		The E=MC² Barnstar
		For your extraordinary contributions to Wikipedia reference desks, I award you this EMC² Barnstar. Keep up the good work! deeptrivia (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat 19:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I maynot be qualified enough to award anything but I can surely support the barnstar you got. Good on you mate! you certainly deserve it ... (My IP address is not permanent.) As per your request I put the four tildes. 202.161.131.69 19:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, too ! StuRat 22:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puns and jokes[edit]

Here are some puns and jokes from the Ref Desk:

I don't know if this fits your request, but I was always delighted by the word "predate": to pray upon and to pre-date! --151.51.62.111 (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's actually to "prey upon". Saying "pray upon" would altar the meaning. :-) StuRat (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Can African hunting dogs be bread with normal domestic dogs. Can Australian Dingo's be bread with African hunting dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you ground all those dogs up and put them in a pan with some dough, then cooked for an hour, then yes, they could all be bread together, regardless of how they've been bred separately. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

StuRat, your bias is oozing all over the place. 169.139.217.79 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If I'm equally biased against everyone, doesn't that make me balanced (while simultaneously unbalanced)? :-) StuRat (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Which logical fallacy is inherent in the following argument(putting aside the question of whether either statement is true): "Darwin recanted on his deathbed; therefore the theory of evolution must be false"? 137.151.174.176 (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be the genetic fallacy, meaning that a man's otherwise decent theory is considered inherently specious, based on it's origin. StuRat (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk and unicorns[edit]

Notwithstanding what it may say about me that I haven't written apropos of any of your quality responses to sundry questions posed at the various Reference Desks but that I write now about a jocular comment, I must commend your unicorn leapfrogging entry, about which I laughed a good deal. I should say, of course, that I find msot of your answers to be altogether excellent and that I think excellence in responding to questions at the Reference Desks is to be admired, inasmuch as the Reference Desk is often the first location at which non-Wikipedians encounter Wikipedia and its editors, such that one's being well-treated at the Reference Desk may lead one to partake of the editing work, improving the project writ large. Joe 01:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! And you managed to say it all in just two sentences, LOL. StuRat 01:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(My unicorn leapfrog comment: "Confucius say: The truly wise man never plays leapfrog with the unicorn".) StuRat (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk[edit]

Thank you for pointing out the template on the Ottoman capitals, I guess I was too busy looking for the capitals in the article to notice. By the way, those are a lot of edits you have. | AndonicO 12:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome ! StuRat 12:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh StuRat, Canada stands on guard for thee as we commend you for your incredible selfless robot-like diligence in maintain intergalactic order at RD. I seriously hope you're not getting in shit at work for doing this. I'm not really sure what's happened to all the bot requests, but for the moment I have started laying out a make-shift RD that could be used to transfer the existing pages into a new stream-lined interface once there is a bot willing to handle all of the archiving. After the front page is expanded to include all the rules and stuff, I'm going to add a new RD template to each of the subpages, and see where I can go from there. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. And thanks. StuRat 06:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, I've worked your reference to the previous months archive into the template directly, so it's now a part of the top bar--152.163.100.136 18:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, but is this Fresh ? Just forgot to log in ? StuRat 18:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 01:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, either that or I'm VectorPotential (: The date math in the current version of the template is so twisted I figured I was the only one who would be able to update it at this point (: Even if I am too busy with university work to continue hands-on RD maintenance work -- 172.147.144.217 17:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that date math confused me. StuRat 17:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I have some free time this weekend I'll try and template-ify some of the date math, to make the header less cluttered. Also, there's still one minor glitch concerning the years, sort of going to be a problem once we get to 2007.--172.165.196.210 10:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cool. StuRat 10:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that didn't work, just made it more buggy and over complicated--Molecular Hamiltonian 19:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now it does work, but only with subst--Molecular Hamiltonian 19:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.[edit]

Hey, just a quick thanks for helping with my question on Reference/Science: "In tides, why is the eighth wave always the largest?". You're answer was really helpful. Robinoke 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome ! StuRat 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars[edit]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Sorry this is (very) late, but I had meant to give you a barnstar for your comment at the reference desk a few months ago. In answer to how copper wiring was made you said: "Two thrifty Scots found the same penny at the same time." Thank you for lightening up Wikipedia. \| AndonicO Talk 11:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Och Aye but isnt that a bit racialist these days? Plus if you said that in Glasgow.... well I wouldnt! 8-)--Light current 11:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! I'm partially Scottish myself, and very cheap, so claim the right to make fun of myself. StuRat 12:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so it was you and your brother who found that penny? 8-)

Chianti and fava beans,[edit]

Before you break out the Chianti and fava beans, ...

Well done, StuRat, well done! :-)

Atlant 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics Ref Desk[edit]

Thanks for trying to help me at the ref desk,I'm afraid maths isn't my strong point.Also,it was really kind of you to actually do the problem yourself.I promise I'll read more about maths so that I don't annoy you too much with my silly questions :) Starkidstar 06:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If you'll go ahead and list how you did it I will look for any errors. StuRat 06:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second that. Legolover26 (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XMAS colors[edit]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		When asked why red and green are Christmas colors, you said:"I did have another theory about why red and green are the XMAS colors, but I think it's probably only my family who celebrates XMAS by putting frogs in blenders." I keep wondering how many of these you are going to get... \| AndonicO ^{Talk \| Sign Here} 16:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. But thank yourself too; you earned it, and made me laugh very hard in the process. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, my goal in life is to make everyone wet their pants. (I secretly own the company that makes Depends.) StuRat 17:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, get back into life! ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is "get back into life" their slogan ? I thought it was "good to the last drop". :-) StuRat 18:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that too. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now if it didnt seem like sycophancy or loyalty or something, I would award StuRat with something! Im not sure what yet! Lets wait and see what comes to mind.--Light current 00:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you give him a barnstar; it wouldn't look good if I gave him two in a row. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My respect for StuRat is worth more than a truckload of Barnstars!--Light current 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; I won't say "more than a shipload" because it would seem childish.

What we need is an award for StuRat putting up with gigatons of irrelevant bullshit presented as coherent and sensible argument--Light current 01:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, you mean they aren't coherent and sensible arguments? ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more on RD[edit]

Hi - I hope I didn't offend you with my latest comments on the talk thread. I get the impression you are sincerely trying to find a path to a solution and very much appreciate the effort you're putting into this. Like I say, I'm busy in real life at the moment so don't have (and will not soon have) much time to participate in this discussion. I suspect this whole thing has been quite upsetting for you - please don't give up. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For a funny comment at the expense of Microsoft: "I actually like the name 'Windows' for the O/S, as it accurately portrays how paneful it is to use." I recieved a barnstar for a similar comment so I thought I'd spread the love ⁪froth^{T C} 20:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat 20:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL[edit]

Loved the chicken farmer joke. Bet it is nuked before midnight, though. Gandalf61 18:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would surely be fowl play! Where is it anyway. Post a link--Light current 18:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked the joke, here it is: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Nobel_Prize_Laureate.....28Women.29. StuRat 18:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a copy, in case it gets deleted:

A chicken farmer had a problem rooster that was stressing out the hens with "unwanted attentions" and solved the problem by putting a bell around the rooster's neck to give the hens adequate warning. However, the rooster soon learned to silence the bell by covering it with a wing, allowing him to once again sneak up on the hens. For his study of this amazing example of animal reasoning and learning, a noted professor has received both the "No bell piece prize" and the "Pullet surprise". :-) StuRat 15:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This really is pulling our Leghorns--Light current 19:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy StuRat. It's a cute play on words, but your comment didn't really do anything to help answer the poster's question. Please, take pity on the dial-up users of the Ref Desk. If you'd like to share jokes with other editors, consider using their talk pages or email in the future. Heck, create a section in your user space; I'm sure it would be well-subscribed.

Nobody's going to 'nuke' your remark; it doesn't attack anyone and is unlikely to offend. I'm just dropping in to ask you to remember the purpose of the Ref Desk (it's there to answer questions). If you want to tell a joke on the Desk, try to work some useful information into it—that way everyone is happy. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do try to do that, but this joke was at least related to the topic. I use that as a bare minimum requirement. StuRat 19:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its good to see you have Standards, Stu! 8-)--Light current 19:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.EricR 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for at least notifying me. However, your comment that it was "off topic" is incorrect, as both the joke and topic were on the Nobel Prize. StuRat 23:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to being on-topic on the ref desk than just being vaguely related to the question; there's also the matter of actually helping to answer the question. The ref desk, after all, is for answering questions. -- SCZenz 23:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the question and being on topic are two quite different issues. For example, a request for a clarification is on topic, but doesn't answer the question, just like this joke. StuRat 23:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being on-topic for the page means asking or answering a question, or doing something that works toward answering a question (like a request for clarification). -- SCZenz 23:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a whole new def of "on topic" there, but is this really worth arguing about ? Call it whatever you want, I don't care to fight about it. Let's just agree to disagree peacefully, shall we ? StuRat 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that what we call it isn't important. I think we agree that the reference desk should be used primarily for asking and working on answering questions, at least. -- SCZenz 23:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily, yes. Exclusively, no. Building a sense of community is also important. And, sometimes, that can be facilitated with humor. StuRat 23:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot be serious! [9] 8-)--Light current 23:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicotine Addiction[edit]

Thanks. Your answer to my question about the addictiveness of nicotine at the reference desk was exactly what I was looking for. BeefJeaunt 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and good luck on your report ! StuRat 03:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I THough Nicotine Addiction Was Bad].184.163.238.18 (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentals of marketing[edit]

That was an awesome, AWESOME answer. Anchoress 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat 18:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second that. I just about choked on my coffee, when I saw that and laughed. Nice job!! Antandrus (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and here's a link for those who missed it: [10]. StuRat 18:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Helping Me Out![edit]

Dear StuRat,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question about the equation of a line. I really appreciate it =) Alex Ng 19:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome ! StuRat 20:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

abridged too far[edit]

