRat (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I know exactly what "assume" means. It means you act as if something were true for the purposes of a particular context, knowing that it is not, or not necessarily, true otherwise. But you never give any context. Just being a politician is enough. If a person's role in society at a given moment is politician, you advocate they not be trusted, not necessarily because we know him/her to be dishonest, but because it's not safe to trust them. But the moment they leave politics and take on some other profession, they're suddenly trustworthy again? Is that it? Or, if you're saying that NOBODY should be trusted if we have insufficient knowledge of them, then just say that. Don't make it about a particular group of people (the group, ironically, chosen by the voting populace to represent them. What does that say about the voting public? They don't trust themselves?). -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 20:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I said that long ago: " I don't trust random strangers because they are potentially dishonest." However, trusting politicians is more dangerous, both because that is one of the professions which selects for dishonesty, and because the consequences of dishonest politicians are far worse. The Flint Water Crisis is one example near me, where dishonest politicians claimed the water was safe to drink, even though they knew it was not, and poisoned many, and killed maybe ten, due to Legionnaires' disease. StuRat (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "professions which selects for dishonesty". Can you explain? With a source if possible. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 23:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained, and gave examples (used car salesman and waitress). And no, I'm not going to scour the web to find refs for an off-topic discussion on my talk page. Go find your own. StuRat (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't even understand the English of "selects for <something>". Is it a recognised expression? I see you've used both "select for" and "select against" above. I've searched wiktionary and Google for an explanation of the idiom (if that's what it is), without any luck. I can understand a person selecting politics as a career, but not "politics selecting for dishonesty". -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 07:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The profession of politician "selects for" dishonesty, in that those who are dishonest are more likely to be successful, and thus also more likely to choose that profession. And if an honest politician does manage to get in, they will likely be voted out of office when they tell the voters some truth that the voters don't want to hear. For example, in the US, if a politician were to say "The US is in decline relative to China, which will soon be the most powerful nation on Earth, politically, militarily, and economically, as a result of our decision to open up free trade with them, and there's no way to undo it now, so we just need to accept it", they would be voted out.
Here's a use of "selects against": [43], in this case meaning that certain antibiotic combinations will actually reduce the proportion of antibiotic resistant microbes. (A single antibiotic, of course, "selects for" resistance to that antibiotic, by killing any microbes which aren't resistant to it.) StuRat (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I've sought more clarification on the expression and its origins on the Language Ref Desk.
Now that I know what you're talking about, can you give me a source for "those who are dishonest are more likely to be successful, and thus also more likely to choose that profession" (politician)? Or is that simply an opinion you hold? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 22:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's not going to be a study of the relative honesty of politicians, as it would require their honest participation. StuRat (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then how would anyone ever know that your premise is correct? It all comes down to personal perception and personal opinion, doesn't it. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 09:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I take it that silence denotes agreement? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 06:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No you may not. Politicians get elected by telling people what they want to hear. Thus it is in their self-interest to lie. If you think people don't act in their own self-interest, then the entire basis for capitalism is wrong. StuRat (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Self-interest is fine, nay, mandatory, as long as it doesn't override the interests of others for which the self is to some degree responsible or with whom the self is associated. The whole basis of win-win depends on the self winning as well as others winning. Any of the other 3 combinations (win-lose, lose-win, lose-lose) turns out to be equivalent to lose-lose. "Politicians get elected by telling people what they want to hear" - sure they do. But does that automatically mean that whatever they say, they will turn around and do something different, or nothing at all? No, it doesn't. Broken promises get all the bad press, but there are plenty of examples of fulfilled promises. So, decent politicians get elected by telling people what they want to hear, and then work hard to give them what they promised. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 20:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People always want lower taxes and more benefits, so to get elected they must promise that, which is clearly impossible. And why does a win-lose situation always turn into lose-lose ? A sports event comes to mind as a case where one side often wins and the other loses. How did both lose ? StuRat (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat simplistic. Do you really believe that all politicians always promise lower taxes? There has never been a recorded exception? What about such a promise being out of synch with their party's official policy? And if it's so obviously impossible to achieve, what idiots would promise it regardless? And what idiot voters would believe them if they did? You can see through such impossible promises, so why can't the general mass of voters? And has there never been a case of a politician promising lower taxes, and actually delivering? There must have been, because taxes are actually lowered from time to time. No, it seems you're just trotting out vague cliches like "All politicians are liars", and treating them as incontrovertibly proven facts. And when I ask you to produce some proof, you just give me more of the same.
Trump is promising all sorts of things he can't possible deliver, like getting Mexico to pay for a wall with the US, and he seems to gain more supporters with each whopper he tells. And I never said all politicians were dishonest, you keep making that part up. I've explained that several times now, yet you refuse to learn. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my bad. Your thesis is that all politicians are potentially dishonest, but we must treat all of them as if they were all actually dishonest. Which is indistinguishable, in effect, from saying they are all actually dishonest. I think we've been on this merry-go-round before. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 20:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't treat them the same as if they were corrupt, which would mean you would throw them in jail. I gave the example of the police who assume every suspect has a gun and wants to kill police, but this does not mean they shoot all suspects. StuRat (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Win-win obviously doesn't apply to competitive sports and games, where by definition the only way to win is by making the other side lose. I'm talking about general human interactions. I think you know that. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 05:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sports are human interactions. But if you want a non-sports example, say two people are up for the promotion to supervisor. One wins it and the other loses out. How did the person who won really lose ? StuRat (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's still a competitive context, where, by definition, there can be only one winner. A better example would be this very discussion. If both you and I treated it as a competitive contest and went all out to disprove the other's position, the one who ultimately felt forced to capitulate may feel vanquished and the other victorious. That's not an ideal outcome. If we were friends before we started, that friendship should be unaffected at the end, no matter what the outcome. That's why it's best to put points forward in good faith, and seriously consider what the other has to say, without rejecting their responses out of hand, or without contriving counter-examples designed to fit one's own case. Ultimately the discussion will come to its natural conclusion (as long as we don't allow it to just peter out through loss of interest/energy, or come to a stalemate). Both will have learnt something, and both will go away with a more nuanced understanding, even of their own position, certainly of the other's. There will be no "I told you so", or "I was right and you were wrong". Neither will feel they have "lost", because it should never have been about that in the first place. In that sense, both will "win". The way to proceed with such things is to want yourself to win while also wanting the other to win - and acting accordingly. The usual way we do things in the West is to want oneself to win while wanting the other to lose. Where has that got us as a culture? If you end up feeling that you have won at the other's expense, then some damage has been done to the relationship, and before long you'll realise that you have lost too. That's why win-lose, lose-win and lose-lose are all equivalent: lose-lose. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 20:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you can have a win-lose in any competitive situation, apparently, which to me is the only time the terms win and lose apply in the first place. StuRat (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's far from true. You need to get out of the competitive mindset. I acknowledge that may be anathema to the way you were brought up. There's a vast literature about the application of win-win in general human personal interactions where there isn't, or shouldn't be, a competitive aspect. In any commercial negotiation, if both parties don't come away feeling they have both won, then the negotiation has failed, regardless of immediate appearances. Here are just two of the multitude of hits: [44], [45]. Stephen Covey gets most of the credit for the philosophy these days, but it long, long predated him. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 22:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, I don't give random strangers money on whatever pretext they may offer, or ask them to mind my granddaughter while I run an errand, or whatever. It's not because I actively distrust them, it's that I know nothing about them, and certainly not enough to know with reasonable certainty my money or grandchild is safe with them. If you can't see the difference between that very responsible and prudent position, and "all politicians are (potentially) dishonest", I cannot help you. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 00:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 2 possibilities with random strangers, you either trust them or you don't. If you did, then you would indeed give them money and ask them to watch your granddaughter. StuRat (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your question on the mathematics antics reference page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crlinformative (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I added another way to understand the problem on the mathematics reference page. I am still no understanding which part of the previous statements you are both not understanding. If you could point out which sentence or which measurement you don't understand I would be happy to clarify that statement. @ StuRat (Crlinformative (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
The problem is you start somewhere in the middle of the question, assuming we already know things we don't. That was the Math Ref Desk, so you shouldn't assume biological knowledge there, only math knowledge. You should have started with something like this:
How many spherical items can be packed into a container ?
1) The items have a radius of R.
2) The container has a shape of A, and dimensions of B×C×D.
