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

Archive: /Archive 1

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

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

I messed up. Can you fix it?

The proper useage is in the plural - and I misspelled it when I tried to move it.

Thanks. --Ludvikus 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Thanks, Datsun Eleven 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

In my opinion every article needs some references, if only to show that it's not just Wikipedia that came up with the idea. Sure, any expert could tell you what a fork bomb is, but what if the reader doesn't have access to such experts? Anyway, sometimes I add ((unreferenced)) rather than adding references myself because I don't have time. "So fix it" only works if you are able to. Hairy Dude 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I doubt most readers question the validity of Wikipedia content (which is a grave problem) but topics like these are usually lacking in decent, neutral sources. --Victor 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

As I recall the phrase "except where it is deemed nessecary" was Blackboard's exact wording on their website at: http://www.blackboard.com/patent/FAQ_013107.htm. However, they have since changed it. The original page is not on Archive.org, so I have no easy way to prove it one way or the other. Secondly, if you think that wording this casts an undue bad light on Blackboard, I think you can objectively say that filing an unnessecary infringement lawsuit isn't much a mental stretch given the company's legal track record. Romanpoet 16:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. Well, I happen to agree on that last point :) However, my opinion is of course no more welcome than anyone else's (it being original research). I'm sure there are plenty of sources for criticisms of the patents - instead of casting a bad light on an unethical company, Wikipedia would prefer to reflect the bad light (and whatever good light there is) cast by other people :) Hairy Dude 21:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is going on here? Look to the end and you know it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Planck_constant Heisenberg is wrong! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.175.99.7 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ich habe Dich angesprochen, weil Du ebenfalls bemerkt hast, daß da etwas faul ist. Die Einheit J/(rad/s) bzw. Js/rad ist vorstellbar, sinnvoll und richtig. Das Argument, 1 rad = 1, also dimensionslos, ist Unsinn und muß eine Schutzbehauptung sein. rad ist eine Winkeldefinition genauso wie m eine Längendefinition ist und die kann ebenfalls nicht entfallen. Sehr deutlich wird das auch beim Drehmoment, welches fälschlich als Nm bezeichnet wird. Richtig ist aber Arbeit je Drehwinkel, also Nm/rad oder Nm/°. Nun kommt Heisenberg mit seiner Unschärferelation und das ist der eigentliche Punkt, worauf ich hinauswollte: Die richtigen Einheiten zeigen, daß die H.U. ein totaler Unsinn sein muß! Mein Englisch ist leider miserabel, weshalb ich mich nicht auf eine Diskussion einlassen kann. Daher auch nur die Kurzversion "mathematisch". Auf Heisenbergs Unsinn ist aber ein Großteil der Quantenphysik aufgebaut, mit all den unvorstellbaren Behauptungen wie Vakuumenergie, Vakuumfluktuation, Quantenschaum, virtuellen Teilchen und noch viel anderer Quatsch. Mit Heisenberg werden Phantasieteilchen erzeugt, natürlich kurzlebige. Noch etwas für Dich zum genauen Nachdenken. Die Null! Damit wird ebenfalls viel gezaubert. Man sagt im allgemeinen: 3 Äpfel - 3 Äpfel = 0. Das ist falsch. Richtig ist: 3 Äpfel - 3 Äpfel = 0 Äpfel. Das ist ein gewaltiger Unterschied. In der theoretischen Physik wird das dann mißbraucht, indem man dann z.B. bei zwei Gleichungen, wo angeblich 0 herauskommt,diese Gleichungen gleichsetzt und schon hat man eine Verbindung zwischen pionen und Elefanten geschaffen, wobei letztere dann auch sehr kurze Zeit aus dem Nichts auftauchen dürfen und wieder verschwinden. Heisenberg erlaubt dies ja :-) http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/constants.htm#h —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.175.84.132 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Kostaki mou 21:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Correct. Well-spotted! Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Just because a layman might think that since it was under the UK's control, its PM would be the UK's. It just makes the article a bit easier to read. Of course, if you think the clarification isn't necessary, feel free to remove it. Hairy Dude 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The clarification doesn't need to be removed; one extra word isn't a problem. At the time of the scandal, Newfoundland was not under UK control, at least not to the same extent that it was as a colony, or during Comission of Government, over a decade later.Silverchemist 22:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your change doesn't just make maintaining the articles more difficult, but it mas text searches within the articles fail unexpectedly. And, if a reader ever has to do a text search on the title of the references, changing instances of Guantanamo to the spanish spelling will make those text searches fail.

In general, let me suggest you exercise caution in correcting errors you perceive in quoted material. If what you perceive as an error is the way it was written in the original source document I think it is almost always best to leave it as is. If, when you go and check the original source, and you find the "error" was in the original, by all means feel free to add a ((sic)) template after it, to guide other people who think it would be helpful to make a correction.

No offense, but barring a really convincing explanation I think I better revert your corrections before that gets complicated by someone introducing more changes after yours.

