User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (25)

Archived talk: 1 -- 2 -- 3 -- 4 -- 5 -- 6 -- 7 -- 8 -- 9 -- 10 -- 11 -- 12 -- 13 -- 14 -- 15 -- 16 -- 17 -- 18 -- 19 -- 20 -- 21 -- 22 -- 23 -- 24

DysprosiaDysprosia

Sorry
For complaining and being stupid. I've had a bad day :(. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no need. Hope your day improves :) Dysprosia 03:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Image placement
I was not "mucking up" the image placement in History of Australia. There are a wide variety of thumb size/font size/window size/browser combinations out there. As I found it, the two images were close enough that for a range of those combinations, the second image floated down to avoid the first one. This caused the text to be poorly rendered around it. For a few more cases, the text rendered between the images as "On 1", then a vertical white space before the word January could fit on a line next to the second image. I moved one image up as far as it could keep in context, and the other down as far as context allowed. I also expanded the summary paragraphs to provide more text. I considered the possibility of the next heading being indented, but it appeared to look reasonable, and I am not aware of any style guideline that says headings must start at the left margin. The proper solution is to provide more text in those sections too. --Scott Davis Talk 08:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my language, since I was frustrated at the apparent undoing of the layout change which was carefully considered. That being said, the options are a right float and a break in the above section so the images don't "stack up", a left float of some combination, or like you say, adding more text. I know that there is "no style guideline that says headings must start at the left margin", but the article looks awful and inconsistent otherwise. Dysprosia 08:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the layout now to hopefully appease all, please see the article. Dysprosia 08:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thankyou. --Scott Davis Talk 09:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Normal form (term rewriting)
Hi Dysprosia -- I reapplied the change to normal form (term rewriting) that you had reverted, and explained why at Talk:Normal form (term rewriting). Joriki 03:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving an explanation. Please see my reply. Dysprosia 07:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Error Detection
Hi there. Thanks for the tip. I actually do this based on a grad course Ive taken in school. I think the actual topic is better represented in terms of 'Error Correcting Code' rather than a naive/laymans term of error-detection & correction. Hence my choice. I leave it open to discussion.--பராசக்தி 07:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense, actually some SEC-DED codes do exist, that -DONT- correct errors, and ofcourse the obvious parity check. Duh! the same stoopid me..

Obtuse
Hi, why do you think that "who has removed hair from her body" is less obtuse than "depilated"? Isn't it a bit too long? --194.145.161.227 15:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The caption reads better as a full sentence, rather than having a parenthetical "(depilated)" at the end. Dysprosia 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

RTA photos
I don't think the RTA photos should be included as the Wiki foundation doesn't have outright permission to allow redistribution, and distribution on say a CD-Rom would breach the RTA conditions of non-commercial use only.

If possible could you remove it from the sydney harbour bridge article and insert a replacement? It is a good photo and it's a shame though. Maybe you could put some raw html in to point to the RTA website? 02:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please sign your posts. I naturally can't produce a similar replacement since I don't think it's possible to get to that vantage point. There may be other images out there licensed freely, but this would involve a lot of searching.
 * I don't see why I should of my own volition remove the image. The template says that older images are to be put up for deletion, not deleted outright. If the outcome of the deletion decision is for deletion, then remove the image. There is no problem with us having the image on the article so far as the RTA's license requirements are met.
 * Hope this helps. Dysprosia 02:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Objective-C 2.0
I agree that the current amount of information on Objective-C 2.0 is too skimpy to merit its own header, but the section where I would have otherwise made my edit ("Today") trails off into a historical detour. That deserves another edit, but I may not be the best editor for it. In the meantime, I think it's important that Wikipedia acknowledge not just the forthcoming garbage collection feature, but the announcement of the new major version. In any case I migrated the revised text to the "Today" section. I hope you find it less redundant. Shunpiker 17:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's redundant because GC is already mentioned in the article: see the paragraph starting The first versions of Objective-C did not support garbage collection.
 * Apart from this, it is doubtful that "ObjC 2.0" is somehow official versioning and more marketing, and with a lack of information (precisely what syntax enhancements, for example?) on what makes "ObjC 2.0" a 2.0 release, mentioning that ObjC will have GC in OS X is enough. Dysprosia 06:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the announcement of a major version merits a mention. If the versioning turns out to be so much marketing, I hope that the article will be updated to reflect that. Shunpiker 14:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What evidence we have supports an action of prudence. The only significant thing that we know about to the version upgrade that we know of is garbage collection. The article states this, hence stating it twice is redundant. Apple has not given us anything else concrete.
 * The moniker of "2.0" is most likely marketing -- the closest thing to a Objective-C version number is the package name for the Objective-C runtime here. Dysprosia 14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is information available on some of the other features in the upgrade: Check Apple's objc-language Mailing List for a discussion of changes in the publicly available source code. I trust that we're both exercising prudence, whatever our differences of opinion. Shunpiker 03:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't know there was such a discussion -- this is perfect for improving the paragraph. I've done so, with due mention reflecting that nothing really official has been given, but this is analysis of Apple's contributions to GCC. Dysprosia 10:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff! Shunpiker 16:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fountain Pen Hospital - spam
Hello Dysprosia,