Note that I've stripped off all the biology that really isn't relevant to the problem. You also use rather nonstandard units, like 60/1000 of a mm. If you could put that in decimal form it would be more convenient. At first look I thought you meant 60 out of 1000 trials or something like that. StuRat (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The biology is reference to the problem, math is often in word problems. It takes a lot of effort to post to Wikipedia with this touch pad. Also, most people don't know what a μm is , but it is 1/1,1000 of a meter. Use a sphere for the first question with a diameter of 5cm. Generally on tests you are instructed to skip the questions you don't know and go to the next, there are many math questions contained in those paragraphs. Like I said, math often comes in the form of worded problems, there was a lot of reference information their which relates to the real world application for this math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crlinformative (talk • contribs) 06:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and those tests are to test people's ability to decipher a question from all that text, but we are not here to be tested, so just give us the problem in as straightforward a way as you can manage, please. JBL mentioned that you seemed to be writing in a stream of consciousness (narrative mode) manner, meaning you just write things down as you think of them, not attempting to organize your thoughts in any way. I agree. Also, your title doesn't name the problem (something like "Spherical packing problem" would make sense), and you spelled dilemma wrong. And you still haven't shown us your complete math. StuRat (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to do the math? The cell count is 500,000 and the diameter of those each cell is 20μm. How large would the required container be and how many of these cells would fit into a sphere with a diameter of 5cm. There are multiple avenues for reaching this data and one method gave a vastly different answer, while all volume related methods lend that such a capacity of cells is an mathematical impossibility. (Crlinformative (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
No, it's your responsibility to do the math, then we review it and point out any mistakes. This is to prevent people from having us do their homework for them. StuRat (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm attempting to get a second look at this information I order to rebuke the referenced information on a cell count reported everywhere the ovaries or oocytes are mentioned on Wikipedia. But here is the math I had and saved before a doctor deleted it from the talk page in defense of the references I suppose.
The volume using the above referenced cell measurement is ≈4.19mm. I will show the work with the math symbols: 4/3π(10μm)3≈ 4,188.79μm3 ; 4,188.79μm3 ÷ 1,000 = 4.18879mm3 ; 4.18879mm3∗ 500,000 = 2,094,395mm3 ; 2,094,395mm3 ÷ π ≈ 666,666.63407mm3 ; 666,666.63407mm3÷ 4/3 ≈ 499,999.97555mm3 ; 3√499,999.97555mm3 ≈ 79.37mm ; 79.37mm ÷10 = 7.937cm in radius.
The adult human ovary is reported to be 4cm x 3cm x 2cm so how can this volume fit inside of it? (The radius found is for a sphere which contains the volume of 500,000 cells, being a lesser measurement than actual reality as you loose the negative spaces you would incur by the stacking of spheres). (Crlinformative (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
(talk page stalker)Crlinformative, there's an error in your math when converting volume units. If 1000um = 1mm, then (1000um)^3 = (1000x1000x1000)um3 = 1 000 000 000um3 = 1mm3. So where you're dividing by 1000 to convert from um3 to mm3 you should be dividing by 1000000000. I think the numbers work out then. Good luck. 99.236.126.232 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please try it again and list your math and I will take another look at it. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just try to use distraction methodology; the doctor did the same when arguing. 5um x3um x 87um = 1,305um3. In conversions in the lab when you multiply unit symbols the symbols themselves multiply and to convert from one symbol to another you go by the number of mL in L, ect. So my question is why do you cube the conversion rate? Is it that you are converting each part of the volume gaining measurement? This is where I found the mathematical query, the difference in volume when using a cuboidal method and spherical method. That's what I was calling the mathematical dilemma. I will use the cell count of 1,000,000 for comparison to what IP address 99.236.126.232 wrote and not convert to avoid that potential error, this will enlighten the difference between cuboidal and spherical volume:
So why is the cuboidal measurement of the volume of this diameter/radius so much larger than the spherical volume containment of the same volumes? The doctor's claim is that 20μm x 100 is 2,000μm and 100x100x100 is 1,000,000 giving a 2mm space of containment. On that note, however, would not it be 8mm3? I know, that's 4 questions,and a fifth to check the mathematics, but those are my queries. The doctors deleted all our conversations in other locations, it seems he is the moderator of all those talk pages. (Crlinformative (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
It might help to look at a simpler conversion. Let's figure out how many cubic millimeters fit in a cubic centimeter. A 2D diagram may help:
m m m m m m m m m mm m m m m m m m m mm m m m m m m m m mm m m m m m m m m mm m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m mm m m m m m m m m mm m m m m m m m m mm m m m m m m m m m
Here we have 10 millimeters, each represented by an m, in each direction. If you count them, you will see there are 10×10 = 100, that's 1cm2=100mm2. If we add third dimension, we get 10×10×10 = 1000, so 1cm3=1000 mm3. Does that help ? StuRat (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to understand the difference between spherical calculation and cuboidal in reference to "mathematical dilemma". I apologize I accidentally erased the math when trying to copy it and the. Didn't have it saved when I reposted what I had deleted. I will make the correction above. Also, if the container is 2mm x 2mm x 2mm would not that be 8mm3 instead of 2mm3?
Yes, and that should be written as (2mm)3 = 8mm3. Unfortunately, many forget the parens, causing no end of confusion. StuRat (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this all helps. I will have to try other methods them to do rove that humans are born with 1,000,000 primordial follicles, or that an embryo contains 4 to 7,000,000 of them. The only reference they have is books reporting it with no actual data to support the claims, that I have found. Thank you for your time. (Crlinformative (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Reference desk
Hi Stu. I see here [46] yet again you were the first to respond, and included no references. I can't speak for the others, but one reason I give you a hard time for no refs is that so often you post your unrefereced responses within minutes, before anyone else even has a chance to type up a better, referenced reply. I can't make you find and post refs. I can't make you stop posting unreferenced material. But I suggest that you'd get me (and maybe Jayron and others) off your back if you at least refrain from posting unreferenced replies until a few other people have had the chance to post their referenced replies. Just something to consider. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no claim there that you couldn't find a reference for, if you wish. (Lions are social animals, tigers are not, social animals require a higher level of social intelligence.) And I don't see your point about not wanting me to respond quickly. You can add all the referenced answers you want, before or after I give mine. It's not a race. StuRat (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no claim there that you couldn't find a reference for, if you wish. - that misses the point exquisitely, Stu. Users come to the Reference Desk, wanting - you guessed it - references. At least, that is the assumption we work under. They don't want the opinion of some anonymous jerk on the internet. If you believe a claim can be referenced, it's surely up to you to provide such a reference, not to leave it up to others. That's the lazy person's way, and it creates more trouble than it's worth. It's not that the claims you make are incorrect - not necessarily, anyway. It's that claims by themselves, with no supporting references, are worthless in the context of a Reference Desk. There's a reason it's not called the Opinions Desk, or the Easily-Checked Claims Desk. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 00:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've had this conversation already way too many times, and already stated that I have no intention of providing references for things which need no reference. If somebody genuinely doubts something I said, or if they want to see the source for some other reason, then I will be glad to help (as I just did at that very Q when somebody wanted a source on my unusual claim that tigers avoid white cloth, even going so far as to die as a result). I'm sure you don't provide refs for absolutely everything you say, either. But then there are people like Jayron who seem to ask for refs for the most obvious things imaginable, just as a sadistic way to make me waste my time. And let's not start a debate here, either, I've told you my position, there's no point in discussing it indefinitely, so just let it go. StuRat (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine. It's not a race, but replies higher up are read first, and get more attention. And often you say some total wrong bullshit that I then have to spend time correcting. Whatever, you gotta do you, even if that means shooting of your mouth and drawing criticism from many different users at many different times. Just consider that the common and repeated comments you get indicate that you are functioning outside of our community norms. Even you admit it's happened "too many times". It's not just me. It's not just Jayron. It's not just Jack. It's very many of us, that have told you, in sometimes polite ways and sometimes snidely, that you do not provide the right amount of references. Nobody is saying you have to reference 100% of everything. Nobody is saying that they themselves have never ever posted something without reference. And yet still, you get these frequent complaints, while most of us don't. The common denominator here is you. So you can spin it any way you like, and you can do whatever you like. But if you continue to act outside our norms for acceptable behavior, then you have to accept that some people will criticize you for it, more or less often, more or less politely. After so many polite suggestions of mine go unheeded, please forgive me if I may seem a bit snide or impolite on this matter in the future. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When Jack said "If you believe a claim can be referenced, it's surely up to you to provide such a reference, not to leave it up to others", it sure sounds like he expects 100% of claims to be referenced. And I am far from the only victim of incivility at the Ref Desk. Bugs, for example, is always insulting anon IP users. Others insult anyone who didn't find their answer in a Google search, doesn't write English properly, etc. The constant reminders to keep incivility off the Ref Desk seem to have gone unheeded. And now Jayron has resorted to outright lies. I seem to be his favorite scapegoat at the moment, but he has been incivil to many others in the past. StuRat (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't meaning that. Of course there are times when a statement can be made and no reference is required. We can all be reasonable about this. But you often go into a quite detailed answer in point form, giving various reasons why you believe so-and-so is the case. Typically, these posts of yours will contain not even a link to a WP article, let alone any external cite. I know you'll now track down a counterexample, but I'm talking typically, generally, usually. A consistent pattern. A StuRat trademark. If I see a new post that's a longish list of dot points with very few or no links, I know it's from you before I've even seen the signature. I know it's an exposition of your opinions. Unless it's a subject I'm interested in at that time, I tend to skip over your posts unread. It mightn't bother you that not everybody reads all your posts, but that's not the issue. (Similarly, when I see a huge block of text with no paragraphs, I know it's from User:Nil Einne. Because it's unreadable, I skip right over it, and he's wasted his time, at least as far as I'm concerned. I've told him more than once that he's the king of TL:DR, but that doesn't seem to cut much ice. But at least he does provide some refs in amongst the unreadable verbiage, so we can't fault him on that score.)