Hello - irrespective of all the issues all the regular Ref Desk posters are discussing, just wanted to express my appreciation for your most apt replies. "Abridged too far" really made me smile! Wonderful! Happy New Year --Geologyguy 00:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very gneiss of you. (I don't want you to think I'm stoned or anything, I just have quite an apatite for puns, especially puns that rock. If I leave a pun out, I feel like I might gypsum body.) StuRat 01:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF are you talcing about?--Light current 02:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats another one chalked up! Any Moh's?--Light current 02:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're starting to accumulate quite a conglomerate of puns here. StuRat 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No schist! --Geologyguy 03:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No you mean aggregate--Light current 02:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone should get slated for al these terrible puns 8-)--Light current 03:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seams to me that you only have yourself to blame. David D. (Talk) 18:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?--Light current 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look up seam. I guess if you have to explain the pun it doesn't really work.David D. (Talk) 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I lost my apatite, as much as I enjoyed the "abridged too far." It's not that I beryl will to ya'll, but this is too much. Shame there seams to be no article on seam--it's absence diabases the value of Wikipedia. KP Botany 20:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is unseamly. It stings that there isn't even an article on the song We Work the Black Seam; somebody should call the content police. StuRat 20:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chertainly we should mica note of its absense in the disambig page. David D. (Talk) 21:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand mica, but WTFs note got to do with it? Youll have to do better than this on the RDs! 8-)--Light current 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't notice StuRat's change of course? We're now going over a clef with the police in tow. At least we'll get a good view of the strata on the way down. David D. (Talk) 22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought we could double our pun if we bass them on both geology and music. Perhaps I should add another topic so we can treble our punishment ? StuRat 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunite. KP Botany 22:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I shale call that a day. Unless any one thinks otherwise.--Light current 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A stalag mite be the right punishment for bad punners.Edison 23:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalagmites are attached at the bottom and stalactites at the top, so what do you call them if they're attached at both ends ? A mitey-tite, of course. StuRat 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of cuourse one easy way to tell the difference (as one of my old GFs told me) is that 'Tites' always come down! BTW do you get a prize for having the longest pun run?--Light current 01:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Free Beer[edit]

Thanks for the comment on my userpage, the joke got a good laugh out of me at work, which is always good :D Aetherfukz 14:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just try not to laugh while the boss is announcing his goals for the year. (Here's the joke: [11]). StuRat 16:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your puns[edit]

Just wanted to let you know, I think your puns are great! I especially like the one about the vandalism to the Ireland related article raising someone's "ire". Good stuff, dude! Dismas|^(talk) 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ingemar's antics in My Life as a Dog[edit]

Woof woof arf bark whine bark. (Equal parts not wanting to give too much away and being *gasp* a bit of a prude.) Clarityfiend 03:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I have an inquiring mind and I want to know ! For example, does Ingemar prefer Coke or Pepsi bottles ? :-) StuRat 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Desk[edit]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For always making me chuckle at the Ref Desk! Adrian M. H. 19:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat 19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, deserved for the "splitting hares" comment alone. A pun par excellence. Rockpocket 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup. StuRat 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearnstar[edit]

		Bearnstar for a joke so unbelievably lame, it made me laugh
		I wanted to award you a barnstar for making me laugh, but unfortunately it was eaten by a bear. Rockpocket 05:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Does "eaten by a bear" mean it was deleted ? StuRat 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I hope that is a clever joke (or else paranoia really is getting the better of you). No, it doesn't mean that, the link explains. Rockpocket 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, where have you been? I could have done with your support recently when a harmless joke I made was unilaterally removed. Typical, just when I need some inclusionist support, they all go awol. Rockpocket 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to do some actual work (gasp !). Do you have a link to the joke ? Is it too late to support it ? StuRat 01:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, too late, I'm afraid. Actually it wasn't the removal itself that I was bothered with (a joke is a joke, and I'm not about to claim something so flippant deserves to remain if another editor thinks it inappropriate) it was the unwarranted accusation in the edit summary of the removal.

By the way, Loomis is a hair's breadth away from being indef blocked again. I'm lobbying to give him one last chance, though I'm not sure it will carry. I don't know if you have any influence with him, or if you even care, but if you do it really would be helpful if you could impress on him that it he has a stark choice to make. Rightly or wrongly, fair or unfair, this is how it is and he has got to accept that or he will be unwelcome here for an indefinite period. Rockpocket 08:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Incarated"[edit]

Thanks for the chuckle, StuRat. Bielle 23:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome ! StuRat 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hobo etc....[edit]

Thanks for the info, loved the song in the nineties but never realised what it was all about...! SietskeEN 12:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (But it is a lot less decent than I expected it to be... :-O )[reply]

You're quite welcome ! StuRat 13:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you don't happen to understand lojban[edit]

do you?lucid 03:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but then again, I rather enjoy the ambiguous nature of English words, since that allows for the formation of puns. StuRat 03:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way to read a sentence that I had intended to come off as a joke with an extremely serious tone and make a comment about the ambiguity present in the english language, thus forcing me to make a sentence that is completely unambiguous. Until you find a way to point out the ambiguity --lucid 03:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, since you wrote "english" in lower case, you must not mean the language, but rather the term which means "spin" as in "put some english on the ball". Therefore, your comment regards the "spin language", AKA, the language of politicians. :-) StuRat 03:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you play Six degrees of separation, by chance? --lucid 04:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not since Kevin Bacon filed that restraining order. :-) StuRat 04:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your RD work Pheonix15 20:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wunderground.com[edit]

Thanks for recommending Weather Underground in WP:RD/C. Weather.com was killing me on dialup, and http://forecast.weather.gov/ doesn't have the hourly forecast. Wunderground seems to beat the both. What a great site. / edg ☺ ★ 13:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome, glad you like it ! StuRat 13:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wunderground is also one of my favourite sites, and I'm so glad to see it being recommended :) Skittle 12:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Carols[edit]

Here's my own version of two songs:

Winter Wonderland

In the winter we can build a snow man,

then some kids 'll come and kick it down...

We'll ask 'em if they did it,

they'll say "no, man"...

then we'll rub their faces in the ground.

Then we'll sit, and perspire,

as we set their coats on fire...

Then we'll make 'em walk home,

when it's twenty below...

walking through a winter wonderland,

...walking through a winter wonderland.

Silver Balls

People pointing, people laughing,

At the gym and doctor's,

I'm starting to hate...

being naked.

Silver Balls, Silver Balls...

I've taken too much colloidal silver.

Silver Balls, Silver Balls...

I've taken too much, by far.

StuRat (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humour[edit]

		Wikipedia Happy Funnel Award
		StuRat, for your merry contribution at the Refdesk here[12] and brave signs of romantic idealism, I hereby endow you with the Funnel Award to be used very carefully. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! Now if only I can think of something romantic to do with a funnel... StuRat (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will. If anyone can, you will, : )) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) StuRat (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been in extremely good form lately[edit]

As in "Waiting for Mister Right." [13]Edison (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...and if the young, fictional woman who made that comment was criticized for her actions, I suppose she could always turn the other cheek (or perhaps a deaf ear). StuRat (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RefDesk[edit]

Thank you for your response. This has been a really difficult time for my friend and the gang has been having a difficult time consoling him. I'm going to read the article you linked me carefully. Thanks again. --Endless Dan 20:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. You sound like a good friend. StuRat (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

economics[edit]

I enjoyed the conversation over economics. We should have another soon. I did read your article on "diseconomies of scale", and I was impressed by your knowledge on the subject. I need about 20 more hours in the field before I complete my degree. I'd like to run by you some of the advanced elective courses and get your opinion on where my time is best spent.

Thanks

Paul Balfay NiceG3s (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I will also try to convince you that Bush is an idiot. I think you're about the only person who still thinks he was a good President. Amazingly, fiscal conservatives aren't happy with him, due to the massive expansion of the national debt (because of Iraq and little effort to reign in social programs), and religious conservatives are mad at him for not addressing any of their issues, like banning abortion and gay marriage. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Lol'd[edit]

[14]. :) --Sean 13:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx ! StuRat (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're still mr. wonderfull (of toe jam) to me. Only you could pull off having your foot iin your mouth with aplombb. X-) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but when Little Jack Horner embarasses himself, he puts his foot in his mouth with a plumb. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Are you hanging with Cookatoo lately?

I suppose I'll have to, as it's too late to hang with him earlyly. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timbre![edit]

Next you'll be saying that if I edit articles on abbeys in Westmeath, I must yell "fore!" first! :-D --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the rule you want to implement, I'd be happy to abbey, although, I'm sure, others would want nun of it. StuRat (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about a "rule", that seems like process monkery, which is a cardinal sin as you know. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

greenlight a movie[edit]

Thanks for your answer! So if the answer is "studio executives", then who might typically be on this panel who greenlights the project? Would it be the producer and director together? Or maybe some sort of executive in charge of finances? --Sonjaaa (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More of the latter, I would think. At that point in the process the producer and director may not even have been chosen, yet. I would expect a team of accountants would have to OK the pic before that. StuRat (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where you been?[edit]

Hi StuRat, missing you, hope all is well... Julia Rossi (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Julia, and thanks for the kind word. I injured my back and wasn't feeling up to using the computer much (sitting at the chair was painful). It's getting better now, so hopefully I can use the computer at least a bit. StuRat (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! (sorry about that goddorfl pun) of course meaning get well soon. Sorry about your injury and a big one at that. It's so nice to see your post at the ent desk. =) take care, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let that crack slide. Does that mean I'm spineless ? I wish ! Those lucky octopuses ! (Or is it octopi ? ... no, that's a pie shaped like a stop sign, isn't it ?) {Note that I've included a link on "stop sign", just in case Aussie stop signs are shaped like wombats.} :-) StuRat (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's exactly like the ones I ignore over here. ; ) but whenever there's a wombat one, I do take notice. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should start a movement to have all stop signs there changed to the shape of wombats, so Aussies will actually notice them. :-) StuRat (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

haha, good one. Coincidentally I stopped for three ducks crossing today, (and there was a ducks sign). Awww, : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A sign for ducks crossing right where they cross ? I'm impressed. The Aussie road crews obviously have all their ducks in a row... :-) StuRat (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah SR, if you could see our crews, you'd know it was the ducks getting it together, :-) Julia Rossi (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good form[edit]

I enjoy seeing you in good form on the desks, very fungi, as ever, helpful too – : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm just glad there's 'shroom for humor at the Desks. StuRat (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If not, we can start a nitting circle. =) Julia Rossi (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, picking nits off with nitting needles sounds as hard as picking rice up with chopsticks. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume anyone who drives through blizzards to find buzzards at Christmas is merely being modest. (You could try it with chopsticks, this is a post-modern-type nitting circle) ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a four-wheel drive truck, so driving through inclement weather is no problem, especially when one considers the added traction provided by all those subcompacts I drive over. StuRat (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must have this...[edit]

Happy Christmas from Australia!