I cut this table from an earlier talk page discussion. If I made it today it might be longer. I continue to think that all the Guantanamo captives whose names require disambiguation should follow the same form, because most of the captives whose names require disambiguation require disambiguation from one another.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about that. I tried to add the accent only where it was just "Guantanamo" or "Guantanamo Bay", but if I got some wrong or ended up acting against consensus, I apologise. I'll refrain from making such changes in future. Hairy Dude (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Hairy Dude: As the originator of Image:NatGasProcessing.png, I don't think that your svg version "sucks". But I do have two important comments:

• My original png drawing has a Legend box in the lower left hand corner that is essential to explaining the flow diagram and your version should also include that Legend box.
• I deliberately chose my text font sizes so that the font would be readable in a drawing that was no more than 584px wide ... since that is the maximum width that can be displayed on a Wikipedia page without horizontal scrolling or without having to use the "thumb" function to reduce the image width. On my IE browser, using the "thumb" function to reduce the size of an image reduces the appearance or resolution quite visibly. I would urge you most strongly to reduce your font sizes so that the current 744px width of your svg version can be reduced to 584px.

Obviously, the arrow heads must be visible. Without them, the drawing is no good.

Personally, I think the png version is fine as is. But if you are going to change it to a svg version, then please consider the above two points. Regards, - mbeychok (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, scaling it down will be no problem... though why 584 px in particular? Also, I thought it would be better to keep the legend outside the image, since it is basically text rather than graphics. I really don't think representing text as graphics is a good idea. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I will not change the image in the article until that bug is fixed, since I agree, it is no good without the arrowheads. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe you originated the comment that US coin denominations are a special case for which the Greedy algorithm finds the optimal change. I believe that the more common coin system ([1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200] etc.) that is used, amongst other places, in the UK and Euroland can also use the greedy algorithm to give optimal change (I have verified this computationally for all amounts of change from 1 to 500). As such, I feel that the comment about the US being an exception (now edited since your initial change) should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.119.202 (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Thanks! Hairy Dude (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

re Batting 1000 I see... albeit seeing one dimensionally. Didn't have the sense or maturity to ask about a tool before nominating it for TFD, and made assumptions on its use (which I may own, a piece of for the usage), contacted someone who apparently fixed a spelling goof, but not the originators like me and CBD, ignored the discussion on the Village Pumpt and in the meantime, promoted a minor bit of stupidity ("Self reference avoidance") into major policy, like it could ever trump WP:IAR.

FYI, the template was superb at preventing contextual confusion to a user, and dejunking the first few sentences of many articles—making them far less awkward to phrase or read, the many articles— where there are alternative names and spelling of names each of historical import, in particular. I would really suggest you learn to use a history tab and figure out how to find an originator. That this idiotic project doesn't mandate originator notification just makes this a hostile place to donate time... as does taking someone's tools. Better yet, learn elementary courtesy and ask a question before jumping to a conclusion. Why anyone hallucinates that taking someone's tools helps the project, really baffles me. Try editing articles forsooth. If you don't know enough English to write well, come over to the commons and sort images. // FrankB 14:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Thanks! Hairy Dude (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hey, in the pompey article you put an edit note, Cosham station is on the mainland, so might not be considered to be in Portsmouth depending on definitions) the island is called portsea and there really is no definition where cosham wouldn't be consider part of the city of portsmouth. anyway thanks for the great contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.204.37 (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Daniel

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

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

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

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

That speedy tag is totally baseless. I got permission for all images from Lubos Bena and documented it. WP:CSD allows speedying for a few copyright reasons:

• CSD F3 "improper license", for example "used with permission". I went through, to the best of my knowledge, what are the proper channels for obtaining permission for using images on Wikipedia. If this is improper, the entire process needs questioning.
• CSD F4 "lack of licensing information". This is the given reason, but it clearly doesn't apply here. The evidence is linked from the image description page.
• CSD F6 "missing non-free use rationale". I got permission for free use, so this doesn't apply here.
• CSD F7 "invalid fair-use claim". Again, it's not claiming fair use.
• CSD F9 "unambiguous copyright infringement". Since I (claim to have) got permission, this is not unambiguously an infringement.
• CSD F11 "no evidence of permission". Again, the evidence is present and linked to, so this doesn't apply.

If there is a license, but its validity is disputed, deletion should proceed through WP:FfD, certainly not speedy deletion. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Evidence of permission' means an OTRS email or other verifiable evidence of permission (such as a notice on a site), so F11 is applicable (Requests for permission has been superseded by OTRS, and evidence of permission is required). What you have is text that is stated to have been copied from an email, which doesn't constitute 'evidence'. Have a nice day, — neuro^(talk) 18:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an aside, the reply does not indicate that the person has agreed for the image to be licensed under the GFDL. He states that he gives "you approval to use pictures and information from my own www.lubosbena.sk for your online encyclopedia Wikipedia". — neuro^(talk) 18:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is OTRS? There is no indication that anything has superseded WP:COPYREQ. As for the reply, it is replying to an email explaining exactly what permission is being requested and the reply grants that. As I implied, the permission is verifiable since I sent a copy to the permissions address. BTW apologies for removing the tag, I mistakenly thought it was a speedy deletion. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I see. To the best of my knowledge OTRS didn't exist when I got this permission. I have no idea if the permission email is in OTRS now, but surely the way to fix this is not to say "there's no permission, delete it" but "this old-style permission should be put in OTRS". Hairy Dude (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if the emails are still accessible, they just need to be forwarded to OTRS. — neuro^(talk) 21:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That said, they still would have to clarify that the image is being released under the GFDL. — neuro^(talk) 21:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The matter will have to be dealt with by Saturday in any case, since that's when the "no permission" tag allows the image to be deleted due to "lack of evidence". Again, I think this tag is inappropriate since there is evidence, even it may be considered inadequate. Additionally, my user talk page is not the proper forum for discussing copyright issues. I've listed the file at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_April_29#File:Triconegravir1_big.jpg, and replaced the tag on the image with ((pui)), resetting the date to today in order to allow for debate in the proper forum.