You recently asked for some references to support someone else's claim, and you were given half a dozen in no time flat (Humanities: Hillary Clinton and Benghazi). But when we ask you to provide references for your claims, we're told: There's no claim there that you couldn't find a reference for, if you wish. If you wish!! Do you see the mismatch here, Stu? It's always someone else doing the work of tracking down references, while you're content to just make claims, opinions and assertions. You refuse to back up your own claims, but imperiously ask others to back up theirs. You've accused me of being unfair to you in the past. Well, first remove the log in your own eye, mate. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 23:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is I don't ask people to provide refs just to be annoying, but only when I genuinely want to see the refs myself or question whether a claim is true. When people ask for refs for that reason, I am happy to comply, as I already told you (and provided an example) in my previous response. When they are trying to intentionally waste my time, I don't take the bait.
Now you've fallen into your old pattern of repeating the same argument I've already replied to, indefinitely (like how you keep bringing up your grudge about apostrophes). Just learn to let things go. StuRat (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I only raised that apostrophe thing because you told another user how they "should" spell something, while our efforts to tell you how you "should" spell its go unheeded. Again, it's a case of "do as I say, not as I do". I just wanted to highlight the hypocrisy that often seems to be your stock in trade. I don't like using words like that, particularly with people I have regular and usually positive dealings with, but your actions have a way of attracting such criticism. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 01:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you are great at largely remaining civil, and for that reason I do cut you a little slack. But not a free pass. Check out my talk page archive for some rather nice things I said about you even when you were spouting bs at the time. And you know what? I have repeatedly criticized Bugs for being uncivil, and not just to IPs! I've also told TRM to not be so bitter and mean at the talk page. I've also told Nimur to be less gruff and offputting at times. So there's no way in hell I'm singling you out, and I am being civil, too. On the other end, I've been criticized too. I think twice in my tenure here. Once was early on, when I mentioned a folk remedy and someone removed it as medical advice. The other was when a user told me I was getting to heated/involved in a thread, and maybe I should step away from WP for a few days. Both suggestions were annoying in the moment, but actually good ideas in the long run. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
edit
I edited some text of yours that used to be on the talk page; hope you don't mind. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that fits the new location better. StuRat (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
Thanks ! For anything in particular ? StuRat (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For being the smartest guy in WP. For always helping out me and others. For being a convict (not providing references to your statements cause you are just too smart). And so on... -- Apostle (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 May 24#Price of a bottle of Coca-Cola in ~1916
I remembered that you mentioned about 2 L (70 imp fl oz; 68 US fl oz) of pop costing $1.10 and today I just came across this. Here a 355 ml (12.5 imp fl oz; 12.0 US fl oz) costs about $2.50 and over $3 if you buy it at the convenience store. A 591 ml (20.8 imp fl oz; 20.0 US fl oz) bottle costs over $6. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are plenty of stores willing to charge far more. My price is what you find on a 2 litre bottle sold at a normal (not a luxury store like Whole Foods) grocery store, on sale (which is pretty much every other week). StuRat (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Narner
Hi Stu, why did you delete my answer on the language ref desk? Rojomoke (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry. I didn't mean to do that, I was just trying to add to my answer. I got an edit conflict, and tried to resolve it, but I guess I messed up. StuRat (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stu, this is entirely unacceptable. I won't repeat what others have been saying repeatedly over the years, but I think the time has come to make this official. I'm sure you'll get a fair hearing. Tevildo (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That user monkey-man-something was likely telegraphing that he's the same guy who asked "Black People like monkeys!?!?" a day or two prior. The reason he would have created a user ID was so he could spell out "Jews" instead of having to invent a phonetic equivalent. As you may have seen, that monkey is easy to smoke out. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AN
There's a discussion at WP:AN you may be interested in. --Jayron32 14:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which discussion is that ? StuRat (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom. --Jayron32 14:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your input is requested there, StuRat. Tiderolls 14:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gb / GB / GiB
Stu, when you warned Iapetus about using Gb: "you should use "GB" for gigabytes, as "Gb" is sometimes used for gigabits" perhaps you ought to have also mentioned that memory is measured in GiB, not GB. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really seen that used much, have you ? StuRat (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every day. Most open source (read GNU/Linux + derivatives) use it consistently. The only time the non-standard Giga = 2^30 is used is in legacy applications where it is retained for compatibility. The standard system utilites changed from using blocks to KiB, MiB and GiB a decade or more ago. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get about 20x as many Ghits for MB as MiB. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Areal
Thanks for posting this question. I had the same thought when I started reading it in the notices that I was getting on my phone a few months back. It was new to me then. †Dismas†|(talk) 16:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. StuRat (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref Desk behavior
Look, I can try to be more professional when I ask for citations, but this is getting a bit ridiculous. It's not just me, it's not me, it's not just Tevildo, it's not just SpinningSpark, it's not just Jayron. When literally dozens of people tell you that you need to provide references, consider that it might be that they are right, and not that we are just all out to get you. I apologize for my sarcastic comment about wikipedia the other day. I also removed it. I will not apologize for calling out your offensive joke. That shit is offensive, and again, it's not just me who thinks so. I got thanked three times over that thread, and also supporting comments from two other users in thread. Now, maybe we are all overly sensitive, but that doesn't change the fact that this is not a joke desk. I tolerate your jokes when they are merely lame, I will not tolerate them when they are offensive to me and many users in our community. Note that I didn't simply delete the joke, as I'd have every right to. Nor did I box up the joke, which I'd have every right too. I merely wanted everyone to voice my opinion on your joke. If you are allowed to make offensive jokes, then I'm allowed to call them offensive. It's pretty simple, isn't it?
I'm happy to let this drop here. But if you persist in fighting for your right to make offensive jokes without anyone telling you they are offensive, this will turn into a huge shitshow on the talk page, and you're going to come out looking like a classless cad. I don't think you're a bad guy, and I don't think you're homophobic. But your comment certainly looks that way, akin to santorum equating gay marriage to zoophilia. So honestly and truly, I suggest there's better hills to die on. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
October 2016
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. 147.126.10.21 (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Query re belief persistence
Nobody else said anything about your argument at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Belief_perseverance being wrong so I finally did. I'm interested - do you actually feel that you were right in saying that part 1 was all that was wrong? Perhaps other people think the same as you. Dmcq (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the original premise is correct, then the rest follows logically. The problem is with the unconditional acceptance of the original premise. This is rather similar to the classic Q: "A fair coin with a 50% independent chance of landing heads or tails each time is flipped 1000 times, and every time it lands heads up. What is the probability of that ?". The probability, if one accepts the premise, is 1/21000. But, as a practical matter, this means it will never happen, so our original premise must be incorrect. But if you do accept the original premise, unconditionally, then you must accept the results. StuRat (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I saw was with part 3 where if somebody else says the coin was actually fair then coming to the conclusion they must be biased seemed okay - but then coming to the conclusion it must be even less likely to be fair than one originally thought is I bbelieve a real bad step without further information. I think it is quite interesting that you think that part 3 follows okay. Dmcq (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's modify the scenario a bit. The person who told you it is a fair coin is somebody you absolutely trust, and the person who told you they flipped it 1000 times in a row and it always came up heads is somebody you don't know. In that case, wouldn't you assume the 2nd person is the liar, and not only about this, but potentially about everything else ? StuRat (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would think there was a high probability of the person who told me they flipped the coin 1000 times and it came up heads every time being a liar. However it would not make me trust my friend more and in fact I would consider there to be a possibility of them being wrong even though I would normally absolutely trust them. Dmcq (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, StuRat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
See here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with much they said, except that at one point the balding man said that saturated fats were the problem, then they seemed to be saying we should avoid all fats, later. That's "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Unsaturated, plant-based fats are absolutely essential to a healthy diet. Also, two issues they didn't address have to do with carb overload. That is, even if your body is working normally and the blood sugar is getting into the cells, you can still have a problem if sugar is going into the blood stream faster than it is going out. The reasons the glucose goes up so fast now are high refined carb meals (like white flour/white rice and lots of sugar) with little fiber to slow the digestion process. They looked at the Asian diet, high in rice, but it also has lots of veggies for fiber, and healthy vegetable oils. It's when you remove the veggies and just have the white flour and sugar, as in a cake, that the problem occurs. As far as beef being unhealthy, I agree, because of the saturated fats. Eat fish and eggs for your protein instead.