Happy Christmas, Sturat.
After dose gypfies! "They'll steal your eye teeth"
~ wishing you every success dealing with snowmen vandals ~ from Julia R. o<| =)

Julia Rossi (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! I was afraid to open the card, thinking I'd find an elf peeking out of a kangaroo's pouch. StuRat (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The kangaroo would be even more afraid! Ching ching ching, ching ching ching... Julia Rossi (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, those pointy elf shoes could really hurt momma roo. (Maybe that's why some of them are curled up at the end ?) StuRat (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jet fuel[edit]

I wanted to say some personal Thank You! for answering my questions about jet fuel. It really helped to somewhat clear my mind and research topic farther. Vitall (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. StuRat (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for answering my Band Planet question on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and I hope such questions are never banned,

...as that would leave us with questions which are only bland. StuRat (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pianissimo forte[edit]

Trust you to invent music terrorism, >)) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, by dropping a piano on a crowd. And here I thought "musical" terrorism was those people who play their car stereos so loud that their tires rarely touch the ground. StuRat (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also appreciate my Unclyclopedia entry for Ethan Allen: [15]. StuRat (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see EA is your thought-ancestor of furniture terrorism. Did he invent buzzword terrorism in defeating the ~~French~~ oops British? Looks like music terrorism keeps its definition as per the bouncing car and there's an item I don't know the name of, an enclosed van with levels to burst people's ear drums in the few seconds they stay inside. Apparently the noise forces them to enjoy brief pain, then quickly quit. Is there an article on this kind of thing? *hint hint* :) Julia Rossi (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, my Unclyclopedia article appears to have been expunged, with no reason given. I'm guessing that they have a "no violence jokes" policy that even extends to historical, fictional violence during war. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick. Can you get a pee review? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A pee review ? "It was a pale yellow, with a nice frothy head of foam...". :-) StuRat (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one[16], for bringing doomed articles back from extinction (apparently). Ewww, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And do they call for a pee review when they suspect "yellow journalism" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SR[edit]

I completely forgot about disturbing the peace, disrupting traffic, and all sorts of offenses that only apply when the prosecutor is hard up. Come to think of it, if he played badly enough he would be making one big noise that would eliminate many smaller noises (i.e. his playing). Maybe he can use that as a positive defense. Phil_burnstein (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the Lorena Bobbitt case. If nothing else, they should have at least convicted her of littering. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.[edit]

Hello friend StuRat, I am a new user in Wikipedia. Today I've been gazing through the computing reference desk and watching the others to contribute. I've seen that you are interested in the field of Science and Maths (as posted by you in your User Page). In fact, I am interested in those fields too. Then if I personally discuss with you about Science and Maths on your talk page, will you mind something? If not, will you kindly permit me to do the same? Thank you. Anirban16chatterjee (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Furthur, I present you the tireless contributor's barnstar for your nice contributions in the Computing Reference Desk Anirban16chatterjee (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can discuss science or math here. However, if you have a specific question, the Ref Desk Science or Math pages might be better, as then you will get my contributions and the contributions of others. The others can be a bit mean, though, at times, so you can come here to talk if you feel abused. Also, thanks for the barnstar ! StuRat (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot friend! I often use the reference desk, but I think it is good for me to keep in touch with someone like you, who is endowed with the golden light of knowledge, for my betterment. And, you obviously deserved the barnstar. Thank you friend, see you again. -Best Regards, Anirban16chatterjee (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RefDesk[edit]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		This is obviously not the first time you've received this award, but there's no such thing as too many barnstars, especially when they're well deserved! Thanks for your helpful and bite free answers. :-) Crackthewhip775 (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farts and Stuff[edit]

Thanks for the Beano Advice. I'll take you up on the Yogurt with Cultures. I'm reading this book on Salt by Mark Kurlansky. In it he mentions cheese making. page 97, 'Rennet contains Rennin, an enzyme in the stomach of mammals wich curdles milk to make it digestible.' Could this Rennin be taken as a supplement maybe? I read the wiki articles, something about infant calfs developing stomachs, in the 4th stomach we find this Rennet, it curdles the milk to make it stay in the digestive tract longer for breaking it down longer. Can we say, add some Rennin to our Ovaltine? Cheers,--i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could do that, but it might not taste very good. You can also get rennin and lactase (a milk digestion enzyme), in tablets, here: [17]. If you don't like buying things over the internet, try a store like GNC. StuRat (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for answering my To Catch A Predator question on the Humanities Reference desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and here's a permalink: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2009_November_11#Legality_of_To_Catch_a_Predator. StuRat (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar![edit]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for your help on WP:RD/MA! PerfectProposal 19:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP comment[edit]

Some IP (since blocked as an evader) suggested you and I were the same user. Should we tell them, or keep them wondering? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So were you cloned from my toenail clippings or was I cloned from yours ? :-) StuRat (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, but I was cloned from the tonail clippings of Henny Youngman. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's better than being cloned from Henny Penny, as many others at the Ref Desk appear to be, based on how they think the sky is falling every time someone cracks a joke. StuRat (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Sometimes it reminds me of Graham Chapman's military character, who complained that the Monty Python sketches were getting "silly": "No one enjoys a good joke more than I do! Uh, except for the Colonel... and my wife... and some of her friends... come to think of it, everyone enjoys a good joke more than I do! But no matter!..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we need to send them all of for re-education at the Ministry of Silly Walks. StuRat (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Sometimes I feel like I'm in The Argument Sketch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or talking with Gumbys. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks[edit]

for the answer on the computing refdesk!Gzuckier (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. StuRat (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super job![edit]

The Refdesk Barnstar

Thanks for Take Five -- exactly what I needed! DRosenbach ^(Talk

You're welcome ! StuRat (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your Usefulness in General, and for finding Erastianism in Particular μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ASCII Art barnstar[edit]

For your ASCII images at WP:RD I hereby award you this ASCII art barnstar (created by Steve Baker). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

         /\
        /**\
_______/****\_______
*.******/^^\******.*
  *.***( () )***.*
    *.**\,./**.*
     /**.**.**\
    /*.*    *.*\
   /.*        *.\
   '            `

LOL, thanks. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

File:PNHP poster.jpg	For being awesome on the Reference Desk
	Please accept this Physicians for a National Health Program poster in kind thanks for all the spectacular work I see you do quite often at the Reference Desks. Dualus (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. StuRat (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Outstanding improvements made to the new article Otium. Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice...[edit]

[18]. I'm still chuckling. My wife thinks I'm crazy. Thanks for that! --Jayron32 02:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, it's probably time to archive this page. Its becoming difficult to load it all... --Jayron32 02:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you're right. StuRat (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dems/GOP[edit]

I just wanna say this is the best summary of the two parties I've ever seen. Cheers. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	thanks for the physics help Paradoxical 0^2 (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome ! StuRat (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiThanks[edit]

WikiThanks

Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.137 (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Any in particular ? StuRat (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An award for you[edit]

Golden Wiki Award

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.2.33 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol[edit]

This made me laugh. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I would thank you for your comment, but that would be, well...

StuRat (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you[edit]

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.0.140 (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you for the work on the 3D to 2D generation[edit]

I have to first offer about a million apologies for not writing a note on the reference desk sooner. The code you wrote was very daunting (and still is) and I kept procrastinating understanding it properly and converting it. The images you just added help enormously as well! This is exactly the effect I'm looking for.

As for the code, give me a little more time. I may have follow-up questions here for you. Sorry again that you didn't get more limelight while the question was more prominent, it is just really hard for me to start using. (This is probably why there aren't highly accessible tutorials online, and why I had to ask you for help with this in the first place).

I know you're a volunteer contributor, and I didn't mean to be ungrateful. Thank you again, this is hard work!!! --80.99.254.208 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (I was starting to worry that you had dropped dead). I'd be glad to help with any additional questions you have or clarifications needed on what I posted. StuRat (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed my code at the Ref Desk (Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2012_April_18#how_hard_is_2.5_d), and one thing I might change is the name of the variables "V_SHRINK_STEP" and "H_SHRINK_STEP". "V_SHRINK_RANGE" and "H_SHRINK_RANGE" would have been better (or "VShrinkRange" and "HShrinkRange" in C variable names). Also, you'll note in my last pic that having the image darken as it approaches the vanishing point really helps in making it look 3D. I didn't include the code to do that in my example, to simplify it, but would be glad to give you an example of that code, once you master the basics. StuRat (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if you just can't get it to work at all, I can provide you with a FORTRAN executable. This could be run using a "system" call from C, etc. In that case, I'd have it read all the arguments from one input file and the bitmap from another, to avoid all the ugliness that happens when trying to pass arguments between C and FORTRAN. It would then write the projected bitmap to a new file. StuRat (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bedrock City thanks[edit]

Thanks for the reply to my question about Bedrock City's Mt. Rockmore. I should have read the WP article. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm often amazed at the info we have in our articles, myself. StuRat (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For work on the reference desk. Thank you. Legolover26 (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ![edit]

I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to give your input to my questions. It is appreciated. InforManiac (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question (and surely others!) at the reference desk, and providing a link to NutritionData.com. The input and links I received from those responses has been really valuable! All the best,

— Jess· Δ ♥ 04:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Looks like I better put out a saucer of milk. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFA nomination[edit]

GiantBluePanda would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact GiantBluePanda to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/StuRat. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

your nominator has now asked that the page be deleted due to your apparent lack of response. I'd prefer to be sure that is your intention before doing so. Beeblebrox (talk)