Incidentally there are a number of other images from the same source that should be dealt with in the same way - this one shouldn't be singled out. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Please do not use this template and delete its instances and replace with ((about)) because ((otheruses4)) is deprecated.199.126.224.245 (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Confusing to new editors though.199.126.224.245 (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I got your message on my talk. It will be funny to try: Do you prefer ""one" or "two" like in the optometrist's office on these. Historically speaking, a previous editor who worked on a lot of the Mariology articles and designed the templates thought the font was too small! But he knew a few popes who dies decades ago - so I guess for the past generations, the smaller fonts are just too hard to handle. History2007 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I am not visually impaired. But I can not see where one has a parameter to set the font to be the same as the page size font in the sidebar template. Is there? If so, I can try and experiment with it. As is, the sidebar seems smaller than the page font. And if the page font is the limit of readability, the sidebar will be too small. I left a jpg here. As you see the blue text from both of the smaller font templates is smaller than the black "veneration" that is from the article text. So can you get the sidebar text to be the same size as article text? History2007 (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Category:Swansea geography stubs is a sub-subcategory of Category:Cardiff, so it got mistagged. I'm going through Category:Swansea to replace ((WikiProject Cardiff)) to ((WikiProject Wales)). Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I Apologize for not answering sooner.

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

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

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

I have noticed your recent edits to this article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello. You have a new message at Template_talk:Quote's talk page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, and Nice Work....

Andy2159 (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• No parsing, just Vim (via the Firefox extension It's All Text), lots of replace commands, and a good deal of patience. Knowing how to use regexes makes this sort of editing task vastly easier. Hairy Dude (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, that's what I was originally doing, but I found myself getting tripped up by stuff like stray line returns or multiline cells, so I thought about looking into some way of parsing out the table instead of dealing with it through regexes only. That's obviously a non-trivial problem, though. Thanks for your response.  — daranz [ t ] 22:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you translate this English wiki article "Big Four of Allied power in World War II" to German language and create a German version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6b45:500:1571:7e72:a22:45c9 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 5 February 2016‎