Also, there may be a more general problem with grains in that they cause inflammation. This is a natural defense mechanisms on the inside of the grains, as they, unlike berries, aren't meant to be digested (berries are meant to be digested, all except the seeds, to propagate the species). The hard husk is another such defense. We only recently (in evolutionary terms), learned how to grind off the hard shell to eat the insides, so haven't yet adapted to the chemical defenses inside. StuRat (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting someone else's comments?
Can you explain what was wrong with my answer here that caused you to delete it? If it was a mistake, could you correct it then? --Jayron32 19:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was a Wikipedia bug. I've seen this occasionally with edit conflicts. I re-added your comment. StuRat (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No troubles. It happens from time to time. Thanks for fixing it. --Jayron32 19:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mushrooms
If you want to pursue this kind of thing then take it to ANI. I'm sick of the Ref Desk being such a safe harbour for users who aren't improving the project, in fact actively doing the opposite. See you there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Doesn't improve the project" is not a reason for deletion. Note that Jayron, an Admin, thought it was fine and posted a response. I've had endless arguments with him, but on this we agree. StuRat (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to promote posts that provide a how-to guide on how to take drugs which can make people very sick, then that's your call. I don't believe it belongs in the project. Please feel free to take this matter to ANI where I will make sure this kind of garbage which the Ref Desks currently actively enable is discussed in a much wider forum; perhaps we can finally get rid of the Ref Desks altogether if this is the kind of nonsense that's being peddled there. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Misc ref desk
That one IP is spouting the extreme-right line of "thought" on these subjects, basically trying to foment arguments. It's probably time to semi this page, except WP:RFPP seems not to have a place for it now. He also accuses me of 3RR violation, when he's also guilty of it, just under more than one IP. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just ignore it please. StuRat (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that in the future you restrain yourself from posts like this one? You have given a uselessly vague pointer to a person who already provided in their post a much more precise one, and your other thoughts are miles from anything that could reasonably be called "a bidding strategy."
Thanks, JBL (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The whole point of the Q is to determine the number of bidders, and I gave a strategy to do so. StuRat (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong on both counts, and obviously so. "You should be able to estimate ..." isn't a strategy; it's not even an idea. Please, do not answer questions if you have nothing useful to say. --JBL (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the insults and let's have an actual conversation about the answer. If there are 5 bids on the first item up for auction, or 5000, you really don't see that difference as an indication of how many total bids there will be on all the auctions ? StuRat (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are criticisms, not insults. Indeed, it is true that 5000 > 5, but this trivial observation does not constitute a strategy for anything. --JBL (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've since added more. It now lists a precise way to estimate the payout. BTW, the way to state your case without being insulting is: "I believe the OP was looking for a specific bidding strategy, and your reply appears to lack such info". Avoid words like "useless". StuRat (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your advice now amounts to a strategy, with no evidence to suggest that it is a good one. And a link to the article game theory for a person asking for a strategy for a particular style of auction is indeed completely useless, regardless of whether it is polite to say so. --JBL (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. The problem is that if he waits to see how many people bid on the early auctions, rather than bidding, to gauge what the overall response will be, others may do the same, making these observations less useful than they otherwise would be. This is an aspect of game theory, having to consider what others are thinking about what others are thinking, etc. And disagreeing with someone is never cause to be impolite. That's the Donald Trump strategy, not how civilized people behave. One way to determine if you are being needlessly rude is to think about if you would say something like that to someone in person. If not, then it's not appropriate online, either. Meanwhile, I've seen no contribution from you, making your criticism of my proposed strategy even more puzzling. StuRat (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By precisely the same reasoning, it would have been very helpful to include a link to the article mathematics because mathematical reasoning will be involved in giving a good answer to the question. Frankly, you should be embarrassed to make this argument. I have not made a contribution on the thread because, unlike you, I have the sense not to make comments on the reference desk if I do not have anything useful to say. (Note that specialized knowledge is not required to tell that your initial post has no value whatsoever.) --JBL (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it did have value. It contained a portion of a strategy, which could then be expanded by others (as it was, it was expanded by me), to provide a complete strategy. Each answer does not need to be comprehensive. Giving part of the solution is better than offering nothing whatsoever, as you have done. And I see you continue to be rude. What would it harm, if you behaved politely here ? And what does it help, to continue to act rudely ? StuRat (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your initial post has three sentences. The first one is meaningless hand-waving; it has no content at all, and is certainly not a strategy or part of a strategy. The second sentence is a useless pointer. And the third sentence is irrelevant rambling. It is literally true that it was not better than nothing: anyone who read your first post wasted 5 seconds of their life and learned nothing. (Your follow-up on its own is still a bad answer but at least could conceivably be related to a good answer, namely, a strategy together with a theorem demonstrating (or at least a heuristic suggesting) that the strategy has positive expected value.) --JBL (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence: "You should be able to estimate the number of total bidders there will be by the number who bid on earlier auctions." This is literally taking a sample and using it to predict the nature of the population, similar to using exit polls to predict the election results. This is a well-established statistical method.
2nd and 3rd sentences: "However, we get into game theory here, in that others may also take a wait-and-see approach to gauge the amount of bidders, too. So, it could end up like an Ebay auction, where it's pointless to bid until the last few seconds, as doing so gives away too much info." This is pointing out a limitation of the sample method here, if others also avoid early bids until they can take their own samples. My second post then gave a method for dealing with this limitation, by assuming that the ratio of early bidders to total bidders will remain the same from year to year. Together they are a complete method for predicting the total number of bidders, and hence payout, using established mathematical and statistical methods. Your complaints are totally baseless. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have not responded to my statement that a reply need not be a complete solution, as even a step in the right direction is helpful. You also have not said you will attempt to be move civil in your responses. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "You should be able to estimate ..." has no content whatsoever. Maybe you intended to say something else that does have content, but if so, you failed. The other sentences also have no conceivable value in answering the question asked. The whole post is completely worthless and should never have been made. In the future, please do not make posts on the math reference desk unless they have some useful content. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You statements are patently false, as I've proven. If you are unwilling to engage in a civil discussion, stay off my talk page. Calling me an ass in NOT civil discussion: [47]. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man
An endless stream of vitriol emanates from TRM towards a good portion of the editors and Admins he interacts with, often with no apparent cause other than TRM disagreeing with them on some matter. We don't need people here who behave like that. He was apparently forced to resign as Admin for such behavior, and now he got a 1 month block, but he refuses to change. My advice to everyone is to refuse to engage with him. He seems to feed off the trouble he can cause, and denying him this pleasure may get him to leave. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userpage template rename
User:StuRat has {{RefDesk}}, a template that is not related to, but whose name is confusingly simiar to, {{Refdesk}}. The one you have is now a redirect to {{RefDesk help icon}} to avoid that confusion. Could you update your userpage so that we can scrap that old redirect altogether? Thanks, DMacks (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. StuRat (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Upper and Lower Egypt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hapi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Book learning listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Book learning. Since you had some involvement with the Book learning redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trout
You've successfully defended your right to make wild speculations on the ref desk over the years and I'm resigned to it. However, wildly speculating about eye safety [48] earns you a trout.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) You can't put the trout in the title, it messes up the heading. I fixed it.
2) I assume that you, along with many others, misread the Q as "What eye protection do I need to protect me from a high-powered cutting laser directed at my eye". This is not the Q. It's about whether ANY protection at all is needed against the REFLECTED light from a low-powered SIGHTING laser. So, the level of protection needed, if any, is quite minimal. StuRat (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are headed over the line of "no medical advice". Stop now so you don't get blocked. DMacks (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has absolutely nothing to do with medical advice. You don't ask doctors which safety goggles to use. StuRat (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed it is not medical advice. Also, although following the advice could get someone into trouble for violating OSHA regulations, it's not legal advice either. Is there actually a guideline that covers such cases?, or is advice (as an extreme example) to go out and point a loaded gun at someone allowable by RefDesk guidelines?--Wikimedes (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You still seem to be missing that we are talking about the reflection from a low-powered sighting laser, not a direct hit from a high-powered laser. Using your gun analogy, that would be like giving advice that somebody point a loaded paint gun at somebody else. StuRat (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had just come to remove the extreme example; I figured it would 1) only inflame things further, and 2) derail the question with protestations that it is in fact a much more extreme example. Since the latter has already occurred I'll strike it rather than remove it. I understand that this is about reflection from a low-powered sighting laser.
