User talk:Hhhippo

hi
u told me that i need an authorization to use the pic that i already uploaded, but how should i proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdrg22 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! It looks like in the moment you can't do much: the file has been deleted over at Wikimedia Commons because of copyright problems, and your account there has been blocked for one week because you kept uploading unfree files after multiple warnings. So you can't upload or edit over there at the moment.
 * In general, if you want to upload an image, you should try to find one which you are sure is free content. This is usually only the case if the website where you found the image explicitly says that this image is in the public domain or published under a free license. All this legal stuff can be quite complicated, so maybe you should take the time to read a bit about it while you're waiting for your block to be over. You can start with the articles I linked here. If you're still not sure what you may upload and what not, you can always ask some experts (I'm not a copyright expert, but you can find them for example at the Wikimedia Commons Help Desk).
 * Of course you can also continue to do other improvements to Wikipedia articles (by 'other' I mean not involving images). Just remember to fill in the edit summary and keep an eye on your talk page and the talk pages of the articles you're working on. There might appear some important messages in case you do something that turns out to be controversial, and then it's a good idea to discuss it on the talk page before continuing. Again, if in doubt, just ask.
 * Happy editing! &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  21:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Physics stubs
No worries, it's a fairly common misconception even among users who've been around here a lot longer than you have. Although in practice the stub templates end up sticking around on a lot of articles for years and years, at least in theory they're only supposed to be temporary maintenance templates that get removed from an article as soon as it's been expanded beyond stub length -- so an article actually needs to be filed in at least one permanent content category in addition to the stub template.

If it helps, another way to look at it is that content categories are meant for the end user to help find topics of interest, regardless of whether they're familiar with all the ins and outs of Wikipedia process and procedure -- while the stub categories are meant for editors to help identify articles that need more work, and aren't really all that helpful to the average reader. So the content category is the one that has to be present, while the stub template is strictly optional.

Categorization is a good overview of our process and procedure if you're looking for additional information. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the fast response reverting vandalism on my userpage. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:Fermi
Hi, Thanks for your understanding. --Civa61 (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Remember we're not yet done with that article though. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  19:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi. Since you gave comments on articles that are currently listed at WP:PR, I was wondering if you could give some helpful comments to Peer review/Cher/archive1? Thanks, Lordelliott (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks for editing sun
Thanks for making the edits to sun based on my queries on the talk page. I just wasn't in a position to make the changes at the time and I knew I would forget ... Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 02:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It was a nice and easy, spontaneous intercontinental collaboration that actually improved the article and made me learn some more on the sun. That's how it should be! &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  10:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!

Request
Hi!

How are you? Hope fine... You reverted an edit by me where I corrected 0.5mm=0.0005m, but you changed it back to 0.00005m... You say 0.0005m is right yet you made it back to the incorrect 0.00005 with five decimal places instead of the correct four... I think you should review your edit again and revert it yourself.

Hope this does not offend you. Thanks in advance.