Thanks for inserting the quote template -- but could you please revert the italics? Descartes used italics in the original -- for Discourse on the Method, see https://books.google.com/books?id=1VFdAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA33#v=onepage&q&f=false; for Principles of Philosophy, see https://books.google.com/books?id=orRhu_AE-HAC, bottom of pg. 2. humanengr (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, sorry. Fixed. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks … minor follow-on. As the Discourse quote started mid-paragraph, my preference is to retain the introductory ellipsis to invite the reader to explore the source. Thoughts? 172.56.38.107 (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see any guidance in the Manual of Style on this topic, so this is just personal preference. Quotations are nearly always a sample of a longer writing, so it's understood that whatever comes before and after is omitted, without needing an ellipsis - otherwise, we'd have a ellipsis at the start and end of every single quotation that wasn't the complete source. For this reason I usually remove them. I don't see that a multi-paragraph quotation is any different, since the MoS explicitly says "in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting", such as paragraph breaks (the exceptions apply to the Descartes quotations, and in any case I made a mistake with the annotation). I think a trailing ellipsis is fine if the quotation is cut off in the middle of a sentence that ends with a full stop, though I've left ellipses at the end sometimes because I don't know whether the quotation was cut off mid-sentence, so I don't know whether an ellipsis or full stop (or something else) is appropriate. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks -- and I now see most (all?) external style guides omit the preceding ellipsis even if the quote starts mid-para as this does. humanengr (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. The choice of where to start the quote was particular difficult given the structure of Descartes's writings. But after further reflection, given that the introductory adverb here serves much the same purpose as an introductory ellipse, I'm satisfied with the starting point. So, thanks again for the clean-up. humanengr (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm working on a top-to-bottom rewrite, but am on vacation.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Great to hear. I won't bother with any more edits in that case. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I am a Python guy (or used to be -- no longer a programmer), but have been Haskell-curious lately. Maybe I'll look into it some day. Meanwhile, tks for your edits to the famine article; watch for the full rewrite to go live some time in September. Cheers.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice that in T.E. Lawrence you replaced my “smart quotes” with basic "quotation marks". I’m a very occasional editor so I suspect you’re right and I’m wrong; got a link to the guidance on this? Thanks in advance Tim Bray (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• TimBray, see MOS:CURLY  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the edit, I've not seen it done like that before, is there a WP: about it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I presume you're referring to ((plainlist)). See MOS:PLIST. The basic reason is that screen readers (used by blind people to read Wikipedia) don't understand a series of break tags to be a list, so they don't read the text as such. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Hairy Dude. This is just a message to let you know that I have recently initiated a 'support/opposition' section at the RfC discussing the issues surrounding the use of "quote boxes" (here). As you previously expressed a view on this issue over at the MoS talk page several days ago, you may wish to reiterate your opinion in a 'support/oppose' format. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, as someone who edits from mobile, this conversation here might be of interest to you. Thanks!--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about the edit—I was trying to remove the tag you placed on that quotation but it looks like we conflicted in a weird way and I ended up undoing a completely different edit. It's a moot point now that the quotation is removed! --Laser brain (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed! No harm done. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Hairy Dude. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Sun symbol Chrome 59 Android.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sun symbol Chrome 59 Android.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like ((PD-self)) (to release all rights), ((self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL)) (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 22:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:FF X vs chi.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I undid this without comment, thinking it was vandalism: [1]. But you're obviously not a vandal so I'm not sure what's going on here, maybe a mistake? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whuh...? I have no idea. I don't remember touching that ref and the edit summary suggests I was trying to use (('")) or the like. I wish the mobile app or site had a diff function... Hairy Dude (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Light car, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I went ahead and changed the redirect of Light Car per your suggestion. Hope this helps. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Refbegin indent Firefox.png. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Hairy Dude. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does the page on the "Dixiecrats" reads on top that the Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) merged into the Democratic Party? Where's the reliable evidence for that? Southern Republicans the advocate of "state rights" and are right-wing." The Dixiecrats merged into the Republican party and are known today as Southern Republicans. They advocate state rights over civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.31.144 (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huh? Why do you think I'd know? I didn't write it. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might find the article Southern strategy enlightening. Before the 1960s the political positions of the Democrat and Republican parties were close to the reverse of what they are today. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted your edits to United States v. Lara, due to the error you made in removing the smallcaps from the citation. This article uses Bluebook formatting, which uses smallcaps to designate certain types of reference material. This is authorized, please review WP:LAWMOS and MOS:SMALLCAPS. Please familiarize yourself with this citation style before making similar changes. I'll also note that this is a featured article, and changes made to a featured article should be done carefully. Regards GregJackP Boomer! 02:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough, though it's worth pointing out that WP:BRD works very well as long as people are diligent as you have been here. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a deep hole/mine of improvable material relating to Bali and all the component articles - thanks for your edits !! JarrahTree 13:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason the div tag was there is that, at least in my browser, the WikiHiero symbols create line breaks unless they're in the div tag. Could you give more detail about the problems the tag creates on mobile? I want to figure out how to avoid the line-break problem. A. Parrot (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @A. Parrot: Thanks for the info - just before you posted I was digging through the history looking for who added it and why :) Quite simply, this unclosed element eats all following sections, since if you don't explicitly close it, it doesn't end until the end of the article. The effect is that "Descriptions and depictions" at first appears to be the last section on the page. The other sections are still there, but they're hidden under this one; you can see it again if you open that section, but then you have to scroll down a lot and the overview that mobile view is supposed to give you is lost. If you tap this section's edit icon to edit it, you only get that one section, though again you can edit later sections by first scrolling down.

  I removed the div tag because I thought it wasn't necessary, but I forgot the technical issues with hiero tags (I vaguely remember seeing it before), so I've added it back with a close div tag at the end of the paragraph. This fixes the issue with the mobile site; I hope this fixes your issues too. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Incidentally, the hieroglyphs still add line breaks on mobile... Hairy Dude (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm. I could instead use the Unicode hieroglyphs, which I don't think existed when I rewrote the article in 2013, but I'm not sure how widely supported they are. A. Parrot (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeez, I have a short memory. I commented on MetaWiki the MediaWiki wiki on this issue less than a month ago. I'd say don't worry about it, since it's a known issue. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Fixed an incorrect link. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Hairy Dude. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 16:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Stifle (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Reply[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Hairy Dude (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #22075 was submitted on Jul 15, 2018 20:10:34. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cursed Empire 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/Cursed Empire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Chetsford (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See comment at the bottom of Talk:Guelphs and Ghibellines... AnonMoos (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Write more for Maureen Wroblewitz. Thank you.42.115.39.209 (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know anything about that topic, sorry. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've written a proposal on the talk page for Paradox Interactive to add a paragraph on Harebrained Schemes linking to their Wikipedia page, as they are now a subsidiary of Paradox, I would like input from significant editors supporting or opposing such a change before making it, however. As such, your input would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Jyggalypuff (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

I wanted to share a follow-up to an RfC you participated in from late 2016/early 2017. It was regarding making certain warning templates visible on mobile. The Readers web team has been working to improve how these templates appear on the mobile website. I shared an announcement with communities today that covers what is happening. If you have any interest, I encourage your support in giving feedback on the project page or helping update templates of this nature with some of our recommendations.

Thank you, CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Hairy Dude. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Hairy Dude: I have added to Wikimedia Commons a more complete source for one of the images in the article on the Bagne of Toulon. It is from a history of the Bagne by Pierre Zacone, which was published in 1869. It is reproduced in a number of books on the topic, including "Le Bagne de Toulon" a scholarly history of the Bagne, by the Académie du Var, a group which studies the history of Toulon, where I saw it. Am I correct that, because of its age, it's now in the public domain?