The question remains: Is there a RefDesk guideline that addresses giving advice that is potentially medically and legally harmful, but is neither medical nor legal advice. (The question about whether there is such a guideline is actually directed at User:DMacks, though of course anyone is welcome to respond.)--Wikimedes (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a slippery slope. For example, offering the standard advice to "drink lots of water" could get a link to water toxicity and somebody arguing that this is dangerous medical advice and the user who said it should be blocked. We all need to just learn to tolerate statements we disagree with, rather than trying to block the editor. If you disagree, just state why, give any sources to support your position, and leave it at that. No need for any threats. StuRat (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Advice about what "is safe", without cite, is a problem. You know many other editors think almost everything you do is a problem, and I'm not going in that direction, merely that one particular type of answer is a more of a problem than just their concerns about "uncited and often wrong". You're welcome to ignore this concern, as you seem to do in general, but the wider admin group might not be so forgiving. DMacks (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this thread had anything to do with it, but thank you for your efforts here [49] [50].--Wikimedes (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd forgotten all about this thread. I do take eye safety (and all safety) seriously, as I did at this Q. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
sperm
We don't give financial advice, which includes starting a business. You seem to think that my having enforced this rule invalidates it, but any editor can enforce WP:DISCLAIMER. See also {{WP:3RR]] since that's where this goes next. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) This Q is on how much sperm a man produces, and no business advice was requested.
2) You are to list the reason for any closure directly in the title bar of the hat.
3) You are to sign the closure in the same place. StuRat (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat, if you do not revert yourself, I'm going to block you for 3RR and edit warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will revert it, but note it is being discussed on the Ref Desk Talk page, as this was an inappropriate block hat. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean inappropriate hat, right? There hasn't been a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hat. StuRat (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good call to self-revert, considering that you were on your fifth, by my count. Best to keep track so you don’t accidentally violate 3RR. By the way, you may wish to give this a read: H:LIST#Common mistakes. In short, if the line starts with a *, start the next line with a *. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone just uses n colons followed by one asterisk, then it doesn't matter what the next person does, the first post still looks right. Also, your count isn't right, as the first few were reverts of the deletion of my sperm bank link, not the hat. StuRat (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The way your browser renders the styling may look right, but what actually results is a mess of unrelated nested lists. You can see this if you view the resulting page’s HTML source code (look for <dl>/<dd> and <ul>/<li>), or if you access the page in a number of other ways (as some users have no choice but to do). A simple solution is to copy the markup (colons, asterisks, or any combination) from the comment you’re replying to, paste it immediately under that line (i.e. no blank line between), and then add to the end of that. Or just stick with only colons or only asterisks in a given thread.
3RR relates to the number of reverts to a whole page, not individual repeated reverts. If I reverted something at the top of the page once, something at the bottom three times, and something in the middle twice, that would make six reverts to the page, and I could expect to be blocked for it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make much sense. So if I find 3 obvious instances of vandalism in an article, and revert all 3, I get blocked ? StuRat (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting vandalism is considered an exception, per WP:3RR. I highly suggest reviewing that page. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tojo
Dear StuRat, my self-deprecating sense of humor has evidently gone over your head. The edit you objected to so much referred to a mistake by myself, not you-note the smiley face next to the remark about the "ignorant editor", which is my way of saying I was talking about myself, which is something that you have completely missed. I was making fun of myself, not attacking you. The sentence I was correcting what was written by myself, which is something that you could have easily noticed if you had taken the time to look at the mistake I was correcting. You noticed my notice my edit, but somehow you assumed it was about you, rather noticing I was talking about myself. Instead, you just fly off the handle and accuse me of insulting you, which I was most certainly not. I will not apologize as the edit you are complaining about had utterly nothing to do with you, but I am sincerely sorry that your feelings were hurt. Note also that I thanked for your work on the Tojo article, which is inconsistent with your utterly baseless claims that I have something against you, which I assure you that I do not.
As for your remark about "Western racism", I have no idea what grounds, if any do this accusation on. If you really think that General Tojo forced by the Americans against his will to bomb Pearl Harbour and that he was an Pan-Asian idealist fighting to end white supremacy in Asia, a thesis that is extremely popular in Japan and in India, then you are mistaken. I am not seeking to put words in your mouth, but I suspect that is what you mean by "Western racism". If you really want to understand Japan’s war aims, you need to need the concept of “place”, namely that all of the Asian peoples were just one big happy family with each Asian people occupying its rightful “place” in the family. In this concept, the Japanese were at the head of the family, and of the others had to accept their “place” below Japan. The former Emperor of China, Puyi initially believed in all this Pan-Asian talk when he became the Emperor of Manchukuo, but soon learned that it was his “place” as a Chinese man to be a “good slave” to the Emperor of Japan; as a “good slave” he had to bow down and happily lick the boots of the Showa Emperor because that was his “place”. The story of Puyi in nutshell captures what the Japanese were trying to do in Asia. Furthermore, I do not understand how you can possibly imply that my work on the Tojo article is due to “Western racism”. I was the one who brought in a mention of Tojo’s role in with the “comfort women”, of whom 80% were Korean, and the rest were Chinese, Filipino, etc. The young women taken away to the “comfort women” corps were subjected to quite horrific physical and sexual abuse. The reader needs to know what the “Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere” meant in practice, to know this was the sort of world that General Tojo was fighting for. How is this “Western racism”? Please do explain? If the Japanese had taken India, they would done the same thing in India that they did in China, Korea, the Philippines, Burma, Vietnam, Malaya, and everywhere else they went. I am no apologist for the British empire; read the section on the Niall Ferguson (who is an apologist for the British empire) article on the British empire, which is almost all my work. Having said that much, if the Japanese had taken India, things would had gotten much worse, which is something that appears to completely elude much of contemporary Indian public opinion who still think the wrong side won World War II. Given that what the Japanese did in China is all very well established, just why so many Indians, even today, regret that the Japanese never got the chance to do the same thing in India is a mystery. If the Japanese had conquered India, the "independence" that India would had gained would been the same as the "Empire of Manchukuo", the sham state that was really a Japanese colony. The British left India; the Japanese would not had be pushed out with non-violence as the British were, which is a very simple point that many Indians cannot grasp-perhaps deep down they know their "place" was to be "good slaves" to the Emperor.
No, the article does not reflect “Western racism”. If Tojo comes across as an unattractive character, that because he was. Tojo was a stupid, fanatical and vicious man who caught up in all the mindless militarism of bushido, which glories war above all else. Tojo was a moron who actually believed the Emperor of Japan was a god, even though common sense should had dictated otherwise. Anybody with the slightest modicum of intelligence could see the Emperor was not a god, so that shows just how truly dumb Tojo really was. I have nothing against the Japanese people, but I do understand Japan, and bushido leaves me cold. The same armistice terms that the Japanese rejected in July 1944 were the same ones they accepted in August 1945; by keeping the war going on for an extra 13 months resulted in their cities being bombed to the ground; millions of civilians killed in Japan, China, Vietnam and elsewhere; and hundreds of thousands of servicemen killed and wounded on both sides, but at least they upheld their values of bushido. I ask you; was that a smart thing to do? The whole idea of getting yourself killed in a kamikaze attack because to die for the Emperor is the most beautiful world does not appeal to me. The Emperor was not a god, the war was lost, and the men of the kamikaze corps killed themselves and the American sailors for nothing. Indeed, strangely enough, despite all the glorification of war and death that went on in Japanese schools, the Emperor was not keen on dying-the Emperor wanted others to die for him, but he would never risk his own life. The Ayatollah Khomeini did the same thing in the Iran-Iraq war, having teenage boys run across minefields because to get yourself killed for Allah is the most glorious thing in the world and Allah would reward those who "martyr" themselves with 72 lush virgins to have sex for all time in the afterlife ; strangely enough the Ayatollah who was fanatical about wanting others to die for Allah, but never himself. This is not racism as you trying to imply; it seems sad that so Japanese men wasted their lives for nothing, dying for the lie that the Emperor was a living god, when he was not, just as the same way that so many Iranian boys died in suicidal attacks to please a stupid, bigoted man like the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was so dumb that he actually believed the world was flat. Having said that much, Tojo was a follower, not a leader, and it was the Emperor who was the one who was really in charge. After the war, the Americas decided to rule Japan though the Emperor, so they needed one especially evil figure for whom everything that went wrong could be blamed. Tojo was a bad man, but his malevolence has been exaggerated. The idea that Tojo was single-handily responsible for everything that went wrong is a post-war myth created by the Americans to justify not trying the Emperor for war crimes as he should have had been. The Emperor should had been hanged for war crimes, not allowed to reign on until his death in 1989, and absurdly to be presented as a pro-Western "moderate" opposed to Tojo(!). Returning to the main point, I am sorry that your feelings were hurt; I was only mocking myself and I meant no malice to you at all. I was not insulting you, and only engaging in my sense of humor. Good day and take care.--A.S. Brown (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) Wow, can I buy you a paragraph break (or 10) ?