Can I ask you a few questions about the message you sent me? I see you pulled off my external links that went back to a page for the product mentioned in the entry. Can you please clarify some of these guidelines for me? I noticed that a dealer was posting an external link to their shop from the "Montblanc pens" entry. I figured it would make sense for Fountain Pen Hospital to do the same thing, so I added a link to FPH's selection of "Montblanc pens" under external links. You deleted the FPH link, but left the other shop's link standing. I'm just curious what was right about that link and wrong about mine. Also, the edits were all individually pointing to the products mentioned in the previously standing entries, so, while I understand it is an ad, is it "spam?"

Just to clarify, I'm not questioning your decision to remove the links, I'm just wondering why other links from other companies remain. --Jakeismoney 17:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming you are responding the message I left for the FPH internet address, you clearly have a vested interest adding commercial links to your own business to Wikipedia. That is unacceptable, see the Wikipedia policy link I mentioned earlier (Spam). If the other commercial links you mentioned were added by representatives of the company that was linked to, they also have a vested interest and those links should be removed also. In certain cases this relationship is difficult to establish, in your case, you edited Wikipedia from internet addresses allocated to the FPH. Dysprosia 07:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: MediaWiki capitalization
I just got really tired of looking at the (Talk | block | Block log | Logs) in someone's contributions and changed those to match. And after that I made them uniform in the watchlists/histories by changing contribs. I'm not going to edit war about it, or even start a large-scale discussion since it's pretty much a non-issue. Thanks for your concern though. - Bobet 07:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is prudent to make it consistent with what already exists on the site, otherwise one has to change every other link around to match the new scheme. In any case, changing "Block log" to "block log" changes the title on the page to "block log", which is unacceptable. One may wish to submit a bug report, if this is an issue. Dysprosia 07:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, which is why changed 'block' to 'Block' (and contribs to Contribs). As far as I know, block only appears on Special:Contributions, Special:Watchlist, and the page histories, contribs in the last two of those. But like I said, it's not an issue that matters in any way in making an encyclopedia, so I won't be doing anything else about it. If no one had changed it back, fine, it would bug me less. If not, no big deal. - Bobet 08:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Addendum since you'll probably have seen the rest already: it's only a bug in the sense that there actually IS a page whose only purpose is to say what text goes somewhere, and have that text be in the same case everywhere, regardless of context. But it's still only a stylistic issue. - Bobet 08:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It might (although I'm not confident about this) get fixed by adding Block (where block is the call to the text at MediaWiki:Blocklink) at the Special:Contributions page, but I really can't find it at Special:Allmessages. If you happen to know where it is, you could try it. - Bobet 14:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ck lostsword's AWB edits
Hi Dysprosia. It's only my second day on AWB, so I'm still unsure of all of the rules and limitations. Thanks for commenting - if you notice me doing anything else wrong, please let me know. Thanks once again. Ck l o stsw o rd|queta!|Suggestions? 11:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Link case
Doh! Add a feature, introduce a new bug! Thank you for the heads up and letting me know before I accidentally stuff up more articles. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 14:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:K&R ANSI C.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:K&R ANSI C.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The main problem is the image is not used in any article. Orphan images are routinely deleted. -Nv8200p talk 18:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You have to argue that, and not any licensing problems, which can be routinely addressed. Dysprosia 04:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Australian War Memorial
ARgghgh someone should've restored that text! Could've saved me half an hour of typing. Oh well. --Sumple (Talk) 10:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Misandry
I probably shouldn't debate you on misandry. The article is abysmal; hence, I should not be so concerned about one sentence. Rintrah 13:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A minor discussion over a minor sentence means that we have at least discussed it, lest the same issue be brought up by someone else. In this, that is an achievement of sorts. Think nothing of it. Dysprosia 14:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. I am pleased I achieved something over our minor discussion. :) Rintrah 01:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Heapsort
Hi Dysprosia. I changed the notation of the pseudocode's runtime to be consistent with the rest of the article since O(lg n) = O(log n) (See Binary logarithm). Vikrum 07:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes of course, but using the binary logarithm is more illustrative since we use a binary heap. But as you say, the difference is only up to a constant, so it doesn't really matter all that much, anyway. Dysprosia 11:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Checkbox.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Checkbox.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. - Sherool (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)