I'll add this source to the file on Wikimedia Commons, and for the other images. Is there anything else I need to do to prevent these images from being deleted? They're important to the article, Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SiefkinDR: Pierre Zaccone apparently died in 1895, more than 70 years ago, so yes, they should be PD. Once the source information is in place, you can go ahead and revert my removal of the images from the article and I'll withdraw the nomination. Perhaps you could make a comment at the discussion to this effect. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Toys In The Attic (Rugrats Episode). Since you had some involvement with the Toys In The Attic (Rugrats Episode) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 11:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a mistake in Yamanaya genetics section Elvis.J700 (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am studying genetics and lately focusing on changes in genetic pool of Asia because of invasion and migration and Dalits are considered one of natives of India from the time before Aryan migration and invasion(also Dalit word compromise many castes), And Yamanya were Eurasian, mostly sharing Dna with other local European tribes. Dalit may share some percentage of Dna with Yamanaya because of some admixing, but it's not that high, they are mostly closer to south Indian tribes with actually very less Dna marker connected to Eurasians. Elvis.J700 (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elvis.J700: I'm sorry, I have no insight into the subject at all. I only made copy-editing edits. The proper place to discuss this is on the article's talk page. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, please see my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Taxon authors citations, small tag and mobiles. It's not clear to me that we should be over-riding the site-wide style choices for the mobile version. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

You deemed this explanation as too technical for lead section and poorly explained: "but can, in principle, arise and evolve in exactly flat regions of spacetime if a hollow spherically symmetric thin shell of matter is collapsing in a vacuum spacetime" and hided it from Event horizon, in Revision as of 12:40, 1 August 2019.

I am not a native speaker of the English language, so I used quite much Alex B. Nielsen's text from writing Black holes and black hole thermodynamics without event horizons: "A related feature of event horizons is that they can, in principle, arise and evolve in exactly flat regions of spacetime. Consider a hollow spherically symmetric thin shell of matter, with mass M, collapsing under its own gravity in an otherwise vacuum spacetime."

I would not see this texts much more technical compared to other texts in writing, so I don't recognize the problem, but I would not take it ill if someone native speaker of the English language would explain this with better english so that the matter could remain visible to explain how this local event horizon can appear anywhere without black holes or inside observable gravity effects. We could be inside event horizon without knowing it.

Redoing first paragraph again, answering the question "what is it?" is ok.

-Yoxxa (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yoxxa: It is a very obscure edge case; the lead section is a summary, and devoting so many words to it there, especially in the very first sentence of the article, gives it grossly undue weight. Technicalities and caveats should be discussed in the article body, where enough space can be devoted to them that a lay reader can understand them - notice that this throwaway mention doesn't explain how an event horizon arises in this situation, and indeed it can't, because the concept hasn't been adequately defined yet. Having said that, the statement is only supported by an arXiv preprint, which is not peer reviewed, making it effectively a self-published source, so I would be opposed to this anyway unless better sources are cited. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, you might be quite right about undue weight of BH's EH details in the very beginning, but if the goal is to prensent all kind of event horizons the hole as it seems, the hole inroduction is far too BH weighted. Causes concerning BH's EH shoud be where they can be elaborated, so all of it into paragraph 'Event horizon of a black hole'. The very first sentence could be something like "notion of EH is originally based to escape speed of light from massive object's gravity, but is also related to the field of view of moving objects and expanding universe", maybe better in English language formatted. I have been regarding arXiv higly scientific source but I'll try to check the articles more carefully in the future. Yoxxa (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After your previous comment, I rewrote the lead section so that the first sentence answers the question "What is it?" without reference to black holes. This isn't the place for discussion of the term's history, but rather needs to introduce the concept as it is - so there should be no mention in that sentence of what it "originally" was. I mentioned black holes in the following sentence, so alongside that you could briefly mention other types of event horizon, particularly the cosmic event horizon (also link to Cosmological horizon which covers a number of related, but mostly separate concepts). The paragraph that says things approaching the horizon seem to slow down and get redshifted should be moved if it doesn't apply to non-BH horizons, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if it does. Hairy Dude (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The cosmological redshift suggest the seemingly slowing down near cosmic horizon, but I am not steeped in apparent horizon of an accelerated particle. Yoxxa (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yoxxa: Incidentally regarding that preprint I objected to: I searched for it elsewhere and it turns out it actually was published in a journal, which I assume was peer-reviewed since I got the citation from ResearchGate. I've completed the citation, along with another couple of bare-URL arXiv citations that got added since. Note that there's still a paper by Stephen Hawking cited only as a preprint (it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere), but WP:SPS gives an exception for "acknowledged subject-matter experts", which of course Hawking was (and it also has over 100 citations so lack of formal peer review doesn't seem to be an issue in this case). Hairy Dude (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox organization#More parameters. Italawar (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(I think that) you have flagged citation no 7 as not being specific enough - I have now corrected this and would be grateful if you could confirm and remove your comment.