2) I did miss that you were talking about your own edits. However, I thought you were talking about the edits of others, which did use rather poor English, not mine.
3) The racism I mentioned in the article was one of Tojo's justifications for war. If you had insulted others for not writing proper English, and this was because they were not native English speakers, then yes, this would be racism too. But you didn't.
4) As for the India stuff, I assume you mean Bose ? I was unaware that there is a strong current feeling in India that things would have been better, had Bose won control of India. Do you have any links on this ? Perhaps they are leftists who think India would be better off communist ?
5) Something that has always interested me is that Japan seemed to be unaware that they would be unable to defeat the US, despite having no plan to invade the US mainland. A simple analysis should have shown that US industrial capacity, when committed to war, would vastly outstrip their own. At best, they might have hoped to destroy the Panama Canal to slow the movement of US warships to the Pacific, occupy the Hawaiian Islands, and destroy the shipyards on the US West Coast. However, they didn't have a plan to even do this much. How they hoped to win when all they did was give the US a bloody nose at Pearl Harbor is a mystery to me (although if they managed to take out all the US aircraft carriers, they might have bought themselves another year or so, but then atomic weapons would have been available for tactical use, such as against Iwo Jima, but of course Japan knew nothing about this). As it was, destroying battleships may have allowed the US to rely more on the valuable carriers rather than relying on battleships and the outdated tactics they represented.
6) Do you have any insight into why Japan thought it could win, despite being heavily committed in China and elsewhere, and being vastly surpassed by US population and industrial capacity ? All I can think of is if they assumed the US would focus on Europe, but the Pearl Harbor attack would seem to make Japan more of an enemy to the US. Was there a vast misunderstanding of US psychology, thinking that Pearl Harbor would make the US want to give up, rather than fight ? The very racism that Tojo observed in the US would lead the US to think that the Japanese were inferior and would be easily defeated. They also seem to be unaware that a threat from an external enemy tends to draw people closer, as in the case of the ancient Greek city-states which fought among themselves, but then united when invaded by Persia.
7) There was some mention that the Japanese thought that their eagerness to die in battle would give them the edge, but this fails to account for the loss of personnel, experience, skills, information and possibly weapons and equipment that all those deaths would entail. The concept of retreating when about to be defeated and living to fight another day seems to have eluded them. ISIS has the same problem currently, losing their most devoted soldiers to suicide bombings. StuRat (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear StuRat
Good, I accept that the misunderstandings have been cleared up. In the spirit of friendly co-operation that supposed to characterize the project, I am going to let bygones be bygones. It is not gentlemanly to make fun anyone for their English, and I would never do that-the only person I mock is myself because I don't take myself too seriously.
Yes, you are correct that I talking about Bose, who is a major national hero in India. Note that there are Bollywood films with Bose as a hero than there of Gandhi. I do suspect that Bose's emphasis on violence as the best solution to any problem does appeal to a certain type of Indian man, much more than does Gandhi's pacifism. The Indians who stopped the Japanese invasion of India at Kohmia and Imphal are seen in modern India as the villains, and the Indian National Army who are remembered as the heroes. It really cuts across the party lines; there are leftists who see Bose as hero fighting the oppressed masses of India (note that Bose died on his way to Moscow in 1945), but also many on the Hindu right who see Bose as a hero. Even more objectionably, quite a few Indians today see Hitler as a hero. Bal Thackeray, a major Indian politician who appropriately for cartoonist was a caricature of a Hindu chauvinist brought to life and the founder of the Shiv Sena party was most outspoken in his admiration of Hitler, whom he often praised as a role model for young Indian men. It doesn't make any sense. Hitler was a white supremacist who was quite hostile to Indians in Mein Kampf, praised the British empire for keeping millions of non-white people down, and his favorite film was The Lives of a Bengal Lancer; it seems that Hitler's many Hindu chauvinist fans today misunderstand what he meant when praised the Aryans (a term meaning the "noble ones" in Sanskrit taken from the Hindu sacred texts), note that the swastika is an ancient Hindu symbol for good luck and think that any enemy of Britain must a friend of India. Check out this link here: of a film poster showing Bose and Hitler as heroes today from 2004. Only in India can you put up a film poster of Bose and Hitler shaking hands, and present these guys as heroes. Off hand, I am sorry that I do not have links, but I assure that it is an odd feeling reading books by many Indian historians, who tended to portray the Axis as the good guys in World War II. Check the link here: Battle of Kohima and read the comments section, where many Indian YouTube editors, though not all, are openly pro-Bose and pro-Japanese. Personally, I do not understand these people. Even the video notes that the Japanese massacred a hospital full of wounded Indian soldiers (fighting for the British) in February 1944, and all these people can do is write how the Japanese were India's friends, fighting to free them from the British(!).
You are quite right about American industrial capacity by far outstripping Japanese industrial capacity. In 1941, the United States produced 600 million tons of steel while Japan produced 6 million. I would agree with you that the decision-makers in Japan were completely irrational. The plan, such as it was, was to win enough victories, and then when the Allies sued for peace, ask the Pope to mediate, who General Tojo believed for some reason was pro-Japanese. The decision-makers in Tokyo were expecting a repeat of the Russian-Japanese war; just inflict enough defeats on the enemy until they sue for peace. Depending upon the context, the Japanese called their enemies the Anglo-Saxons (when German and Italian diplomats were around) or the white devils (when no Axis diplomats were around). A big part of Japanese thinking, which getting back to the subject of racism, was that they were a hard people who did not fear death because to them to die for the Emperor was the most beautiful thing in the world and the Anglo-Saxons-cum-white devils were a soft people who did feared death. There is a scene from a Japanese film from 1943 dealing with the fall of Singapore, when a Japanese soldier arrives in the barracks of the British officers in Singapore, and sees a table covered with a tea pot and mugs, and kicks it over in disgust. The scene meant to the British were a soft people, too fond of drinking tea while the Japanese were a hard and tough people. I do remember reading an excerpt from the diary of a Japanese officer at the Battle of Hong Kong saying the Canadian soldiers he was fighting were very effeminate because the Canadians cried when they were wounded. Yes, this is not rational, but this what the thinking was in Japan at the time. As I pointed in the Tojo article, he was actually on the moderate end of this, in the sense that was aware of the need to increase industrial capacity by creating a totalitarian national defense state; his rivals in the Imperial Way fraction were more extreme than him in seeing spirit, the will to win as the only factor in war.
Again, I would agree with your points in 6. The assumption in Japan that the Americans were a soft people, afraid to die, and all you had to do was kill enough of them, and they would give up. That was the lesson the Japanese took from the war with Russia in 1904-05, and they expected history to repeat itself. Even then, they didn’t understand history very well. The war with Russia almost bankrupted Japan and by March 1905, the Japanese were winning, but they were running out of men. Anyhow, the revolution of 1905 and the economic exhaustion of Russia was just as important in making the Russian sue for peace as the Battle of Tsushima Straits were, aspects of the war that the Japanese forgot about. There is a further point that needs to be emphasized in that in bushido, all that really matters is that you keep your honor, and winning and losing is almost immaterial. There is a book called The Nobility of Failure by Ivan Morris, which I strongly recommend if you really want to understand the Japanese. Only with one of the chapters deal with World War II, but it is a really wonderful introduction to Japanese culture and history. The book deals with the cult of the heroic failure in Japan. What matters in Japan is you keep your moral sincerity intact at all costs, even at the price of your life, which explains why heroic failures are especially honored in Japan. The man who keeps his honor and principles, even at the cost of his life, is the man the Japanese really love. Only one chapter in Morris’s book, the one concerned with the Kamikaze corps, deals with World War II, so I really cannot use that book for the Tojo article. Anyhow, Morris makes it clear that in 1944-45 most of the guys who volunteered for the Kamikaze corps knew the war was lost, but it was felt better to keep their moral sincerity intact by dying for the Emperor by clashing their airplanes into American ships rather giving up a lost war. It is a mentality so different from the Western mentality, this glorification of death, even a pointless death, as the morally superior thing to do that it is hard to understand. Even Morris, who lived in Japan, was fluent in Japanese and knew their culture very well, finds it a little bizarre. My point is in this way of thinking it win or lose, it doesn’t matter, just as long as you die with your moral sincerity intact. Actually it is even better that you die with your moral sincerity intact in a losing cause because it shows the depth of your moral sincerity. I know that one are not supposed to engage in OR, which is why I have not done everything along these lines, but in understanding the decision for war in 1941, it is striking that Tojo keeps saying that we need to keep our honor intact, no matter what. In other words, you are perfectly correct that Japan was heavily involved in China and could not hope to outmatch industrial capacity, but I am not certain if was the main criterion in Tojo’s mind; one gets the impression that Tojo did not really care if Pearl Harbour caused a war that Japan was going to lose; all that mattered to him was Japan keep its moral sincerity intact, even at the cost of millions dead and the all of the cities of Japan going up in flames. Even if you really interested in the philosophical basis of Bushido I would strongly advise reading this link: Zen and the Art of Diving Bombing The Dark Side of the Tao. It is a little heavy-going and opinionated, but it covers a lot very well.