Yea, go ahead. I don't like the way the "Adminship for Life" works here, I'd like it be easier to become one, but be term-limited and far easier to be kicked out. As is, it seems to encourage Admins to become a ruling elite, and I'm too democratic to support that. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed. — Ched : ? 02:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By what ? StuRat (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(out of sequence post). By your approach to editing, and more specifically your views on adminship.— Ched : ? 04:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I take it you agree ? StuRat (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you could have succeed RFA process easily. Very sad that you declined nomination. Anyways, Keep answering best at Reference desk. :-) GiantBluePanda (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination in any case. I may reconsider at some time in the future. StuRat (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you do please let me know. You would be the most brilliant candidate. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I attended Wikimania this year, and I actually had to stand in line with everybody else to get my lunch! Some of those people didn't even have rollback and yet they didn't even offer to bus my table. And I had to ride the subway, they didn't even send a limo for me! I had also assumed there was an admin's lounge with unlimited free booze, but noooo. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. StuRat (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taken Back: Finding Haley[edit]

I know that this is a girly movie. I watched this movie only because nothing else great was coming on TV. Have you seen this movie before? If you saw this movie before, then why in the world did Haley's fake mother try to kill Haley's biological mother?(76.20.90.53 (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Sorry, didn't see it. StuRat (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you indeed really much, be sure I wasn't trolling, I was just worried about my situation with my boyfriend. Thank you for taking me seriously. Thank you again thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alabamaboy1992 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk responses[edit]

Hey Stu, wanted to point something out to you regarding this. Per WP:RD/G/M we should actually be removing requests for medical advice, not just collapsing them. A small explanation is still a good thing, though. In any event, I didn't touch the section—I don't mean to step on your toes. BigNate37_(T) 23:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I didn't recall how to put the deletion template there, so left that for others to do. I do oppose deleting it without any template/explanation, though, as the OP won't know what happened and will just repost. StuRat (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Answering ref desk questions on the OPs talk page[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I don't mean to single you out by raising this. I've seen it done quite a few times and just want some clarity. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. StuRat (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting gear on the reference desk[edit]

You think they look funny in camo and orange. They turn up in the Arctic in camo. They don't need the orange because the lack of plants more than six inches high and the snow makes them really easy to see. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect them to go spend big bucks on white arctic camo, and then put the bright orange back on so they don't get shot. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. They spend way to much money in the communities to shoot at them. Of course one or two have had heart attacks while out hunting. I once watched one sitting on the airport floor take his rifle out of the case. By the way it seems to me that only US hunters wear the camo gear. I can't recall any other nationality wearing the stuff. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for TV help[edit]

My friend wanted me to thank you for the TV help, we got his existing antenna working better so that all his on-air channels are coming in quite nicely without a new one being installed, and the tiling problem he was having was definitely due to a loop problem. So he has decided to get rid of the cable (which he had been getting for $20 a month, but which they recently raised to $68 for the same service) and is going with netflix, on-air antenna, and an hdmi port for internet downloads. You won't be getting any of the estimated monthly savings, however. :) μηδείς (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the cheapskate package, that's exactly what I have. :-) What exactly did he do to fix the antenna ? StuRat (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stripped the cord, attached it to a new coax adapter, and put the adapter directly on the RF input, removing the A/B splitter switch, putting the cable which had been on the splitter in thru the component input instead. Last time he did the wiring himself was when he had Pong. His only problem now is that he cannot have the cable and VCR/DVD both plugged in or he gets the loop interference. But that problem will go away once the cable is cut off. Except for the occasional news, weather channel, ballgame, and TCM movie, I haven't watched TV myself in quite a while. I was curious if you are familiar with Eye TV? A friend had it in Manhattan and got his cable channels off the internet somehow, he paid a one time equipment charge and apparently he had access to satellite feeds? Do you know how that works? Just let me know yes or no here, and I will post it as a question on the entertainment board. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not familiar with that one, no, but I've heard of using your own satellite antenna to get unencoded satellite channels. When I looked at them, they were mostly foreign language channels, and the startup cost was quite high, so I dropped the idea. Perhaps Eye TV gets them off the satellite feed and puts them on the Internet. I'd have to think the content providers will eventually get around to encoding their channels, though, and you would lose this ability. From the looks of the wide range of over-the-air channels available there, I don't think the unencoded satellite channels would add much to his viewing experience. StuRat (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This guy was in an airshaft in manhattan with no TV reception at all. He sold me my Mac. He had cut off his cable. Unfortunately he's moved and I don't know how to contact him. He told me he paid one time for the equipment, and that somehow there was a free feed or feeds on the internet, which he didn't himself see to actively have to visit. I don't know if he accessed a URL or if the machine gathered the feeds for him. He simply ran a program with a TV Guide type interface with listings he clicked on to "DVR" for regular recording. Or he could watch live, and it did not seem to be some cheap/pirate streaming service. I know he got Fox News in various versions and downloaded various shows like will and grace which I assume was not pay. (I saw him load these shows from his DVR type file and watch them when they were not live.) I don't think he had access to pay channels like HBO. The bizarre thing is that when i visited eyetv's website they said nothing about what channels were available or how you accessed them. I did not get the impression he was pirating, the data seemed freely accessible from the networks. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's exactly pirating, more "grey market". That is, those networks aren't terribly concerned if a few people get their shows for free, it's just not worth their time to block it. However, that may change in the future, which is probably why Eye TV doesn't guarantee you anything. It might have been a good alternative in his case, with no over-the-air stations, but I don't think it is when you have a wide selection already. StuRat (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. You'd think they would at least say 'gives access to "available" channels'. Not to sound like the sour grapes fox, but I don't need it, and fear it would be too complicated for my friend who would really only want certain ball games that might not be available anyway. Sorry about the bizarre deletion, can't figure out what I did, since the edit box was still open. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Here's a site which discusses free satellite TV a bit: [19], along with a list of English channels: [20], and HD channels: [21]. You'd need a satellite dish with motorized control (both rotation and elevation) if you want to watch programs off more than one satellite and want to track each satellite as it moves. They also offer that service where they put the signals on the Internet for you. As you can see from that list, those stations aren't the premium ones, they are supported by advertising or donations, so allow you to view it for free. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a huge stretch even getting him to do the eye tv if that would work, since he'd be against the hdmi, even though he's got three computers. (He lets me do hdmi when I visit.) I'll pass on the internet signal option. I am quite sure the idea of rotating satellite antennae would be dismissed out of hand. But I will pass it on. Thanks again for all the help. μηδείς (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is not a good option for him, although I don't understand his objection to an HDMI cable. Is it connecting the computer to the TV he doesn't like ? One drawback is that your program can freeze up when the computer is slow, which means you don't want to run anything on the computer at the same time. StuRat (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. He wants the days back when ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS were your only options, and you had to get up and turn the knob to change the channel, and bang it on the side to fix the tracking. The idea of a computer hooked to a cord hooked to a TV offends his sense of aesthetics. (Same guy I was interested in the direction speaker for, he would never accept an earplug.) Although I have actually got him blogging, which he does in all caps, (more attention getting) Lol! The bottom line question for him is, can he put up without watching Greta at 10pm, without the weather channel, and can he go without the local baseball games broadcast proprietarily on Comcast. As for me, the last show I watched in full on TV when it was broadcast was Farscape. House and Damages I have downloaded for the last five years, and they are both over now or soon. I'll keep you posted. μηδείς (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can relate to his major networks desire. It seems like the more channels we get, the higher the ratio of crap to quality TV is. Some devices allow you to block certain channels (my digital-to-analog converter box does this, but not for sub-channels). This will become increasingly important as we get more and more channels of crap (there's only just so much crap you can stand to wade through before finding something you like). As for Farscape, I preferred Babylon 5 and Serenity/Firefly, myself. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anything with Claudia Christian, I mean, come on, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. But the Ben Browder/Claudia Black thing was also very hot. I was never able to get into Serenity/Firefly even though I am a libertarian and a Whedon fan. Much preferred Dr Horrible and Dollhouse. My golden age was the original Battlestar Gallactica, with Tom Baker as Doctor Who on weekends and Spock and Kirk in reruns. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that scored a point...[edit]

At 20:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC), on RD/C, you said,

I've coded in C and similar languages, and hate them with a passion, so would like to avoid doing any of that.

Y'know, we may be two of a kind after all :-). When I got out of grad school (in the days of the IBM 360), my basic attitude was, If it can't be done in FORTRAN it ain't worth doing. I will admit to finally coming to grips with C proper, but C++ and its ilk, shall we say, "accelerated my retirement" from the industry.

Peace be with you, brother!

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I mentioned before, I once worked with a C programmer, who swore that C was better than Fortran, yet he needed me to track down all the bugs in his code, which were invariably due to the confusion in C of passing variables by address, value, or pointer (or some other problem which only exists in C). They've also expanded Fortran to include most of the good parts of C, like bit manipulation, but not yet, to my knowledge, GUI interfaces with Windows. StuRat (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude![edit]

I am so disappointed to see you signed that "award". That was not my goal! I agree that the pedants and mavens and Gladys Kravitzes should eff themselves. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lectern[edit]

Thanks for the quick turnaround on my query just now. If I get around to finding a good online EN<>NL dictionary, I won't take up space on the WP Ref Desks with one-word lookups :-) -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just used Google Translate, but would reject it if the translation sounded hinky. Short titles like this seem to work well, though, in general, since complex grammar doesn't come into play. StuRat (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrots[edit]

But you do get purple, orange and green cauliflower, don't you? :>) Bielle (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We briefly had small orange ones, but I haven't seen them recently, just the white ones. StuRat (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, you are missing out. The coloured ones are generally much better for you, too. Perhaps your local greengrocer could be persuaded. They are everywhere in southern Ontario. Bielle (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't buy white cauliflower. If I want to fart all week, I buy broccoli instead. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military spending and corruption[edit]

I just don't like calling it corruption because it's simply so weird. "Corruption" would imply that there was some nefarious plot to make gains from buying a product with someone else's money. But in the cases we're talking about: A) The seller didn't ask for the contract; B) the end user didn't ask for the contract; and C) the buyer was never promised a kickback. Yes, the process stinks of corruption, but I feel like it should have a more specific name, but I can't come up with a phrase simpler than stupid-things-politicians-do-for-votes. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Personally I think we should label many things as corruption which are currently accepted in the US, like pork-barrel spending, earmarks, bundling unrelated things together in one bill, Gerrymandering, lobbyists, large campaign donations, etc. StuRat (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar for you![edit]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For helping out in answering many of my questions at the Reference Desk. You deserve this barnstar. :) Futurist110 (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! StuRat (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :D Keep up the good work. Futurist110 (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question--would you be able to please help me out with this question--Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Non-Hispanic_Black_.26_Non-Hispanic_Asian_Populations_for_U.S._Cities_Since_1970? If not, that's okay. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have an insight into that Q. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 7[edit]

