User talk:Incompetence/Archive 1

Eddy currents
Hi, thanks for contacting me. The section in the previous form was quite wrong with this skin depth thing. I corrected it now. --Zureks (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)
Would you please stop the edit-warring at Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)? The article has been protected twice now, and twice you reinserted the link once the protection was lifted or has expired. An unprotection does not mean you're allowed to resume your edit-warring. The entire point of protection is to get people to use the talk page instead, so please, use it and leave the article alone for now. --Conti|✉ 07:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Conti. Consider this a warning, if you continue such disruptive editing behaviour combined with incivility on talk pages you might find yourself subject to a block. Polyamorph (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC statement
Hey, I have altered the initial statement of the RFC you started. My main reason was you specifically asked users to vote and optionally provide a rationale, which is not how RFC works. Yoenit (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Incompetence, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Jdrewitt (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

MurmurHash
I believe that you were mistaken in recreating the deleted section. As a previous editor pointed out, all non-cryptographic hashes are known to have pathological input sequences that lead to a high collision rate. We do not mention this for similar hashes, so we should not mention it for this one, as it makes it sound as if this is some sort of defect that is unique to MurmurHash when it is ubiquitous for its class of functions. In fact, our own sources show that this behavior is not an issue in the real world.

The first says, "Will this flaw cause your program to fail? Probably not - what this means in real-world terms is that if your keys contain repeated 4-byte values AND they differ only in those repeated values AND the repetitions fall on a 4-byte boundary, then your keys will collide with a probability of about 1 in 2^27.4 instead of 2^32." As you can see, the data would need to meet all three criteria, and even then, this just degrades performance somewhat.

As our second source shows, the hash would only yield a high rate of collisions under completely unrealistic conditions that are intentionally pathological. We also failed to link to that author's improved variant.

For all of these reasons, I encourage you to keep that misleading section deleted. 208.80.104.2 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring
You have been reported for edit warring in reference to the article Jet engine. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Tag warring
Kindly stop this. WP:LEAD supports a longer lead: the tag helps to ensure that attention is drawn to this. If you are not willing to work on making the lead an adequate summary of the article's key points, rather than an exercise in brevity which does little to explain the subject to anyone not already intimitely familiar with it, then stop hindering the efforts of those who are. I'll be re-adding the tag on my next pass as I continue to work on the article. If you have a deeper problem with cleanup tags then please feel free to make that point in a more central location rather than picking silly fights on individual articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Near and far field
We need better and more constructive criticism than that the near and far field article is "just awful in every way." Sorry. S B Harris 04:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Never said that, although it's not spectacular. No, those particular changes made by an anonymous IP were god-awful, and I stick by that criticism; extremely badly formatted, rather illiterate and unreferenced, and they seemed to have been copied from somewhere, there were weird spaces from somewhere or other.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 04:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Vitamins
That was a lot of work you just destroyed, and all for a definition of "vitamin" that is too narrow to be useful. The wiki page on vitamin defines it as "an organic compound required as a vital nutrient in tiny amounts by an organism. In other words, an organic chemical compound (or related set of compounds) is called a vitamin when it cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities by an organism, and must be obtained from the diet." It says "in sufficient quantities." It does not say "is not synthesized at all". Additionally, Vitamin D is commonly and consistently discussed as a vitamin. I am willing to add a more complex discussion to deal with the greyness that troubles you. I do not want to get into an edit war with you, so please compromise with me. That was really terrible of you to revert all my work.Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a vitamin, and it was deliberately written by other people to avoid stating that it was. Actually the majority or vast majority of most people's vitamin d comes from sunlight.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 14:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that it isn't, I had no choice but to revert you, and it probably wasn't 'really terrible' of me. If you'd done the edits in a different order I would have done a partial revert, but that was impossible in this case.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 14:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyway, your work isn't lost or anything, it's still in the history, and I appreciate you being upset. It might be best if you discuss it on the talk page, and see what others think.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 14:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am all disgusted. But let me swallow that... ok.  So in the intro, this should be dealt with upfront.  That vitamin D is commonly called a vitamin but that under the most rigorous definition of vitamin - a substance that is needed but is not made by the body -- it is not.  But that under a more loose definition as something that causes disease when insufficient amounts are consumed, it is.   Something along those lines but more nicely stated.  I am still all disgusted.  There is a reason that developed nations put it in staples like milk!!  Because we do want to avoid rickets - because before we started doing that, kids did get rickets, because they weren't making or getting enough Vitamin D.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 15:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry I meant to ask that as a question. Would you be OK with it, if I edited the intro to deal with this ambiguity, and then undid your undoings and nuancing what I put back?  I am willing to redo my work but am checking so we don't get into a spat.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Go forth, but edit wisely!- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 15:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Anti-spam_techniques
Please let me know if you plan to help with Splitting Anti-spam_techniques. --Tim (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Carbon fiber
It appears that you are the main contributor to the redirect currently at Carbon fiber. Your last edit summary reads: "at the very least, nearly all internal links use this in the sense of a composite material, not the raw fiber, and it's likely that external references do too."

I have some slight doubts about this. Could you be more specific as to the "external references"? If you do not think that Carbon (fiber) is an appropriate redirect target, should we convert it to a disambiguation page instead? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I find in practice, the common usage of the term 'carbon fiber' is the rigid polymer composite, whereas the more strictly correct term 'carbon fiber' to mean the fabric is rather less common. I don't remember the numbers exactly but maybe 90% of the internal links assumed that carbon fiber is the composite, but I did my best to move the small number that were linked wrong to the right place (a very few weren't clear either way).


 * I find that's also reflected elsewhere, if you google 'carbon fiber' and read the pages, a majority will use it to mean the composite.


 * I don't think that a disambiguation here is worth the hassle, we'd have to use a bot to move all the links to point to the relevant non disambiguation page first, and then do the disambiguation, but then most new links people create would probably be pointing to the disambiguation, and then require correction, it just doesn't seem worth it; the way it is at the moment really is the most common usage, so far as I can tell.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 13:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)