There is also a more general comment "This section relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this section by adding secondary or tertiary sources". I don't know whether you added this, but I am unclear to what this is referring (and hence how to correct it)

[I have only updated the first 3 paragraphs of the History, being the earliest years of the society]

Baddun (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thank you. I've removed the ((nonspecific)) tag as your edit has made that source much more verifiable (it doesn't matter that I can't verify it myself). By primary source I mean, as defined by the article, a source "that was created at the time under study", such as the contemporary newspaper articles. They can be problematic if they are used to support historical analysis in a way that constitutes original research, but they're allowed on condition that no such interpretation / synthesis is done based on them. I don't see that in the article, so my adding that tag was a bit overzealous; I've removed it. What is still a problem, though, is the two sources with dead links that I couldn't find archive copies of, since they are unverifiable. Hairy Dude (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello HD. Thank you for all your work on the 'pedia. I want to ask you on behalf of all of us who work on fixing bare urls to please not use the "bare-url-inline" template as you did here There are several frustrating things about them for us. First, they are difficult to find on even a small article let alone one that size. Next, when an article has numerous bare urls placing the ((Bare URLs)) template at the top of the article saves both you and us time. You only have to use it once and that keeps us from having to remove the inline ones manually, one by one, when we are finished adding the cite templates. Almost inevitably we miss one or more of the inline ones and then we have to go back and find them. Perhaps, most importantly, they do not allow access to refill the way the regular template does. We only have to click on the word refill in the normal template while copy/pasting has to be done with the inline ones. If you can see your way clear to help us out with this it will be much appreciated. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @MarnetteD: Thanks for your feedback. Perhaps you could repeat it at Template:Bare URL inline/doc? It would have helped to know this rationale to avoid annoying the people it's supposed to help. :) Hairy Dude (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply and the suggestion. I never thought about leaving a message there (facepalm) but it can only help.Cheers and have a nice weekend :-) MarnetteD|Talk 15:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again. i know long used editing habits can be hard to get out of :-) If you can start a new habit where you put ((Bare URLs)) at the top of the article it will be much appreciated. Stay safe and well HD. MarnetteD|Talk 21:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only added one. I can't see how removing just one can be terribly onerous? Are you entirely opposed to the existence of this template? Hairy Dude (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please remember that refill can't be accessed with that template. Also, I still have to search through the whole article to find the one ref. When I'm working on twenty or more articles (the usual amount at the start of my day) getting slowed down by these is a drag. Using the basic ((Bare URLs)) at the top of the article solves all of that. It would be preferable if this template was gone but I haven't taken the time to start a TFD. If you can't help out than so be it but, rest assured, if the positions were reversed I would be glad to make your work here easier if I could, Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 17:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One followup. As you can see when I ran refill there were three bare urls that were fixed including the one that you had marked. Other editors who work on fixing these might have only worked on the one you had marked so, again, the basic taf at the top of the article is preferable. MarnetteD|Talk 18:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I edit these days almost exclusively on mobile. Unfortunately it's not possible to edit entire articles without switching to desktop view. Is it OK to put it at the top of a section instead? You might also want to raise this as an issue with the developers of the refill tool since this seems like an obvious thing it could do automatically. Hairy Dude (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Top of section is not optimal but much better than the inline tag you are currently using. I can scroll to the top of a page to place a template no matter what device I use and no matter where I see a bare url. Refill has no developers at this time and works just fine with the tag I've mentioned. Thanks for taking the time to read all of this even though you disagree with my information. MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, I just twigged this, and reverted myself accordingly. Thanks. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Hairy Dude. The US military uses dmy format for dates, and by convention Wikipedia does also in military articles. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I just twigged this, and reverted myself accordingly. Thanks. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you posted the letter as a web page, you could then link it as an External Source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GwydionM (talk • contribs) 07:14, May 28, 2020 (UTC)

It's your source, so that's up to you. Hairy Dude (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With this edit, you wrote this: ((lang|gtk-Latn|ouk didaskein oude authentein)) → [ouk didaskein oude authentein] Error: ((Lang)): unrecognized language code: gtk (help)