Hello StuRat, I was reading the Computing refdesk; if I'm understanding correctly, you still use Windows XP. I am the same way - I am forced to use 7 while at work and dislike it over XP. I've had the laptop that runs XP since 2006 and I "fear" upgrading to a more modern machine will leave me stuck with 7. I am also the same way with Microsoft's interface changes, including ribbons in Office products, some Windows programs, and eventually Explorer itself (see Windows 8...ugh). What do you dislike about 7? -- 143.85.199.242 (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general Windows upgrades seem to change things for no apparent reason (like when they renamed "File Manager" from that clear name to the obscure name "Office Explorer"), with very few actual improvements. It also has a tendency to be bloatware, where they add in features few people would want, which ends up slowing things down with little benefit (remember the dancing paperclip "office assistant" ?). I am an advocate of a continuous improvement process, where you only fix what's broken and "don't fix it if it aint broke". If Windows followed that model, instead of changing things for no apparent reason, it would be a much better product by now. Unfortunately, the real reason for new Windows releases seems to be marketing, not improvement in the product, which means they want it to look "new and improved", not actually be improved. Then there's the chaotic Windows version naming system (Windows 3.x, Windows 95, 98, 2000/Millenium, NT, XP, Vista, 7, 8). What should we expect next, Windows Flamingo, then Windows C, followed by Windows Mary, and Windows 13.8.9.E ? StuRat (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for Windows 7, my main objection is that I'd need to buy a new PC to run it. StuRat (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your latest question at the computing refdesk. Apologies if I'm prying too much, but what led to the change in your thinking? Now that you're using Windows 7, do you prefer it over XP? -- 143.85.199.242 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old PC died on me, see here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2012_November_15#Win_XP_SP3_won.27t_boot. I tried to find a refurbished PC with XP on it, but, as it happened, the store where I went only had Windows 7. So, I gave it a try. The only actual improvement I've found so far is some additional capabilities with MS Paint. On the other hand, many things that used to work no longer seem to, and many other things have changed for no apparent reason, meaning I have to learn how to use my PC again. Also, some rather basic utilities, like ones with the ability to unzip files, were absent. So, pretty much as I expected. If they just added the upgraded version of MS Paint to Windows XP, gave me that, and promised to continue to support XP indefinitely, I'd be a lot happier. StuRat (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like people talking[edit]

about me behind my back (or telling me my questions are unanswerable, because they can't helpfully answer them...or incoherent...or badly answered by other perople, and so forth) so please see this discussion here. μηδείς (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me, although taking everything less personally would also be appreciated. StuRat (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you![edit]

I like this edit of yours, but the next edit is a misconception. Anbu121 (talk me) 00:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit weather[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Shelf_life_for_sealed_lead-acid_battery. StuRat (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat loves to comment on all manner of things outside his competence. While he is not entirely wrong, it's pretty hard to freeze a lead acid battery, unless it is a tiny one, or you live in the arctic circle. This is because the freezing point of the electrolyte is around -7 C, and because the specific heat is about that of water, that is, very high, the inside temperature will tend to remain at about the diurnal average.

Wickwack60.230.227.185 (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had batteries freeze and split, as we get -7°C (19.4°F) temperatures every winter. We can have weeks where it never gets above that temperature. I'm in Detroit, nowhere near the Arctic Circle. I currently have a vehicle in storage, and have to either keep the battery charged or remove it, to prevent it from discharging, then freezing and splitting. The same issue applies to batteries on the shelf in an unheated garage. Since you apparently don't know that this is a potential issue with lead-acid batteries, I question your competence. StuRat (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have quite a bit of experience with lead acid batteries, having worked as a photovoltaic solar power project Engineer/manager, and have been involved with computer room UPS storage. Part of the solar power role involved estimating battery temperature. I can also check Wikipedia for Detroit climate data. It says that while temperatures as low as -29.4 C have been recorded, the lowest monthly average is -3.1 C. The lowest daily average will be lower than that, but not much lower. As the battery stores heat very effectively, the overnight minimum is not relevant. Is WP wrong? It must be if you get "weeks where it never gets above -7C". Wickwack60.230.227.185 (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Averages aren't relevant. It's the extremes that matter, in this case the record lows. It's actually been warmer the last couple winters here (global warming ?), but International Falls, MN still managed to have 3.5 weeks where it never got above 20°F, in January, 2011, with lows down to -46°F: [22]. That's still nowhere near the Arctic Circle, so you statement that you needn't worry about batteries freezing outside the Arctic Circle is clearly false. Your lack of experience appears to be with lead acid batteries in cold areas. StuRat (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The daily average is very relavent. The thermal characteristics of a lead acid battery can be modelled as a thermal capacitance equal to the specific heat capacity of the electrolyte (specific heat x mass), isolated from the ambient by the thermal resistance of the case in series with a Carrier air film thermal resistance surrounding by the battery. There is some conduction to ambient via radiation (negligible) and by convection, which can be estimated by Pressman's formula, and is generally close to negligible in typical battery storage conditions. It is analogous to charging an electrical capacitor via a series resistor. If you check such modelling, you'll find that the battery electrolyte temperature tends to remain about the daily average as I said. It will of course vary, but not to the extent of the daily ambient variation, and the electrolyte minimum temperature will lag the ambient minimum by several hours, just as the voltage on a capacitor lags that of a supply voltage applied via a resistor. Wickwack124.178.155.164 (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't understand what I said. That -3.1°C average for January generally includes warmer bits at the beginning and end of the month, with cooler weeks in the middle, where, as I said, it may not get above -7°C for some time. And, of course, some years have a colder January than others. Here's an account from 2009, when Detroit hit -15°F (-26°C): [23]. StuRat (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that a monthly average min of x degrees means some days will be colder - I pointed that out. I found just now official US NOAA records at http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/cms.php?n=supdata. NOAA identified the recent lowest temperature months in Detroit as Jan and Feb. For 2012, Jan had only 5 days with an overnight min below -7 C, and the lowest daily mean recorded was -15.6 C and occurred on 20 Jan - the only day with an average less than -7 C. Feb had its lowest point of -11.7 C on 11 Feb, the only day with an average less than - 7 C, it averaged -9 C. All other days were sensibly quite above -7 C in daily average. So I can't quite say you are trying to flog a dead horse, Stu, but it's certainly a terminal nag. I notice you often jump in and supply poorly researched answers that don't stack up - such as windup cellphones, cat eyes, surge protectors, large scale eyes & lots lots more. Wickwack121.221.224.183 (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said, the last couple winters in Detroit have been warmer than usual. Did you really miss that or are you just being obstinate ? And, as I've proven in the International Falls case, it frequently gets cold enough, for weeks at a time, well outside the Arctic Circle, to freeze a lead acid battery. You were just completely wrong when you claimed it didn't, and this is exactly the type of poorly researched answer you are frequently guilty of. Your initial answer contained zero links or research, so, before you accuse me of not doing any research, learn to do some yourself. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, it's obvious you are a fairly smart guy. You post answers to all manner of questions, and your answers are usually not entirely wrong exactly. Many answers are really good. But many are quite wrong. Poor answers surely reduce the quality and quantity of both questions and answers on Reference Desk. People who have something worthwhile to say will look, see all the rubbish, and think "this is not what I want". It would be better if you stuck to things you know, or researched the subjects better before posting. I'm not the only person who has told you this. You attempted to defend the indefensible in your recent posts about windup cellphones. Your post on cat eyes brought this response: "Moreover, StuRat's responses are inaccurate and imprecise, at best" and that was very obviously true. Sometimes your initial post to a question is ok, but you make later posts that get further and further from the truth. For example on the Solar Panel Kits question, you started off ok, but you ended with this pearler: "Have you actually had any rechargeable batteries last 20 years ? I tried them, and they seemed to hold so little charge after a year or so as to be useless." Really? I have a Fluke 45 multimeter I bought 25 years ago. My experience is that the rechargeable Gates-type lead-acid battery it uses lasts at least 10 years before capacity drops noticeably. This year I had to buy the second replacement battery. Most consumer grade AGM and gell batteries last about 6 to 10 years in our climate, must warmer than Detroit's. Car batteries usually last 6 years or so. Plante batteries used in telephone exchanges, computer room UPS storage, and the like routinely last 20 years plus, admittedly they are built to higher quality standards. Nickel iron batteries, eg Saft type, last even longer. Some brands of so-called sealed lead acid batteries (there's no such thing as a true sealed lead acid battery - such a thing would be a dangerous bomb. They all have safety vents, though often the vents are concealed under a paper label or thin plastic film.) are no good, e.g., Schonnenshien only lasts about 2 years in warm climates, but that's just a poor quality exception. Wickwack124.178.43.122 (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complaining, in a Ref Desk Q, about someone's answers to other Q's, does the Ref Desk no good whatsoever. Can't you see that ? If you believe my answer to the current Q to be inaccurate, then prove it so, don't just claim it, without support, as you did (that bit about freezing batteries only being a concern inside the Arctic Circle). If you would stick to the question rather than trying to pick a fight, we would all get along much better. My initial answer to this Q was entirely, 100% correct, but somehow set you off, nonetheless. Personal attacks like that have no place on the Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, I'm not the only one who has attacked you, ie disputed your posts and/or objected to them. If you didn't keep posting bullshit, you wouldn't get attacked/disputed. Perhaps your frequent off the cuff posts, which you are so obviously keen to defend even when indefensible, are a manifestation of a desire to fight? Were you 100% correct? Not likely! Is the NOAA wrong? Does everybody in Detroit have their car batteries split open multiple times each winter? Do they use some special type of low temperature battery that the industry seems not to have heard off? I think not. If you say you had a battery crack open, I'm sure that you did. But there would have been more to it. I too have seen "sealed" batteries cracked open - it happens. Not from freezing though. Only from faulty manufacture or great age, usually combined with high ambient temperatures. Wickwack120.145.4.160 (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're setting up straw men by claiming I said all sorts of things I never did. I certainly hope you understand that only a fully discharged lead-acid battery is liable to freeze, but your statements above seem to indicate that you don't understand that. My statement that you attacked was that batteries which are fully discharged can freeze and split. Are you disputing that ? I do seem to be some people's favorite scapegoat, and apparently you've decided to jump on the bandwagon. I also have many supporters, like the person who just gave me a barnstar below. With the volume of Ref Desk answers I give, there are bound to be occasional mistakes in some, while most are dead on, but I didn't make any mistake when I said that a fully discharged lead-acid battery can freeze and split (outside the Arctic Circle). When you said it couldn't, you were 100% wrong. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did NOT say it couldn't. My actual words were as follows: "While he is not entirely wrong, it's pretty hard to freeze a lead acid battery, unless it is a tiny one, or you live in the arctic circle.". Don't misread. Go back and read your own posts in the other RED questions I mentioned - you did everything I said you did. Yes, in a discharged battery, the acid concentration is less. But not zero - the freezing point will still be under -7 C if the battery is otherwise still functional, and the thermal capacity and thermal resistance willl be sensibly unchanged. Wickwack120.145.20.231 (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth did "Does everybody in Detroit have their car batteries split open multiple times each winter?" mean ? Do you imagine we all leave our car batteries fully discharged until they freeze, then replace them, and let the new batteries fully discharge again, and again ? That makes no sense whatsoever. You are flailing about wildly, trying to create a straw man argument. StuRat (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Now I see you are being accused of providing unreferenced, incorrect Ref Desk answers: [24]. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk barnstar[edit]

