User talk:SlipperyHippo

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, SlipperyHippo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Friday (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

well thank you so much for welcoming me personally.

Headers

Making headers such as this is not neccessary. See the manual of style for more info. Friday (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh i see! thanks

You might want to have a look at the manual again. The header you added here is also not an improvement in my opinion- you're leaving the lead section of this article much too short. See Wikipedia:Lead section. Friday (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK How long should it be?

Wikipedia:Lead section has suggestions on length as well as content. Friday (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK thanksd ill read that.

Have you read this yet? I see you're still doing things like this, which, again, renders the lead section of the article way too short. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please do take some time to come up to speed on the manual of style. Friday (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah found it

Length

The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than three to four paragraphs. The following specific suggestions have been proposed:

< 15,000 characters	medium size	> 30,000 characters
one or two paragraphs	two or three paragraphs	three or four paragraphs

For the planned Wikipedia 1.0 (a static version of Wikipedia distributed on CD, DVD, or paper) one recommendation (not currently implemented) is that the articles will consist of just the lead section of the web version. Summary style and news style can help create a concise intro that works as a stand-alone article.

Trouble is, doesnt say how long a para graph is. i suppose thts left up to the editor?

Want more guidance?

By the way, I'm not trying to be bothersome with the pointers to the manual of style, it's just something I hope all new users take the time to read. You may also be perhaps interested in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User if you're looking for guidance from more experienced editors. Friday (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help-- if you just point e to the right pales I can figure it out - i think!.--SlipperyHippo 00:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You may also be interested in the "trifecta", an explanation of how to do things here. It's sorta a simple version of the "rules", as much as we have rules. Friday (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Church of GOD in Jesus Christ

Hey buddy, I notice you're a pretty new editor here at Wikipedia. I'm not so new (about 18-20 months now) and I wanted to welcome you. You did a good job at "being bold" as you so stated, and, with some practice, you could easily become a prolific and well-written editor. I have many ideas and suggestions, but I am sure you have become overwhelmed with what to do here at Wikipedia and comments, so if you need help let me know! Best wishes...Jmlk17 10:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much. All I wish to do initially is to try to give some structure to the articles to make them a lot more appealing to the eye so that people are drawn into reading them and can find the specific info they want without having to wade thro a mass of text

Be careful when adding headers

Please be careful when adding headers to articles. In this edit, you again left the lead section of the article much too short, as well as leaving a sentence fragment hanging there. Please see Wikipedia:Lead section for a guide on how we want lead sections to be. Friday (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. "Description" headers like you added here aren't generally needed either- the lead section should be an overview of the topic. In general, if you end up with a section that's only one or two sentences, it probably doesn't need to be in its own section. Friday (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the manual of style, please take it up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of style. Friday (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK Thank you who did that!

Howard School

Good job on the school clean up, I finished it off. By the way, I'm not surprised that 88.110.114.112 was blocked, there are a ton of vandals in that domain, just look at 88.111.11.31 (talk · contribs) and 88.110.129.180 (talk · contribs)! Is that the school IP you are working from? Or just bad luck? 8) David D. (Talk)

No Im not at school. Just happened to be the same (dynamic) IP at the time--SlipperyHippo 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bummer about the IP. I see you met tubenutdave and you seem to be doing good stuff with your honeymoon period. David D. (Talk) 06:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Honeymoon? Yes Im interested in good layout, headings, grammar etc and I happened to come across the valve amplifier series. I have done some previous reading on electronics amplifiers and the articles needed a little tidying after tubenut daves excellent effort in writing them. They seem to be quite good now, dont they?

I normally just pick random articles to improve if I can, rather than stick to a few.

Thanks for your interest.--SlipperyHippo 18:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In general newbies are given some leeway as they get used to editing, hence the honeymoon. For some it lasts for milliseconds, others might get a good year under their belt. Inevitably you'll piss someone off, sigh, I'm currently in hot water with a user since I suggested their edit summary was rude. Apparently that was rude to point out s/he was rude. You get the idea. So long as you stick to electronics and stay of the religon and politics you'll probably be fine. Most important rule is have fun. Second most important rule is not too much fun. Third is (inert your favourite pithy thing here) 8) David D. (Talk) 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see. Well, I'll try not to get into any arguments. I certainly think its a good idea to stay off politics and religion (they dont really interest me anyway) I wont be getting too deeply involved in any thing controversial -- Ill just try to stick to general improvements on the random articles that come up. Thanks for the advice~!--SlipperyHippo 18:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Computer problems (copied from ref desk page)

What are the comparative advantages/disadvantages (apart from price) of dedicated servers (espthe new HP device soon to come out running Microsoft Server softwware) over just attaching, say, a 300G ext HDD to my current 2.3 GHz computer. Thanks--SlipperyHippo 20:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to NAS when you talk about servers? Johnnykimble 21:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No i dont think so. Thats the first I ve heard of NAS! I was talking about this new thing thats coming out Q2 this year made by HP (or another computer configured as a server). My 'network' will be my (DELL)workstation and my 'server' only--SlipperyHippo 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case then, unless you do have gigabit Ethernet and given it is only you and 'it' on the network, I'd go for an external USB Hi-speed drive instead. As GB mentioned, your expansion options are enhanced with a server, but if you're going to be accessing it a lot, you should see benefits of the much faster connection via USB. Johnnykimble 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No I dont have GB ethernet (only 100Mbps LAN cards). THank you for your advice (its cheaper too!)--SlipperyHippo 22:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

With an external disk server you have a lot of growth capacity - you can add many of the boxes to get a huge amount of storage. The servers can be easily shared between many users, and will have more reliability and up time than an average home PC. You PC will not have capacity to plug in many disks. If you have a gigabit ethernet on your PC and server you can get high throughput, comparable to USB connected drive.