Again, on 7, I would agree with everything. I am not into promoting hatred against anybody, and there are many admirable aspects about the Japanese, but bushido is not one of them. Bushido, at least the version that Japanese schoolboys were brainwashed into from the Meiji Restoration onward really was a death cult. This emphasis upon that the most beautiful and noble thing to do in the world was to die for the Emperor certainly produced soldiers and sailors who fought without fear of death, but as you noted, it was counterproductive in the long run. Tojo himself was not the most fanatical about this; it is noteworthy that he finally agreed to abandon Guadalcanal and called off the invasion of India after Kohima and Imphal, but throughout World War Two, there are countless cases of the Japanese fighting long past any reasonable hope of victory, or committing suicide instead of trying to live another day. Even more sickening, and this is something I am planning on bringing in to the Tojo article is that Battle of Saipan, when the Japanese government told the Japanese colonists on that island that the Americans were white devils who were going to eat them and their children; so the colonists murdered their own children and killed themselves by jumping off the cliffs of Saipan. It is criminal for a government for tell such an outrageous lie to its own people to get them to kill their own children and themselves. There were of things wrong with the United States in those days like the treatment of black Americans; but at least they could behaved with more decency than that. Despite the markedly racist quality to American anti-Japanese propaganda, the Americans were appalled by mass suicides at Saipan, and at the Battle of Okinawa, the American Army had Japanese-speakers broadcast a message over loudspeakers along the lines saying we are not cannibals, so please don’t kill your children or yourselves. Returning to the main point, this is not rational. Again, it can be explained only in terms of a death cult mentality that sees the willingness to kill and/or be killed as the only really important factor in war. A death cult is by definition is not rational. I am choosing my words here carefully here. I have no sympathy with Islam is evil school of thinking. However, there are different ways of interpreting Islam, just like there are different ways of interpreting Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Unfortunately, one of the possible, though not only interpretation of Islam, is the death cult mentality. A Sunni group like ISIS detests a Shia fundamentalist like Khomeini, but they both promote a death cult interpretation of Islam; the former more so than the latter, but the differences are degree rather of kind. Both al-Qaeda and Islamic State both like to taunt the West with a message that they are going to win because you love life while we love death. A variation is that the West will lose because Westerners love Coca-coke while they love death. Again, I am not saying all of Islam is a death cult (which is certainly not the case), but certainly the Islam as interpreted by groups like al-Qaeda and IS are death cults. At least Khomeini only sent enthusiastic teenage boys who were promised 72 virgins in heaven on suicidal attacks against the Iraqi lines, while saving his more experienced troops. Having said that much, one often gets the impression that Khomeini did not care if a battle was lost or won, just as long as he got a lot of his own people killed, which is sick. What all these people have in common despite all their differences, was or is the belief that in war, it is the side with the strongest will that wins, the side that fears the death will lose, and that all there is to it. As you have correctly noted, it was counterproductive in losing skilled men. That is why the Japanese lost so men in the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot-they had lost so pilots earlier in the war that to replace them, training standards had to be drastically lowered, meaning a bunch of guys who barely knew how to fly a plane were sent into the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot, which is why they were annihilated by the U.S Navy. Ultimately, the Japanese came up with the Kamikaze corps, where barely trained pilots were sent to crash their planes into American ships because that was the best they could do. All I can say if one is in grips of a death cult, none of this really matters because you know you are stronger because you love death while the other side loves life. The most important, and the perhaps the reassuring point here is these people are wrong. If anything, their death cult way of thinking ensures that they lose, which has got to be a good thing.
Sorry for getting off on a bad start, but thank you very much for your informative comments and interesting questions.--A.S. Brown (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the individual death cult, but not when some Japanese applied it to the nation as a whole, apparently preferring that Japan be defeated rather than back down (there was even a faction which wanted to see Japan destroyed rather than surrender, following the atomic bomb drops). Didn't they understand that the nation being defeated would mean the end to training students in the Bushido code and therefore the end of Bushido itself ? So you get to the odd conclusion that belief in Bushido means they supported it's destruction.
Also, I see no evidence that there was ever an analysis of their chances of winning, losing, or achieving a draw, and the consequences of each outcome. It just seems bizarre to me that such a momentous decision with long-term consequences for their nation didn't merit a thoughtful discussion. StuRat (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
editing my reply at the Reference desks
Hi Sturat, with this change [51], you have changed the nature and intent of my edit and thereby changed the way others will perceive it. You make it look like I only meant to box up some of the comments in that subthread, when I intended to box them all up - in effect, you make it look like I agree with the comment you made when I do not. If you disagree with the hat, please undo the whole thing not part of it, and then discuss on talk page. Thanks. 184.151.231.149 (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do disagree with your hatting my contribution, which was intended to help the OP improve their English, which is what they had asked about. The comments following mine should be hatted, though, as they are the typical hate-speech from Ref Desk regulars, and contribute absolute nothing to improving the OP's English. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done as you suggested, removed your hat, and put mine in (with my signature). Also, you deleted my reply to Jack of Oz when you undid my hat. Please try to avoid doing that. StuRat (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Musical Term query on Ents Ref desk
Re your recent question on the above, now archived: I can't suggest a term for what you describe, but I had a half-memory of a piece whose structure somewhat fitted it, which happened to be played on BBC Radio 4 this morning!
Hope this is of interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.208.125 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar for You!
Thanks! StuRat (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Also, thank you very much for being the only one who tried answering my question here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. While I might have asked this question in a clumsy way, I also think that the reactions to this question were excessive. After all, I am supposed to forget all moments during my childhood years (specifically back when I was ages 9 to 17) when girls in my class and/or at my school wore short shorts or short skirts? Futurist110 (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dare we hope?
Hi StuRat.
Is it possible that you have finally seen sense and are acknowledging that the third person singular neuter possessive pronoun is "its"?
Heavens be praised, the prodigal returns to the fold. Let spontaneous joy occur! :) -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 23:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never denied that this was the official way, I just choose not to use it. I would guess that there are some grammatical rules which you take a pass on, too. StuRat (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe, possibly, but I can't bring one to mind right now.
It must be hard for you, though, to be constantly switching between using the official spelling in contexts where you deem it to be unavoidable, and your preferred apostrophised version wherever you (think you) can get away with it. Some people simply don't know the difference, and always use it's. There's something to be said for blissful ignorance, I guess. But once you know this, you can't unknow it. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 00:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to EO, "its" actually was written "it's" in older times.[52] ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know: 'To "it's", the once and future form !' StuRat (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A Cockney baseball fan might say that Pete Rose is the all-time leader in 'it's. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mesopotamian Marshes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pronunciation of "fillet"
Greetings. For a re-run of the arguments, see this 2015 thread, which quotes Filet, fillet and the pronunciation of other French borrowings. That article says that "fillet" was first taken into the English language in the 14th century, at which time, the final "t" was probably pronounced in French, and "it could be that it [in its modern sense] was imported to the Americas at a time when its spelling had not yet settled down and the influence of French settlers headed it toward(s) the more modern French spelling and pronunciation".