	Ref desk barnstar
	You maintain an active presence on the ref desk and help answer many questions. For this, I hereby award you the ref desk barnstar! Jethro B 02:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic[edit]

I couldn't believe to find so many American Civil War veterans on board haha. Thank you for answering my question so fast. If I could I would give you another barnstar. Thank you Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. StuRat (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific[edit]

Why is my hatting inappropriate? --Onorem ♠Dil 18:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because telling people they are free to edit Wikipedia is an appropriate answer to any Q on missing content. That is, if you don't like that something was removed, feel free to put it back. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the question again. --Onorem ♠Dil 18:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK..sorry, you did read it...but I'll disagree. Answering someone with do it yourself basically goes entirely against the idea of having a ref desk. --Onorem ♠Dil 18:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. One of the underlying purposes of the Ref Desk is to improve Wikipedia articles, and telling people how they can improve those articles themselves is an important part of that mission. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a secondary purpose, but the intial response was still basically a big middle finger to the original question and the primary purpose of the ref desk. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

marbles and jews[edit]

The brief answer is, neither do I, or I wouldn't have asked the question. There does seem to be some connection, especially if you read Adam Reed's essay, to which I linked. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Reed's a Hungarian Jew, the name is a synonym, as is Ayn Rand's nom de plume. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck getting an answer. BTW, Adam Reed is a synonym of what ? StuRat (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Of all the responders on my thread about learning C, you were the first, the most patient, and stuck with me until the end. I can't thank you enough! 169.231.8.73 (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. StuRat (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Deferred Gratification[edit]

Glad you liked it. Fixing that numbering problem and adding pics now. I'm part of a group of grad students assigned to this edit. We'd welcome any help you can give. For simplicity, I'll be the face of the group.

01:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coopercog (talk • contribs)

Changed indentation[edit]

Hi Stu. I was just wondering, was there a reason behind you de-indenting my comment on the Humanities Desk? ([25]) I'm not particularly bothered, just curious as to whether I indented wrongly in the first place. Thanks. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply didn't seem to be a reply to me, which is what indenting it from mine means. Rather, it seemed to be a reply to the original Q, so I indented it from that Q.

In my case, I search through the Ref Desks by my screen name, and, if I see any comment indented from mine, I read it, since this means it's a reply to me. Having comments indented from mine which aren't replies to me therefore causes confusion. StuRat (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I guess I indented it as a reply to you since I was sort of continuing on your line of thought, but by the time I got to the end of my comment I'd wandered a bit off track, so it came out as a reply to the OP. Apologies if I confused you! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. In a case like that, I'll split my comment into two, one of which replies to the one before, and is indented from it, and another which responds to the OP, and is indented from that. StuRat (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just a thought: I've no problem at all with what you did, but if you'd left an edit summary I would have understood why you did it, and not had to ask. Not a problem, just an observation. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I tend to get a bit lazy about those, and usually only add them for articles. (In a case like this, the edit summary might involve 100X as many characters changed as in the Q.) It would be nice if Wikipedia would have a list of my "top 10 edit summaries" and I could just pick from those.StuRat (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) See User:Equazcion/CustomSummaryPresets. Trio The Punch (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, StuRat. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities.
Message added 07:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

on israel and palestinians versus nazis[edit]

i dont think nazi germany instantly lost all its allies due to its extermination program, so there may still be a way for israel to make a credible threat to do so and then follow through if no one will take them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.114.143 (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The world is a very different place now than it was then. First off, the allies of Nazi Germany were mostly dictators, like in Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy, and, early on, Stalin in the USSR. Second, Nazi Germany could bully it's smaller neighbors, so they either had to go along with Nazi Germany or be conquered by it. Israel wouldn't have such leverage, especially with no major allies. StuRat (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdly, Nazi Germany could have plausible deniability that they were engaging in genocide, by lying about it and using propaganda films made in the Theresienstadt concentration camp. In the age of the internet and satellites, no such lies would hold up. StuRat (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've painted a fair picture that I can believe of what would happen if Israel began a bona fide extermination program, though I'm not sure if threats would evoke the same reaction. Now let's talk about the other extreme. What do you think the consequences would be of Israel granting Palestine full statehood directly and through its allies? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what diff it makes on a practical level. It changes things under international law, but Israel ignores that anyway. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I support Israel strongly, and Israel considers this a very important issue (i.e. blocking this change). Why do they consider it such an important issue while you say on a practical level it doesn't make any difference at all? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I think Israel should do, is annex a small bit of Palestinian land (and evict the residents) for every rocket or other attack against them. This would make Hamas far less popular among the Palestinians. StuRat (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't mean to be blunt, but land is just dirt, whereas lives are meaningful. Why not execute just a certain number of specially targeted civilians published in advance, for every rocket? For the first rocket, these people die, for the next one, these people, and so on. Then it is truly Hamas that is killing these civilians, and not Israel. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the immorality of randomly killing people, that would create all the same problems I described before. And land is more important than lives, to the Palestinians, but not to the rest of the world. StuRat (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could you also respond to my response to "I don't see what diff it makes on a practical level. It changes things under international law, but Israel ignores that anyway." above? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nations get way too worked up about symbolic things like this (flag-burning is another), and I assume the same is true for Israel. StuRat (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My accidental deletion of your comment on RD[edit]

My apologies, I was attempting to leave a smart reply (which I decided to delete) and touched you by mistake. I hope you have a happy holiday. Richard Avery (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy holidays to you, too. StuRat (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy things said by Mr.98 and pseudo-I/Ps from Australia:[edit]

Mr.98 personally attacks me after apparently misunderstanding the meaning of "free":

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013_January_30#Wikipedia_pictures

Ratbone claims A/C units never have slinger rings (but at least admits when he is proven wrong):

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2012_July_5#Waste_heat_differential_recycling_in_air_conditioning

Wickwack claims 100% humidity can be comfortable:

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2012_December_24#Suitable_conditions_for_ventilating_a_residential_property_to_reduce_humidity

Wickwack claims "deprived" always means 100% deprived:

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2013_January_7#Choke_holds

Keit claims that power strips with LED indicator lights do not exist:

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2012_December_30#Add_indicator_lamp_to_heater

Talk:Port Arthur massacre (Australia)#Request new locator map at top[edit]

Hi. I hope you don't mind. I have made a request as a result of your talk page suggestion --Senra (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a good idea, it really is hard to read. StuRat (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Senra (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. They started from scratch to create an animated GIF from a satellite map, rather than just changing the colors on the existing image. They also didn't indicate the location of Hobart. StuRat (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yups. But it was free! --Senra (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is that. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'an News - RSN[edit]

You might be interested in this discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ma.27an_News Ankh.Morpork 17:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what SHE said:[edit]

[26]. --Jayron32 06:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your biography[edit]

If you could describe yourself in one sentence, then what would it be? What is your education level? What specific field do you specialize in? How wide and how deep do you specialize in your field and other fields? How often do you contribute to Wikipedia? Do you have a day job (or night job)? 140.254.226.247 (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask ? StuRat (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robocalls[edit]

Hi StuRat. I happened to be reading an article this morning, and it brought to mind your questions about automatic screening of telemarketers. This 'Banana Phone' seems like it might be just the thing for you - take a look! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That solution seems a bit overly complex, though. I'd be fine with manually entering numbers into the white list, for example. I think my elderly mother might have trouble entering the 4-digit code embedded in a sound clip, within 10 seconds, if she called from a new phone. It would be better for me if unrecognized numbers are only allowed to leave messages, and it plays out loud while they leave the message (on a land line), so I can pick up if I recognize the person. There should also be a black-list, which I manually enter, of numbers it hangs up on immediately. StuRat (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you ![edit]

Thanks

Nirajrm (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is it for this contribution ? Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Multiple_Choice_Question_building_software.2Fwebsite ? StuRat (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion needed[edit]

Hi! You might want to weigh in with an opinion here: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Medical advice question removed at Science Desk --Guy Macon (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right[edit]

Thank you. Your comments calmed me down, fortunately war seems hard to take place. Kotjap (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. StuRat (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in the above sentence, I think you meant "unlikely to take place", not "hard". StuRat (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou[edit]

I got that idea of photon when I'm dreaming. So it was wrong. So can we study when sleaping? Thankyou for your explaination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.Kiruthikan (talk • contribs) 06:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Allegedly, the idea for the structure of a benzene ring came to the person who first described it, in a day-dream: benzene#Ring_formula. StuRat (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re reference desk[edit]

Many many thanks for your help!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.8.63 (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. StuRat (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I Lay Dying[edit]