gkt?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trappist the monk: Thanks for the catch. It's a typo; it was supposed to be the ISO 639 code for ancient Greek, which is grc (not grk, as a well-meaning anon changed it to). I've fixed it now. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Caucasian Albanian catholicoi 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/ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Hey, I saw your formatting edits to comparative illusion (thanks for those!) and I wanted to ask-- is the markup you're using capable of keeping a counter for example numbering? Or could you think of hacking together a way of doing so? (A lot of the linguistics articles currently use really crappy formatting and a request I made on phabricator hasn't gotten any replies.) Botterweg14 (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Botterweg14: In theory, one might define a custom CSS counter to do this. To present the numbers you would define a style for the list set using the :before pseudo-class to override the default numbering with your own choice of counter variable, which wouldn't be reset on every new list like the standard counter is. Unfortunately the Wikipedia list templates don't let you define such styles (only the <li> element itself with the |item-style= parameter); and even if they did, I don't think there's a way to refer to them with automatic renumbering like you'd be able to do trivially in LaTeX. That said, I'm not a CSS expert so maybe I'm missing something. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, bummer. I don't know CSS at all but I might see if I can learn a bit at some point, just in case. At any rate, thanks for the thoughtful reply! Botterweg14 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and thanks for your recent edit to German Empire. In the future, if English Wikipedia is missing an article which exists on de-wiki (or some other foreign Wikipedia), please use the ((ill)) template instead, to expose the beneficial WP:Red link as well as have the blue link to the foreign article at the same time. Having a direct link to a foreign Wikipedia can be problematic per WP:SURPRISE and H:FOREIGNLINK. See the edits subsequent to yours at German Empire for an example. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Mathglot: Thank you, I am well aware of ((ill)) and use it whenever appropriate. What you actually used is ((ill de)) which says it hides the interlanguage link when the local link is blue, but evidently does not (the latter being the correct behaviour in this instance where the English links aren't useful to the reader). I was unaware of the exception to MOS:CIRCULAR, thanks for that. You also removed ((lang)) tags, which improve accessibility, without giving a reason; these automatically apply italics. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Hairy Dude:, Thanks for your comment. The templates ((ill)) and ((ill de)) don't quite say what you think. The wording of the doc could perhaps be improved because the point is subtle, but currently they say: "If the specified article exists, ... this template will only show the blue link to that article..."—the point being, the wording "specified article exists", and not "if the link is blue" (or similar) is an important distinction. That is, it does this only for articles that exist and not for redirects that exist. If you can think of better wording, the doc page is unprotected, and you can just edit it. As for what the correct behavior is, Template:Ill/doc says that the behavior changed in 2016 to continue to show blue links for redirects as well as the bracketed link(s) to foreign article(s), and both templates do that properly, afaict. Cewbot converts blue links including redirects to standard wikilinks, except for circular redirects which it leaves in place.

  Regarding ((lang)) tags, I use them religiously, with the exception of when they're within wikilinks/ill's, because imho it makes the wikicode look squirrely and confusing. I work a lot with translations of foreign articles into English, and I'm aware that some editors already find just using ((ill)) a stretch; add ((lang)) tags into the mix, and they might not use either one. In those cases, I find plain wiki italic markup with '' around an ((ill)) easier to digest and more newbie-friendly, but I won't object if you prefer to change it back to the other way. Thanks again for improving German Empire. Mathglot (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take a closer look at the left hand column at MOS:JOBTITLES. You are obviously mistaken; the instances you capitalized clearly fall into the right hand column since they are modified by determiners etc. Wallnot (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also have to assume your citation of MOS:COMMONNAME, which governs the treatment of species names, is a joke. Wallnot (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 22 October, I changed the article 2020–2021 global chip shortage to use words instead of symbols for percentages, in line with the MOS:PERCENT guideline for non-scientific and non-technical articles. However, on 14 November you changed the article back to using symbols; could you please explain further? The article does document the technology sector, but it is not about the chips themselves, but about the shortage of them. It is therefore not a technical article, but rather an economic history one. Zarex (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I did it because I feel it looks better. I was unaware of that part of the MOS; thanks for bringing it to my attention. As my edits seem to be against consensus, feel free to revert them. Hairy Dude (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Hairy Dude, note that when you ((block indent)) a formula, like in Special:Diff/1058936418/1058942487, the formula can no longer be edited in VisualEditor. Please use <math display="block"> </math> instead. Thanks, Ponor (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, that's unfortunate. Thanks for letting me know - I'll do that from now on. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles about labor strikes that are described by an adjective phrase, such as “textile workers”, should not be moved to a title that has the possessive form, “workers’”. The names of the strikes do not signify possession by the workers. Therefore, the correct article titles do NOT contain apostrophes. Please stop moving them. Jeff in CA (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good morning Hairy Dude. You who have knowledge about init could you help with editing the article s6 (init) to get it accepted. Since I think init s6 is very important in Linux environment. Thank you very much --Rstmnq1000 (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howdy, I see you edited Pavel Sivakov and changed the way listing is done stating "fix invalid nested lists". Can you point me to where it says this is invalid? The bullet points are unnecessary and clutter an already un-bulleted list. As per the consensus decision at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Standard cyclist biography#Major_results the :: is the correct way to do it. Cheers, Paulpat99 (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This is a question of the HTML that MediaWiki generates. Per the HTML specification, description lists must consist of zero or more groups each of one or more terms (marked up in MediaWiki with a leading semicolon) followed by one or more descriptions (marked up in MediaWiki with a leading colon). Using only colons produces only descriptions, which is invalid because the terms are required. Probably you should be using unordered lists instead, perhaps unbulleted lists (see ((unbulleted list)) and ((plainlist))). Hairy Dude (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After seeing your edit on BarBara Luna, I replaced the citation to The Times-Dispatch with a citation that includes a link that allows a reader to see the cited page without having a subscription. Unfortunately, sometimes editors fail to use the "clipping" feature at newspapers.com, and the result is the limited access that you noted in your edit summary.

Reading the cited article brought up another concern, however. It mentions "Twelve-year-old Barbara Luna", which is not sufficient to be a source for her date of birth. At best, it could support use of a "Birth based on age as of date" template, which would give a birth year of 1936/1937. I can't see anything in the source for the adjacent citation to support March 2, 1937, as her date of birth, either.