I am not posting this on the RefDesk, since I believe it would be a good idea to moderate our forays away from the actual question (no matter how fascinating), at least until such times as the wolves are not howling at our doors. Best regards, Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, good idea. No matter how complex the etymology of this particular word may be, there does seem to be an attempt by the English to "Anglify" French words. Hence my point about them not particularly caring if they pronounce French city names correctly. And I would extend this to all soldiers in any foreign lands. StuRat (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It's"
StuRat your absence from the Reference Desks will be missed. The present mess of unexplained strikouts of your own posts leaves a sour impression of pettiness that will take time to fade. When a healing time has passed both for the community and yourself, I look forward to you presenting a fresh face to Wikipedia, one that does not treat criticisms by other editors as errors to be debugged. Whether, and how you choose to appeal the ban will be up to you but I believe that applying the KISS principle will serve you best. Show simply that you accomodate as valid the concerns that led to your ban, without necessarily proposing a new set of conditions for debate. If that is what you do, you may let me know and I would like to add to the friendly support expressed by other colleagues here. My small price is to be convinced that you will adopt Standard English in your usage of the apostrophe in "YOU'RE" (as not done here) and use "ITS" without apostrophe (when appropriate, not just by your whim). Blooteuth (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your example doesn't seem to show the possessive form, where I choose to use the apostrophe against convention. That example shows the contraction for "it is", and there is no disagreement on use of the apostrophe there. I do, however, note that I mistakenly said "a oblate" when it should have been "an oblate". StuRat (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"ITS" without apostrophe is the possessive form (actually the 3rd person singular possessive) and you are refusing to recognize that it exists in our language, apparently motivated by your expectation that your destiny is to teach Wikipedia a better(?) English. The facts that "it is" may be contracted as IT'S, and the use of "AN" before a noun that begins with a vowel, are not in dispute, so to reward your correct confirmations of them here is a story. On 19 November 1863 Abraham Lincoln had an all-day bout of Hiccups. Faithful to his presidential duties, he nevertheless struggled that day to deliver a prepared speech at a national cemetery. The event passed tolerably well because the speech, interspersed with hiccups, was not too long and the solemnity of the occasion precluded outright sniggers among those present. Nevertheless it is the hiccups that stayed in their memory, to the detriment of Lincoln's intended message which as a result, in this story, is lost to history instead of being cherished as one of the greatest and most influential statements of America's purpose. The story is a metaphor, where you are playing Lincoln and your whimsical superfluous apostrophes are his hiccups. There is no merit in persisting in distorting ITS to IT'S; the change merely forces the reader to pause and analyze what is your error that hinders sensible parsing of your sentence. No one will thank you for imposing that burden and, like sniggers at hiccups, it has probably contributed to the general annoyance of which you are now made forcibly aware. With undiminished respect for the contributions that you could make in the future, I see it as rational for Wikipedia to keep closed its door to you as long as you remain obsessed with an agenda to defy a basic grammatical convention that has been repeatedly explained to you. Blooteuth (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Random gnome edit
Start doing random gnome edits, like I do. Main space editing is the major reason for being on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand "random gnome edit". StuRat (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hit the random article button & look for any spelling errors (for example) on articles. That's what I've been doing for years, check out my contribs. Spelling corrections, fixing birth/death intros, dashes, etc. is what I usually do. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that sounds really boring. If I happen to look up something and find an error while there, I will fix that. StuRat (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I too, found it boring, at first. But, it changes your approach & thinking on Wikipedia & slowy restores your status in the community. Right now, 75% of my edits are to 'main space'. That's a jump from 39% in 2011. More work/less talk is the best way, I found. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to do somewhere around 262,000 main space edits to make it to 75% main space edits (plus 3x as many non-main space edits as I make during that time). I will probably be dead before that could happen. But I'm not happy with Wikipedia, anyway, particularly the lack of civility. Not only do Admins not stop it, they are quite often the source. Instead, I shall look for a more pleasant environment to work. I've contributed some to WikiHow, and found that to be a more friendly environment, so I may go there. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't blame the admins, blame the community (or rather the miniscule fraction thereof who frequent ANI) who refuse to support the admins in enforcing civility. We are self-governed. Any admin who took a strong stand on civility in the current environment would find him/herself without a mop (after a few months of pure hell). ―Mandruss ☎ 18:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
belated missive
I'm sorry it came to this, and I'm sorry I didn't manage to get an oppose !vote in (not that it looks like it would have mattered in the end).
I do think you were often too quick to speculate on questions you should have left alone, but I don't think you deserved a ban. But the vitriol of a crowd on a self-righteous crusade can be a scary thing. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See you around
See you around Stu. I was hoping people could at least offer some kind of probationary period of good faith, but apparently not. I think it spells doom for one or two other ref desk regulars who frequently perform much "worse" than you ever did. Good luck spending all the time you spent at the ref desks doing something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not. If they felt the need for a ritual sacrifice, they've now gotten it out of their system for a while. StuRat (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I threw myself on your pyre, wailing gibberish. Hope you don't mind. You were a good rat, all things considered. InedibleHulk(talk) 02:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BTW, I have an Incredible Hulk joke I should tell you, since you seem to be a fan: Bruce Banner: "Don't get me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry." ... "I'm sure you're right, because I don't even like you now." :-) StuRat (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like him, either. David Banner was alright. My name is actually a lazy ripoff of the incredible ripoff. Common mistake, no worries. InedibleHulk(talk) 23:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, it did redirect to the Hulk page, and Stan Lee is known for using the same letter in first and last names of his characters. BTW, your link didn't work. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Parker was my favourite alliteration, if we don't count Hulk Hogan as a Marvel character. My (allegedly) broken link is to the legal origin story of how he became one. Spiderman had his own knockoff wrestler, but not famous enough for good allusion. Here he is battling the evil Lou Fabiano (not to be confused with Lou Ferrigno, from the David Banner universe). InedibleHulk(talk) 19:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Credit where credit is due
You conducted yourself with exemplary calmness and open-mindedness throughout the ordeal. I'm sorry it did not work out well. Bus stop (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. I was willing to listen, but they weren't. StuRat (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support
...those of you who offered it, that is. I'm going to semi-retire from Wikipedia now. I'll probably stop in to check on messages from time to time, and if I happen to run across a Wikipedia article that needs a grammar or spelling fix, I might do that (at least until I need to add a ref to prove that my spelling is correct). And I'll also do some archiving on this page, as it's gotten rather long. So, see you all around. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conduct at Reference Desks arbitration case request archived
Hi StuRat. The Conduct at Reference Desks arbitration case request, submitted 30 October 2017, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, StuRat. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Night of the Comet, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased see WP:BURDEN. It is your burden to add a citation for this. Until you do, it does not belong in the article. You can't site the film for this, because the film doesn't label it as a mistake. Wikipedia is not the place to add unsourced trivia like this. Add it to your blog or the IMDb if you want to add unsourced trivia somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just what kind of source do you need to prove that when somebody beats the 6th place score, it then becomes the 7th place score ? This is patently obvious. StuRat (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's obvious, it should be easy for you to prove it via a citation to a reliable source that the film got this detail wrong. If you can't do that, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. In real life, people don't turn into zombies. There are many details that are not true to real life, but it's not Wikipedia's place to go around pointing them out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You won't be able to find proof of the patently obvious. I doubt, for example, that you will find a peer-reviewed scientific journal article that proves that people don't turn into zombies. StuRat (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I probably could, but that's immaterial. The point is that unsourced trivia/"goofs" sections like this are original research and don't belong on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, StuRat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Stuart Graves requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hexagons Pool
Hi, I see that long ago you offered to change the (wrong) name of the Hexagon pool article to "Hexagons Pool". Either you forgot, or somebody wrongly reversed it. The name comes from the many hexagonal basalt columns standing around the water, the pool is by no means hexagonal, nor is there just one column, and the original, Hebrew name is in the plural - more than enough reasons to use the plural as the only correct option, There might be a singular version used around the net, but I see no justification for it whatsoever. Also, Pool should be capitalised, as it's part of a standing geographic name. Would you mind making the change? Thank you! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back
It seems to me that if you want to resume working on the Ref Desk, you could appeal your ban (assuming it hasn't expired already). Things seem calmer than they once were. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that was a mistake. I thought I was at another site where I answer questions. As soon as I realized I was here, I deleted it. Not interested in returning; just too many angry people here, many of them Admins. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SE Michigan restaurant status during COVID-19 (coronavirus) outbreak
Here's a list of the status here in SE Michigan:
Einstein Bagel - Open for take-out only, some stores close early: Southfield Rd N of 12 Mile: 2 PM Woodward N of 11 Mile: 1 PMLogans Roadhouse - ClosedPanera Bread - Drive thru locations only (no in-restaurant take-out)Romano's Macaroni Grill - Livonia location closed, Ann Arbor open
You've got mail
Hello, StuRat. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Rich (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Accustimisation" listed at Redirects for discussion
Listo . Beeblebrox ( discusión ) 22:22 5 ago 2012 (UTC)
Esta página de discusión se está haciendo muy larga . Por favor, considere archivarla . Beeblebrox ( discusión ) 21:04 5 ago 2012 (UTC) 
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
and entirely out of character with the habits of primitive people and in any case would take some doing given the standard squatting position which was general before the invention of the toilet seat. It is unthinkable that defecating on your own feet would have been such a standard modus operandi as to give rise to a phrase, even if it could conceivably occur as an accident to a particularly clumsy or hurried crapper. However that doesn't get us close to the origin of the phrase. If the ancient Hebrews had worn pants I could imagine "covering your feet" meant pulling down your pants. (This, btw, reminds me of a particularly funny scene in "Don Quixote") But they didn't. A robe on the other hand would be more likely to be pulled up than pulled down. Maybe the ancient Hebrews wore some kind of underwear, even if it was just a piece of rag, and that was pulled down and "covered the feet" so to speak, even though you'd better cover only the front of your feet, for obvious reasons. I'll ask someone who knows Biblical Hebrew well. Contact Basemetal here 20:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
For being the smartest guy in WP. For always helping out me and others. For being a convict (not providing references to your statements cause you are just too smart). And so on... 
-- Apostle (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. 147.126.10.21 (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Night of the Comet, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)