Hello. I do not really appreciate your comments at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#As I Lay Dying, implying that I am a child seeking help with homework. Some questions at the Help Desks are, indeed, bona fide. If you are "at" the Help Desk, I assume that you are there to "help" or to offer some insights into the bona fide questions of other editors ... and not to belittle the questions of others as if they were trivial, childish, and nothing more than a veiled adolescent disguise at cheating on homework. What exactly about my question leads you to your assumption that I am a child attempting to cheat on a homework assignment, as distinguished from a bona fide question, seeking information (i.e., indeed the very purpose of the Help Desk)? And, furthermore, even if that is your personal suspicion, why act on it in such a condescending and mocking (and very public) manner? Please advise. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, I am particularly surprised/dismayed/disappointed/hurt by your behavior. I have seen you on these Help Desks quite a bit. And, in fact, I am sure that you have helped me over the past many years, several times. This seems out of character for you. And, as such, it is particularly disappointing and hurtful. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

Unless I am seeing things differently than you are, it was not StuRat who posted the homework quip. StuRat, in fact, quoted from our article: As I Lay Dying in, what seems to me, a helpful attempt to answer your question --Senra (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I tried to help as best I could. And I also added a joke, where the butt of the joke is the book itself, and not Joseph A. Spadaro. StuRat (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, I made it explicit that I found this conduct out of character for you. Hence, making it "sting" even more. Perhaps your wording was of poor choice. But, here is my "take" on it, acknowledging that my "take" might indeed be inaccurate. The other editor (snidely) stated: "Because it makes a good homework question?". So, clearly, he was saying, "It is obvious to me that you are trying to do a homework question, and I have no intention of helping with that endeavor." Now, you, StuRat, piped in. You did not say something to the effect of "Well, hey, maybe this is indeed a legitimate non-homework question." I repeat, you did not say words to that effect. What you said, in fact, was: "At least he didn't ask us to explain Chapter 19 ...". So, my reading of your comment was as follows. Clearly, it piggy-backed on the other editor's (snide) comment. In other words, creating an allegiance in agreement with his comment; as opposed to an opposition against, or a break away from, or a disagreement with his comment. In other words, you were "joining in" on his comment and, furthermore, adding your own addendum to his little snide joke. Your addended comment began with: "well, at least he didn't do such-and-such" (i.e., ask about Chapter 19). That prefatory remark, basically says, "OK, I agree that he is attempting to get homework done, but at least he didn't go one step further ... and at least he really didn't debase himself by asking about Chapter 19" (or some variation thereof). That was (and still is) my "take". And, as I said, my "take" could be wrong. So, I am open to an explanation of the intent behind your words and, also, how you expected to manifest that intent with the words you actually used (and the context in which you used them). Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be neglecting my previous answer, where I tried to answer your Q, as best I could, which I wouldn't do if I thought it was a homework Q. My joke was not an endorsement of this being a homework Q, it just happened to follow that statement. I placed it there since it was another aside, not an actual answer, and it's nice to keep asides together, and actual answers together. StuRat (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do see what you are saying. Thank you. And can you understand my "take" on things (as described above), from my perspective? And how a reasonable person might easily have the same "take", albeit an erroneous take, as I did? Also, as an aside, if I read the book and linked to the article, is not it a "safe bet" that I had already read that one-sentence (unsatisfactory) blurb within the article (explaining the fire) ... and I was simply seeking "more" than that superficial one-sentence explanation? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we get lots of people who either don't read the article they link to or miss the relevant bit. Some of our articles are huge and overly complex, so I can't really blame them. You should tell us up front that you found the description in the linked article unsatisfactory, if that is the case. (Also, some well-meaning but misguided editor might have added links to a Q, which makes it look like you placed the links there yourself.) StuRat (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, you answered my second question, but not my first. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see how you could take offense, if you jump to conclusions and take everything in a negative light. I hope to persuade you not to do that in the future. Note that it's often difficult to discern tone on the internet, due to the absence of nonverbal cues. This is a good reason to assume good faith (more on this below). StuRat (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you do have to admit that your Q looks a lot like a homework Q. So, if you don't want it to be mistaken for one, you really should explain more. I would have added "I am a college professor, I just finished the book, and I would like more insight on that event in the novel" up front, to prevent misunderstandings like this. Don't rely on us remembering you from previous Q's, as new people are always around, answering Q's, too. So, to summarize, try to give us more info, and be a bit more patient with us, please. StuRat (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat volunteers at the help- and reference-desks and did not deserve your tirade. Many help desk volunteers make facetious irrelevancies, or should that be irreverent asides. We do so by enclosing such comments in <small> tags to clearly mark them as off-topic. I do so myself. Recent examples include here andhere. I echo StuRat's request for a clearer question in future. It is quite hard to divine answers from little information at those help- and reference-desks. Now let's all getback on topic --Senra (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tirade? Really? Senra, do you know the meaning of the word "tirade"? Please review all of my posts. They were quite respectful. StuRat, did you think my messages to you were a "tirade"? I'd like you honest answer on that. Please advise. Furthermore, Wikipedia has a rule/policy of "assuming good faith". Which means, "let's assume that this question on the Help Desk is bona fide and in good faith and not a junior high school kid cheating on his homework". Your suggestion cuts both ways. You both indicate that I should offer more info, to try to pre-empt the assumption that it's a homework question. (I thought that "assuming good faith" already covered that.) I could just as easily shift the burden back on you and say ... rather than assume it's homework, why not ask a clarifying question first ... such as "this sounds like a homework question. Before I reply, please let me know if it is or not." Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say a "tirade", but it did rather seem to be a bit of an over-reaction. As I said previously, I didn't actually think it was a HW Q, but could see how others might. I might very well have asked, if I thought it was. However, each cycle of posing a follow-up Q (and waiting for a response and then responding to that) slows things down, moving your Q up the page, beyond where people are likely to read it and respond, and soon it gets archived. So, you really do yourself a favor by giving us all the info you can up front. As for assuming good faith, that applies to you, too. Don't assume we "belittle the questions of others as if they were trivial, childish, and nothing more than a veiled adolescent disguise at cheating on homework" nor that we are being "condescending and mocking". The only thing I mocked was the book, itself. StuRat (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This situation somewhat reminds me of the common reply when anyone with computer problems calls the IT department: "Have you tried a reboot, yet ?". Half the callers find the question insulting, since they've obviously tried that, and half the people say no, they didn't try that. So, should the IT department stop asking the Q, to avoid offense, even though asking it can solve many problems ? StuRat (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

concern/apology[edit]

I am sorry, I should have come to you about this diff but all I saw was the legal problem with the potentially libellous remarks about a business. I do think you should remove the direct reference yourself, it is problematic and not necessary for your argument. But I have to apologize for not coming to directly, I was only focused on that and didn't even pay attention to the signature. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although the name shouldn't matter. I don't see anything libelous about the statement. Many businesses sell disposable items, they are just the first motel to do so, that I'm aware of. At any rate, they can't sue Wikipedia for what one person posts here. StuRat (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you![edit]

Heres a treat for all your good answers on the reference desk. Clover345 (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have any wet naps ? I got honey all over myself. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That South African guy[edit]

Letting you know about this report of mine in good faith. I neither think your comment is necessarily wrong nor that you made it in bad faith, but I do think it is over the line so far as our guidelines. Figured it's better to go to BLP than to act myself. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flashman[edit]

Done. The limited support is only because I don't consider myself sufficiently familiar with FL criteria in practice. Looks like it is doing pretty well!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you post this to the wrong page ? I have no idea what you're talking about. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan[edit]

very BIG ! really appreciate your work. — Hamza ^{[ talk ]} 16:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! (Presumably this is for my response here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Calculating_Shaft_Power.) StuRat (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly for that response. I occasionally read RD for its interesting content, and you are all over it. — Hamza ^{[ talk ]} 08:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

chelyabinsk meteor[edit]

An interesting article on its origins given your prior question. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Still looking for some underlying factor that caused the "coincidence" of the two, though. StuRat (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP trolling[edit]

I took the liberty of removing this personal-attack-bait from the misc. ref. desk. Since he took your name in vain, I thought you might like to know about it.[27] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I already saw your deletion and responding on his talk page. StuRat (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal. I'll add some comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the two of you know had you left this to me to hat there'd've been much wittier comments. μηδείς (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sher. You should go to the IP's talk page and point that out. Unless he's afraid of Greeks bearing jests. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussion[edit]

Hi Stu, I saw that you left a comment after me on the thread about web crawling/scraping. Since it is a bit old, I thought I'd follow up here: Basically, CiteSeer is only interested in academic publications. What I had done was put a pdf file in the public directory of www.department.university.edu/~username/ It was an orphan, in the sense that nothing linked to it, but it would have been visible to a ls or dir command. I think CiteSeer just downloaded every pdf in every public folder of every department.university.edu page it could find, and then with some minimal processing decided that it was a "paper" that they should index (This is generally effective, as many professors post their publications in this manner). Does that make sense? I've wondered about it a bit over the years. It was actually quite embarrassing, they basically copied and hosted my content without my consent, and though it was later published, the version they included all sorts of annotations and discussion not meant for the public! SemanticMantis (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. In addition to embarrassment, you could also find somebody plagiarizes your paper and publishes it before you. I suppose the lesson is that we should never post anything on the web we don't want to be seen by all. Just keep it on your local PC directory until it's ready to publish.

