User talk:J-Star

Honeypots
Hey, thanks for the note on honeypots - I wasn't aware of the other usage of the term. :) Kasreyn 21:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Asia Carrera
Could you explain to me what part of WP:BLP covers the removal of the financial info in the Asia Carrera article? You used it as a reason for the removal of that section but it's a pretty big guideline. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 10:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thanks for your response!  I was unaware that I was being such an ignorant piece of crap who dares ask you a question.  My apologies for ever questioning your actions!  I think I'm going to follow your example and go be just as arrogant to someone else as you have been to me.  Dismas|(talk) 07:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I disagreed with the removal of the section. If you can show me where I disputed your edit, please do.  I just asked what part of the roughly 7 page view long guideline you were using as justification to reject it.  Also, you are probably more knowledgable about the guideline since at the time I hadn't even read it and you knew which part of it you were using as justification.


 * I agree that there were some rather thinly veiled accusations of murder. I never disputed that.  (Though I find it intersting that the user aconline, who is supposedly Carrera herself, edited the section without removing the accusations)  If I had the time I'd cut it down to just a few sentences which is basically all it would become after taking the accusations and trivial details out.  Dismas|(talk) 09:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Liebeck
Thanks for looking at the article. I agree with you; I mindlessly conserved the language from earlier drafts. The article was much, much worse a few months ago (worse than the very first draft of the article&mdash;popularly-misunderstood topics are often edited to hell).

Anyhow, I just wanted to give you a note of encouragement. I browsed through your history, and you do good work. Keep it up! Cool Hand Luke 01:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Gun Safety
Um, is there any reason why the extra comments about gun handling the media were cut? Sadly, Hollywood is one of the reasons why quite a few people are dangerously ignorant about firearms (i.e. people who know a lot less about firearms than they think they do). Resting your finger on the trigger of a DA-only or an uncocked DA/SA gun is relatively safe because the trigger pulls tend to be much longer and heavier compared to a weapon in a cocked state. I can't count the number of times I've seen movies where someone cocks a semi-auto gun and then uses the trigger as an ad hoc grip extension. As far as Hollywood's spreading of dangerous misrepresentation of firearm operation is concerned, I think it's VERY relevant to the subject of gun safety. Anecdotally, all of the ranges I've been to (FYI, this is in California) forbid things like headshots and rapid fire because too many people come to the range with 95% of their firearms experience gleaned from Hollywood films and make a mess when they find out the hard way that rapid-firing a .45 is a lot more difficult than it looks.

As far as the section on the importance of keeping the gun pointed in the safe direction is concerned, that's the explanation I was given by the instructor who taught me to shoot, and I fail to see any errors in its reasoning aside from the fact that it could be rewritten in a somewhat less opinionated way (perhaps the nearby bystanders would applaud you for doing at least something right). NDs do happen, but following (or not) the rule of always pointing the weapon in the safe direction is what makes the difference between the bullet making a hole in the floor or dinging the fireplace and the same bullet penetrating several walls before striking your neighbor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.164.78.240 (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
 * You are free to add them again... but I'd prefer if they were in another form than what what posted before. The "alternate 3 rules" were close to the orginal ones plus that they were NRA specific (i.e. not general... the NRA is not the entire world). The only rule not common was that about not loading the weapon until time to use. I myself have never heard of it, I can think of plenty of situations where it doesn't apply, plus that it wasn't in the original article before the 2004 re-write. It clutters up the article.


 * The expanded comment about faulty handling in Hollywood productions adds no value. If Hollywood doesn't understand basic gun safety, why would we expect them to know the difference between SA/DA weapons and the different nuance in risks? And even if they did it doesn't matter ebcause no matter how easy the gun is to fire you should not keep your finger on the trigger so it's a moot point anyway.


 * Adding opinions about which rule is by some concidered more important is also unnecessary and doesn't add anything to the article. All rules should be respected and grading them is counterproductive.--J-Star 16:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Bernoulli's principle
Hi J-Star. I was disappointed to read your recent additions to the sub-heading A common misconception about wings. As well as being aerodynamically unsound your recent additions appear to me to be incompatible with what has been written elsewhere at Lift (force).

I have added my thoughts to the page Talk:Bernoulli's principle under a new heading - "A common misconception about wings". I would appreciate it if you would read what I have written and other linked WP articles, and make any changes you think are appropriate to your recent work. Happy editing. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Demi-Lee Brennan
G'day,

I'm Demi's step father, I just changed the term anti-inflammatory medication to immunosuppressant medication .. you are correct of course in your comments about inflammation, however it's not the common name used for these drugs. We plan to expand this section on Demi with more detail shortly. Cheers Vk2him (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

SAAB vs. Saab
I know it's written SAAB in the report, but this is wikipedia. If we capitalize SAAB in this instance, shouldn't it we do it everywhere in the article? And in the Gripen article itself? And the Saab article? If you take a look at the Gripen homepage, you'll see that it isn't capitalized there. Who's right, Saab or SHK? LarRan (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Has the report been translated to English, or do you read Swedish? Just curious. Nice summary, by the way. LarRan (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm!
I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 09:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

High-level radioactive waste management
What geologic formation where has been stable for 17 million years? Please provide verifiable reference instead of mere profanity. Your comment appears to be uncivil. Please see WP:Civility.

Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is unclear how a study of "The applicability and limitations of the geochemical models and tools used in sumulating radionuclide behavior in natural waters" (the study linked above) demonstrates the stability of any geologic formation for 17 million years. Geochemical modeling of the migration of radionuclides in a future radioactive waste repository does not demonstrate geologic stability.
 * Moreover, discussion in this report of the two sites you mention, Oklo and Cigar Lake, does not demonstrate stability of any geologic formation for 17 million years. The discussion of Oklo does discuss "fracture fillings," and fractures are a pretty good indicator of historic instability, not stability. The discussion of Cigar Lake suggests the geologic structure there may have been somewhat stable for a period of 10,000 years, but not 17 million. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, you appear to be pushing POV. Please try not to be insulting. It's uncivil and may get you blocked from Wikipedia. See WP:Civility. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)