Disadvantage will be more boxes to turn on or go wrong when the power fails, more noise and heat output, more complex to set up, more space and power points required. (A USB drive may need a powerpoint too) GB 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC) I don't know anything about the new HP drive. GB 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't gigabit Ethernet offer a theoretical doubling of throughput versus the USB drive? I think though if the spec of the data storage server is the same as the one mentioned in SlipperyHippo's previous question, achieving this might be difficult. Johnnykimble 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically, yes. In practice, a hard drive is not fast enough to saturate either a USB2 or GigE connection in sustained transfer. --Carnildo 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A SCSI drive could in practice saturate it though couldn't it? Although this is probably way beyond what SlipperyHippo had in mind for a data storage server. Johnnykimble 23:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes: the other thing I should have said is that I have a large amount of data (~ 10G ) on my other drives in the non working 'server' at present and I would really like to make this data accesible to my workstation again somehow in whatever new configuration I choose. Thats why I was interested in the new HP server system (which I cannot find the link to at present). On that system I believe you can plug in any old drives and they become available on your 'network'. --SlipperyHippo 23:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

SCSI's no different: sustained transfer rate is limited by the mechanical design of the hard drive. Now, a RAID 0 array could saturate the connection, or a RAID 1 array with the correct access pattern, but no single hard drive is fast enough to. --Carnildo 21:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Headings

I don't think you are. Someone might notice. Friday (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to elucidate? I am User:SlipperyHippo -- I create headings! Is that a low profile?--SlipperyHippo 01:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just be cautious tho. If someone were to notice an old editor getting up to their old silliness, it may bring scrutiny to the whole situation, and I think that's best avoided, eh? Friday (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am SlipperyHippo. I create headings and edit a small number of electronics articles because it is my hobby. I do not intend to stray from these areas, although I have asked a few question on a reference desk lately. I presume you may think I am someone else? Im not--SlipperyHippo 15:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Stockmar

I'd be interestied in any comments you may have on my remarks on your deletion in the article (on Talk:Christian Friedrich, Baron Stockmar. - Nunh-huh 22:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied on that talk page--SlipperyHippo 23:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Headings

Hi. Just a note. I don't qute agree with your headings at Essential singularity and other articles. Ideally, I'd think that headings serve to break down long text and to summarize accurately what the text is about. You tend to add a lot "Explanation" as a heading, but this is too informal in my view, and does not reflect accurately what the given section at Essential singularity is about (it should have been "Definition", for example. It does not read well at Inharmonicity either. I'd suggest you add headings only to long articles which need them, and that the headings be chosen so that they are formal and reflect well the article. You can reply here if you have comments. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I ve changed those headings you have mentioned. I agree athat not all my hedings are perfect, but I think in the case of a large mass of text, that any heading is preferable to no heading. They can, after all, be altered to something better. I also agree that 'Ideally, I'd think that headings serve to break down long text and to summarize accurately what the text is about'. Thats what I try to do. :-)--SlipperyHippo 07:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have any other comments about my headings not being quite apropriate, I would be pleased to hear them. I can then reconsider them.--SlipperyHippo 07:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Just a last note. I feel that "Explanation" is not a good heading, and it should not be used (it makes an article look like an answer key, or something. I'd suggest you use more specific headings. And also, again, headings should not be over done. Sometimes a short article reads better without any headings, for short articles headings just interrupt the flow of thought. Anyway, these are some things which work for me. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed 'explanation' is often not quite the right word (sometimes it is) an I use it where other standbys are even less appropriate. You might call it a place holder for a better word.

Amongst the words I tend to use for the first major para after the lead is:

• Explanation
• Description
• Introduction
• Early life and education (for biographies)
• Outline
• Background
• History
• Overview

I agree that most very short articles do not need headings (unles of course they are going to become long article in which case some structure has been previded by the heading.) Where heading become appropraite, is, i feel, going to be a matter of personal taste.

If you have any words that I could add to the above list, I would be most grateful to learn them.--SlipperyHippo 17:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I think that all the headings you suggest are very good except for the 'explanation' one (unless one really has a puzzle in the previous paragraph and now we get to the point where it is explained). I think "overview" and "outline" are nice headings for example. Anyhow, we agree. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Cavaliers (historical)

no, it just needs attention from someone with common sense

Expert tag restored. Much of it comes verbatim from some archaic, crap, biased encyclopedia...

"the people, who had been long imbibing the spirit of liberty in their forest home, at last rose in rebellion against the tyranny of their cynical old governor

... and needs expert historical input to edit toward neutrality. Tearlach

UP 2 U! I defer!--SlipperyHippo 00:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

Sorry Light current, but you apparently can't resist going where you're not welcome. I have blocked you indefinitely. Friday (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont know what you are on about. I am Slipperyhippo, why do you call me lite currant? --SlipperyHippo 21:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Abiding by the rules?

So which of the following allows you to block me?:

The primary purpose of creating any block is to protect Wikipedia and its editors and users from harm. The following list includes the most common grounds, however note that the block reason not being on this list is not in itself a reason to unblock. If blocking for a reason not listed, be sure to note it on WP:ANI for sanity-checking.

Protection

A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. Examples include (but are not limited to):

• Personal attacks which place users in danger (See Wikipedia:No personal attacks)
• Persistent personal attacks
• Posting personal details
• Persistent copyright infringement

--SlipperyHippo 16:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)