Am I missing something? Do you see anything that documents March 2, 1937, as her date of birth? Eddie Blick (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Teblick: Thanks for the clip. I have no idea how reliable the famouspeopletoday.com source is – gossip sites aren't exactly renowned for their fact checking. This particular site boasts about its fact checking but doesn't cite any sources. It's worse than that, though: her entry on Memory Alpha gives a DOB of 2 March 1939. Memory Alpha is about as reputable as fan wikis get, but it's still not acceptable as a source itself given that it consists of user-generated content, and none of its sources are reliable and verifiable (the one that might be reliable, a 1989 issue of Starlog magazine, is available on archive.org and doesn't give her DOB). So there is a contradiction and seemingly not one we can resolve with reliable sources. Taking WP:BLP into account I'd remove the DOB claim. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks for your feedback. I have replaced the date of birth with the "Birth based on age as of date" template. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place ((subst:Dobos Torte)) on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your significant conributions... Keep it going! Volten001 ☎ 16:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw this edit note from you: "(((block indent)) rather than abusing invalid deflist markup).." As a rampant abuser of something that is apparently "invalid" (whatever that means), I apparently need to change my ways. Maybe you can help by expanding or rephrasing your concern? Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi Smokefoot. See MOS:INDENT and MOS:INDENTGAP. A leading colon is part of description list markup: it is the "description" part of a description list item. It is translated into HTML as a <dd> element, which is also given an enclosing <dl>...</dl>. Per the HTML spec, it is only allowed to appear after the "term" part of a description list item (encoded in wiki markup as a leading semicolon, which translates to HTML as <dt>). This is one sense in which it's invalid: it produces HTML which will fail validation. Another sense is that its usage for indentation is semantically incorrect and causes screen readers (assistive programs used by blind people) to announce a description list – exactly what you wrote, but not what you intended. Hope this helps. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your edits to correctly cite foreign language references. I searched the wikipedia for a guideline or policy for the correct format but couldn’t find it. Could you direct me to the right place so I have it in future?

Thanks for helping me improve my editing to better contribute to Wikipedia.

Happy editing! :) Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 00:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 14 December 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year!

Hairy Dude,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reference to this change of yours: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TeX&diff=next&oldid=1129510553, I understand your desire to see a better way to delineate parts of lists, and I wish it worked the way you did it, but in English semicolons don't have this function when used in a comma-list. I won't bother undoing your edit to force the issue, since it is not a major grammatical error, but I just thought you should know. Comma-lists only use commas, even in the presence of adverbial phrases, which also use commas. David Spector (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uh, yes they do. Hairy Dude (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Can you be more specific? I make a lot of edits and it's hard to know which one you're referring to. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a heads-up: your recent edit to the lede to remove a MOS:REFERSTO left the ungrammatical construction "is any of to a family". Could possibly be rephrased as "Sodium carbonate (...) is the inorganic compound Na2CO3 and its various hydrates.", rather than calling it a "family". 2600:4040:A05A:8B00:6C99:B41B:D04D:5199 (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm not an expert on the topic so I was careful to preserve the meaning. The new wording is something I couldn't have written because I lack expertise. But it reads a lot better, thank you! Hairy Dude (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh yeah, sorry about that. I was misreading things. So, it's been over a year since that preprint came out. I did a search on the paper's title and there is still no formal publication. We generally shouldn't be using preprints. There are two places that cite the preprint. Might be better to cite one of those instead. Further, I think we should remove it from the lede and put it down in either Evolution or Characteristics. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Could you please link to the (Wikipedia) article you're referring to? Hairy Dude (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Acadianraider (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re to I386 article with source from Intel publication. They changed the magazine tile from Solutions to Microcomputer Solutions between July 1987 and November 1987. Rjluna2 (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit clearly went the wrong way - the article has always used BC/AD, as in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hairy Dude

Hi, I am user Bookku. On wp usually I focus on content expansion in information gap areas. English not being my first language, I am dependent on help from copy editors.

One of my recent draft User:Bookku/Indian sceptre is in very initial stage and I am looking for some preliminary copy edit help for the same. Requesting your preliminary copy edit help as per your own convenience.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bookku: Hi, sorry I didn't see your message until now. I'll be sure to check out your draft when I get a chance. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, would look forward to your help as and when you get time. Bookku (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Right to be forgotten, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi – in this edit you added the ISBN 978-0982018569 using accept-this-as-written markup and wrote "ISBN given by Amazon is invalid" in the edit summary. I removed the markup because as far as I can tell the ISBN is valid and correct (see e.g. Google Books) – just wanted to check with you in case I missed what's wrong with it. Joriki (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Chola Empire, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Russell Brand, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed this edit with this edit summary: "don't break up the list with paragraph breaks"

Since it makes no difference in the actual appearance, why do you take that position? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See MOS:LISTGAP: it is for accessibility reasons. You may not see much difference, but it sounds very different (and wrong) to a blind person using a screen reader. Also, it's not true that there is no difference: there is a subtle difference in spacing, at least on mobile. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Tattoo (Star Trek: Voyager), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page News International phone hacking scandal, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Pineapple, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Marketplace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Bazaar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Brusquedandelion. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Labile verb have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was simply an honest mistake, which per WP:Vandalism is not in fact vandalism. Discussion at Brusquedandelion's talk page. Hairy Dude (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sophie Duker, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]