—Sγεd Шαмɪq Aнмεd Hαsнмɪ (тαʟк) 20:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops, you're right. Sorry for that. I must have looked at the wrong diff somehow. Thanks for telling me. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  20:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Mach-Zehnder interferometer
Hi, thanks for your rating of this article! Back in mid-March, I began making heavy revisions to this article which was then in pretty sad shape, maybe about a "D". Your "C" rating correlates pretty well with my personal assessment of "C/C+". Having a second set of eyeballs is always good. Could you suggest directions I ought to go in further improving this article so that maybe I can push it to the "B" range? Thanks again! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I posted some ideas on the talk page. After reading it more closely, I think there's quite some work needed to get it up to B. So it's great that you got started! &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  12:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions. I've just gotten started with some of the easy stuff. I made the mistake of posting the text into an online plagiarism detector... big mistake of course! It's still chugging away pointing out countless correspondences with Wikipedia as I write this. I've just made a quick check of toolserver for plagiarism detection tools, but I'm not at all familiar with the site and I didn't find what I needed. What do Wikipedians use for detecting plagiarism? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't know. I usually just use Google, probably not the best way. There you can exclude Wikipedia hits, but of course there's many mirrors out there. For an old text it might just not be possible to figure out what's the original, unless you find it in a textbook or other source which can be trusted to not copy from Wikipedia. I just got suspicious since some of the writing style smells a bit like a textbook or lecture notes, and not like the more impersonal style expected in an encyclopedia. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  15:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Heidelberg University
Sorry pal, didn't mean to be mean ;) just go ahead, please Fred Plotz (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh and I don't have a clue what the other stuff is good for... just copied the formatting from other articles a couple of years ago... Fred Plotz (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem :-) I removed some more invalid code that had no effect on the display anyway and would confuse the Visual Editor. The layout of the table is still a bit strange, but I'm not sure what's the standard, if there is any, for such a case. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  18:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! The table is the standard table used by basically all university articles. If you can improve it, just do it. However, this thing seems to be partially edit protected somehow... Fred Plotz (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, can you point me to a few examples? I can't find any right now. I'm also not sure what you mean is protected, the table doesn't involve any template. We do talk about the table in the Rankings section, do we? &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  19:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, we do :D Actually, I can't find it anywhere else, anymore... I think I got it from some UK university back then but obviously they don't use it anymore. "Edit protected" means that I seem to recall having tried to add some other rankings to the table but they weren't displayed. Well, I may be wrong... Fred Plotz (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I found Infobox world university ranking now, indeed not used very much, and it doesn't fit here since it doesn't support national rankings, but one could try formatting the table in similar style. Maybe your protection experience was somehow another side effect of the invalid code in the table. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  20:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Random "Talk: you have new messages" messages?
After someone left me a real talk page message, I stopped getting the fake thing. Perhaps this message will resolve the problem for you as it did for me. Might help if you'd report at VPT what happens after you get this message, especially if the fakes continue. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
Just wanted to drop by & thank you for your suggestions/feedback at WT:Flow – both the comments and the non-shouty tone in which they're phrased are very much appreciated :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! It's good to know that you still manage to fish out suggestions hidden in such an overheated page. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  21:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Electrical Engineering Project
Freshman404 Talk 10:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It is
Now I'm confused (likely because it's after 5 here and my coffee level is dropping). That "it is"… on which page? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh, thanks! BTW, what's your area of interest? I have a whole series of microwave radar articles in the pipeline that I could really use some help on… is that up your alley? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks, Hhhippo...I was going to get to the remaining reverts this afternoon but you beat me to it. Much appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  20:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Long-term abuse - Active
This category is currently part of a larger CFD discussion and categories being discussed for merging, renamed or deletion are not supposed to be depopulated until the discussion is closed. It's okay to add pages to categories under discussion but not remove these category tags from existing pages. Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know. Except for one mistake, which I selv-reverted immediately, I only removed tags that were completely redundant, both regarding the category and the sortkey. No pages were removed from the category. And if the outcome of the discussion is to rename the category, this will now need only a change of the template, but not of the pages transcluding it. This is one of the advantages of avoiding dulicate category tags :-) &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  20:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Toolserver CleanupListing migration
I have volunteered to migrate the CleanupListing tool over at Bot requests/Archive 60. --Bamyers99 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting. I wish I had the time for that myself, but let me know if I can help with something. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  20:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A test run of the new CSV file is available here Physics. The by category list is here. The wiki version is > 2M and too large without splitting so a stub wiki page is updated that points to the html version. --Bamyers99 (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Readdress Tool
Dear User Hhhippo: “Stop putting your name ...” - you did write me. I cannot agree with your definition: “putting your name”: I did not “putting my name”, instead I readdress reader to my data to give him (her)information who am I and what I had created and published else. I am not narcissistic person, what you probably did assume by your sentence: “Stop putting your name ...” and if you insist, I can really stop to help my readers to look easily for my works. However I cannot understand your enormous eagerness to deprive readers of WIKIPEDIA possibilities to make the acquaintance of a biography of Nobel Prize physicist Lev Landau which is dead currently and cannot argue with you. Why? What the reason do you have in this case? Please, analyze your motivations. Sincerely User:E. V. Shun'ko E. V. Shun&#39;ko (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear . “Stop putting your name ...” - you did write me. No, I didn't. I assume you refer to the edit summary of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Langmuir_probe&diff=629544707&oldid=629494831 this edit], which says "Stop putting yourself into the article." As you can clearly see, that edit was made by, not by me. The edit reverted the article back to a revision by me, but the edit was not made by me. When I made that older revision, I wrote the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by E. V. Shun'ko: Sorry, no links to User: space, per MOS:LINK." I highly recommend that you actually read the page I linked, especially the part that says "Do not create links to user or WikiProject pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself." User pages are not part of the encyclopedia, they're among the many pages around it that help us building the encyclopedia. We don't link to any of these pages from article pages. And please, if any of your edits gets reverted, and you don't understand the reason given, don't just make that edit again, but ask (on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user who reverted you).
 * I know who Lev Landau is, thank you. However, I have no idea what biography you're talking about. I have no eagerness whatsoever of the kind you're insinuating, and therefore the result of my analysis is: there are no motivations concerning this matter.
 * P.S.: What is a "Readdress Tool"? &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  19:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear User Hhhippo: I did satisfied with your explanations in all the points excluding the point concerning Lev Landau which I should address probably to according to your reference. Best E. V. Shun&#39;ko (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019
The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)