User talk:Download/Archives/2010/October

Hey
Well, it looks like we've done it! Remember your post here? It took us a few years, but there's no more backlog there + I intend to keep it that way. Anyway, cya around! Netalarm talk 07:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Heroic bloodshed films
I think you made a good call in bringing this to CfD. At best, this is a small sub-cat, and, as such, may not be justified. Already, there is ample evidence of it being populated with films that are not at all appropriate. This subject matter is a bit outside my bailiwick, so there is only so far I can go in removing films from the cat., but I know that Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, etc., do not belong. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 18:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting! I am also not very knowledgeable about the topic but I'll try to help remove some films that definitely don't belong; maybe some that aren't from Hong Kong.   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  23:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition in the main article is very specific, so that should help. The article also has a list of films, though I am not sure how useful that is, as there are no references provided for that list.  At best, this should be a sub-cat. of Hong Kong films, or something to that effect. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  01:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Pith, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. I n k a 8 8 8 Contribs Talk  01:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like you accidentally reverted my own revert of the vandal. Anyhow, thanks for helping fight vandalism!   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  01:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry about that, it looks like you reverted it less then a second before my revert finished so Igloo did not register that you reverted it first.  I n k a 8 8 8 Contribs  Talk  01:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Your two edits you reverted is not vandalism.
These two edits you reverted a not vandalism because: this edit you reverted was by a user who used his alternate account and this edit you reverted by a user who blanked the page because he's the author and he blanked the page so it could be deleted.  Wayne Olajuwon  chat   22:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that! I have added these two users to my whitelist.   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  22:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's okay because I reverted those mistakes.  Wayne Olajuwon  chat   23:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

hmm...
Rixfdsfggsdfchard S. Friedman is not a name. Richard S. Friedman is a name. So why did you revert my revision? I n k a 8 8 8 Contribs Talk  21:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, Inka! Probably another compatibility issue between Huggle and Gloo again..   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  21:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I was just wondering. I n k a 8 8 8 Contribs  Talk  21:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

why are you restoring vandalism?
radek (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why I've already done this twice today, but I'm definitely not doing it on purpose. I'll point out this double reverting issue on the feedback page for Huggle, as normally it shouldn't allow reverting after ClueBot or someone else has already reverted.   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  21:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Another one Sjock (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Huggle's been screwing up on me lately that's why I'm using IGLOO. I n k a 8 8 8 Contribs  Talk  23:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You reverted edits which are not vandalism
Thanks, Steff --78.157.4.236 (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I recently pointed out a mistake in the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homothetic_center. You reverted my edit. I don't know your level of math knowledge, but if you need to, please contact someone who actually knows maths and please edit the mistake in the paragraph "Pairs of antihomologous points lie on a circle". The triangles mentioned there ARE NOT SIMILAR! (the picture on the left is also WRONG!)
 * I vaguely remember learning about this, though I'm not sure how it's wrong. The proof seems to match up, however, with the image.  Feel free to edit the article yourself, instead of just writing that it's wrong in the body.  Also, welcome to Wikipedia!   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  23:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have contacted MC10, who might have some knowledge on the topic. Again, feel free to edit the article yourself or discuss the issue on the talk page.   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  23:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to alert other people that the content is incorrect. I was using that information and spend 1 hour wondering what i am doing wrong in a math problem, when finally i understood that there is a mistake in the article (and the picture). i don't have much free time now, but i'm going to try and correct the information there. Steff--78.157.4.236 (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for pointing it out! I have placed the Disputed-inline template on the page to note that it may be incorrect.   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  23:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed the text. The aforementioned triangles were technically not similar; their vertices were written in an incorrect order. I'm not sure what's wrong with the image; it seems fine. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  02:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Even with the vertices rewritten, the triangles are not similar (visually close, but not similar in the stated sense). I believe the whole section is just plain wrong.  --  Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My two cents. If you don't mind me butting in here, the two triangles pictured are indeed similar as they both have the exact same angles (alpha, beta, and theta). As long as those angles remain the same, the image is "correct", but the image itself may need some work to correct for accuracy (image CLEARLY isn't to scale). In general, While they are flipped and enlarged, the basic geometric principles dictate they are "similar". I'm not really looking too much into the proof right now, but the discussion and image caught my eye.  — BQZip01 —  talk 03:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unhappily, the one angle labelled &alpha; in general is not of the same size as the other angle labelled &alpha;. In this case, the alert of the IP was rather adequate. We should be thankful for this sort of input.
 * Moreover, the mathematics in se is not the issue on this talk page; all of you are welcome to contribute at either the reference desk, or at Talk:Homothetic center. The point here is that, while obvious vandalism should be removed from the reference desk, this should not be done when there is any doubt (and no personal attacs involved; criticism of mathematical content is not automatically personal attacks). Even if the IP had been in the wrong, it would have appeared to be an honest mistake, which then should have been answered by mathematical explanations. At the reference desk, similar rules should apply as for discussion pages, in my opinion; thus, we should be much more careful with removal of the contributions of others, than we are in e.g. the article space. JoergenB (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Download, I now see that indeed it was in the article space, not at the reference desk, you reverted. I had not noted that earlier round. In article space, indeed even correct criticism added with unorthodox lay-out may be reverted. JoergenB (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of your input. The image does not appear to be correct, as Joergen said, since the &alpha; angles are not equal.  Perhaps enlarging &theta; and scaling down circle D will make the image to scale.   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  01:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)