This reminds me of an issue I had with the house I bought. The price I paid was always considered a "public record". However, in the old days, this meant going down to the Register of Deeds and paging through tomes to find it. Not anymore. Now it's online and anyone who types my name into Google can find out exactly what I paid for my house in a second. That's just a tad too "public", in my opinion. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Austerity[edit]

My clumsiness with the undo button has left your comment looking out of place, but I think with a minor tweak to your opening words, it'd be a useful contribution to the thread. Hope you don't mind, but I really wanted to undo my edit - see the edit summary I left when I thought I was undoing it earlier! --Dweller (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I've updated my opening words. In the future, though, you might want to use ~~strikeout~~, once people have responded, to remove your comments. StuRat (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for all your help with the min/max lagrangian problem. 74.14.60.239 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome ! StuRat (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:))))[edit]

Hello StuRat, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 15:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve a barnstar[edit]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For this. Thanks for the laugh. Ryan Vesey 03:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome ! StuRat (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion at RD:S[edit]

Stu,

I reverted your edit to my hat at the evaporation/sublimation thread. I deliberately chose to hat after both you and Ratbone had your say on the terminology, and before either of you devolved into outright personal attacks. Your silently moving that (and by extention, attributing it to me, as I have the only signed metacommentary there) to get the last word in is unacceptable. — Lomn 15:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if you want to pursue another response on that thread, I see no reason why a civil referenced discussion between you and Ratbone about what you each mean by the terms you're using can't continue outside of (and above, for that matter) the hat. — Lomn 15:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you leaving his comment saying that I'm wrong and don't check my facts, while hiding my response, is not acceptable. I'll just hat the whole thing. StuRat (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he had politely said "I disagree", then I'd have let it stand. StuRat (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer that the whole thing be hidden, that's OK with me. — Lomn 15:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on your RD question - old library books[edit]

Hi StuRat,

I don't want to incite any kind of controversy by responding in a hatted discussion, but to answer your question: yes, being an ex-library copy typically decreases the value of a book, partly because of skittishness on the part of collectors for exactly the sort of reasons your question raised (is it a legitimate library discard or was it stolen) and partly because they've usually been marked up and/or heavily used. So, without giving you legal advice, which I well know you know not to ask for on the RD </rolleyes>, your book might not be worth as much as you hope. But then again, in a free market world, things are worth what someone wants to pay for them. Best of luck. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. StuRat (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of A Turning Point in National History[edit]

The article A Turning Point in National History has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
A Turning Point in National History – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 12:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat rules[edit]

There's something comforting about seeing your presence every time I've been on the reference desk since I was in high school and now I'm about to graduate college. All throughout my crucial formative years your knowledge has been a beacon, or something like that. All I'm saying is that you should either write a book or they should make a documentary about you. NIRVANA2764 (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you've just put me in 7th heaven. :) StuRat (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of A Turning Point in National History for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Turning Point in National History is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Turning Point in National History until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

ANI discussion on Wickwack[edit]

I've reported Wickwack to ANI to see if we can get some kind of enforcement, and mentioned his history of abuses towards you. So just dropping this note to let you know about this. --Modocc (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Do you have a link for me ? StuRat (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Enforcement_needed_of_topic_ban_of_IP_editor_Wickwack] --Modocc (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. StuRat (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical advice collapsed, see WT:RD[edit]

I collapsed a thread to which you had responded, and removed your answer, as it was potentially dangerous to the target audience (patients with multiple allergies). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Collapsing_request_for_medical_advice. --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims and Arabs' hatred of Jews[edit]

In your response to this query on the Humanities RD, I don't understand your distinction of "demotion of Palestinians outside Israel" when there is overwhelming, longstanding, and widespread evidence of Palestinian Arabs within Israel being treated as 2nd class citizens, quite literally, and the discriminatory practices by the Israeli government and military against Palestinian Arabs in the territories of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Outside Israel they're refugees, sometimes immigrants. These issues raise an awful lot of heat; smoke only obfuscates. Kindly stay focused when you offer answers. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "outside of Israel" I include the West Bank and Gaza strip, where Palestinians are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections, despite elected Israeli politicians having defacto control of their homes. Of course, they are also treated as second class citizens when refugees in many Arab nations, and I didn't want to forget about that, either. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people call them Muslim? Are you sure we aren't calling them something rude and are just ignorant english speakers who don't know any better calling them a name they think means middle easterner in English? That's what I wonder. Who decided to call them such, we have the term middle easterner and the term Islamists, so what is Muslim? Their race or what? (Crlinformative (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I believe Muslim is the correct word for a believer in Islam. It's not a race, it's a religion. "Islamists" seems to mean conservative Muslims (insisting women cover their faces, etc.). StuRat (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A prize for you[edit]

Hi there, StuRat.

We've been refdesk colleagues for many years now. We've certainly had major differences of opinion on certain matters and have pitted our arguments strongly against each other. But it occurs to me that you have always been polite and have never resorted to any form of personal attack or nastiness. For that, I thank you, and furthermore:

Our motto: "It's only hard if you make it hard"		The PENISS Prize
		On behalf of the People Encouraging Niceness/Eschewing Nastinesss in Society Society, I hereby award you the PENISS Prize. The prize is the highest (and sole) honour in the gift of the Society and is awarded irregularly, on merit. It entitles the awardee to the postnominal letters P.E.N.I.S.S. (in appropriate contexts, of course). It confers automatic membership of the Society, and it thus bestows the power to award the prize to others, and they to others, in perpetuity. . Remember, the more PENISSes in the world, the better for all of us. What a nice thought. Please continue your good work!

To present this award to others, simply type {{subst:User:JackofOz/PENISS}} on their talk page, and then sign and date your post.

Cheers and happy editing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and also ewww. :-) StuRat (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you celebrate Halloween but... Happy Halloween![edit]

	Hello StuRat, Miss Bono has given you an lovely bat, to wish you a Happy Halloween! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a lovely bat! Enjoy!
	Spread the goodness of a lovely bat by adding {{subst:User:Miss Bono/Halloween}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx![edit]

Replied to your answer in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Why_blind_army_ants_do_not_hunt_at_night.3F 67.71.98.182 (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi Stu,

"That's more phallusy than fallacy". I just wanted to say thank you for brightening my working day. LOL is overused to the point it simply means "I understand you are being lighthearted", but that was a genuine, old-fashioned LOL moment for me. BbBrock (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome ! StuRat (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Socially optimal firm size for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Socially optimal firm size is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socially optimal firm size until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Joja lozzo 01:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't shoot. I'm only the piano-playing alien.[edit]

I hate when my response gets archived. "Shiny circular object approaching bearing an unknown message. Sound familiar?" Clarityfiend (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for the response. I was thinking how a CD could be used as a skeet. StuRat (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the commentary nor the documentary Making the Earth Stand Still talk about the ramp. However, stills of the blueprints for the saucer show:

a little trolley on wheels used to extend the ramp
notations on three of the blueprints (sometimes a bit hard to decipher):

"NOTE: POINT UP & REPAIR ALL JOINTS TO MAKE INVISIBLE ?? WITH TAPE"
"WING TIP SEC. HINGES TO ALLOW FOR UNLOADING RAMP TO ROLL OUT / SEE DETAIL / PLEASE FIT ON ALL RAMP JOINTS / PROVIDE PAINTED MASKING TAPE FOR ??"
"SLOPE ? WING TIP TO BE CON? WITH SMOOTH PLASTER" Clarityfiend (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm amazed they got such smooth movement from a trolley. I'd have expected the tell-tale jerks as it's wheels hit grains of sand, etc. They must have gone over it's path with a magnifying glass to remove every grain. StuRat (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timekeeping[edit]

Luckily my calendar tells me it's time to wish you the season's greeting and a happy and healthy New Year. Richard Avery (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! And a generic Season's Greetings to you too (does that include Festivus ?). :-) StuRat (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes! especially Festivus. Richard Avery (talk) 08:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, you are so kind!!![edit]

I really appreciate your comment as far as other individuals in Reference Section. One of the problems for me now is that I work full time in a responsible position although I can "steal" a few minutes when I am not busy to post a question or two. So, I will have to proceed slower than might be expected. Sometimes I come home and can only eat and go to sleep. The project I try to launder in Reference Desk is totally unrelated to what i am doing now at work (I am an MD) but related to what I was doing years ago and had to revive now since I got a patent for it. It is a bit difficult to juggle everything but I am sure I will eventually manage. You have helped me a lot already and I immensely appreciate it. I did a lot of software development until about 3-4 years ago and hope now it will gradually come back. Another thing the software business is developing so fast, there is so much new stuff already, it is amazing. Thank you very much but I would decline the offer to escape the Reference Desk. I can stand for myself if necessary. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPY NEW YEAR !!! --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answering one of your questions.[edit]

"How did you go from computer programming to being a doctor?" - Well, it has actually been the other way around. At some points in my career I had enough time to pursue various hobbies and computers were one of them. I was in solo private practice for a long time and tried to write my own software. Now the situation has changed. I work for a state and I have to put in about 9 hours every day. It is a very rewarding job actually but another thing happened. I had a project which I started a long while ago and about 18 months ago on a spur of the moment I applied for a patent for the idea. I first filed myself and got rejected with a suggestion which implied that the reception by USPTO was good but my presentation was flawed. In no uncertan terms they recommended me to hire a patent attorney. Fortunately I got a very good one. I was rewarded 5 patents in about 3 or 4 months, do not quite recall. Any realization of these patents require a lot of math computations. So, I started with an appeal here to get a pointer how to hire a programmer for the job. You, see, for the past 3-4 years I haven't done much in terms of programming and restoring skills is not easy when you are full time employed. It seems I found two people at least who are interested and I will talk to one of them in a week time and possibly with the other also soon. Nonetheless I am trying to get ahead on my own donwloading software and trying to get at least a head start. I cannot do anything during the working week though--too tired by the end of the day. Thank you for your support. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me know how it goes, I'd love to know. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Gonzales[edit]

I think his actual catchphrase was ¡Arriba! ¡Arriba! ¡Ándale! which means approximately, "Get up! Get up! Let's go!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 03:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This makes twice in the last few minutes that I've failed to select one or more tildes. (Ironic, given the Spanish theme). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My English spelling is a lot better than my Spanish spelling. StuRat (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See-see! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please lets not help the bastards[edit]

Why is there no detailed page for Adam Lanza??? Like for example the Columnbine High School shooters Dylan Klebold ,and Eric Harris. ....... Is wikipedia an independant organization or is it doing what its told? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.159.177 (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting would be the place to ask. Presumably they don't want to make killing children an easy path to fame, to discourage copy cats. StuRat (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THAT IS A TERRIBLE AWNSER. HOW ABOUT HIS MOTHER OR FATHER ,,,NO DETAIKS ABOUT THERE LIVES . LOOK UP TED BUNDY ON WIKI HIS WHOLE LIFE IN GREAT DETAIL... BUT NO ADAM NO NANCY AND NO RYAN LANZA ....WHAT GIVES THE CORRECT AWNSER WOULD BE .....THE LANZA FAMILY DOES NOT EXIST THAT IS WHY WE CANT FIND ANY INFO ON THEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.159.177 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beetles[edit]

I just hatted the question. I'm not the OP. Rojomoke (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, we can't give medical advice, but identifying beetles we can do. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, Paul, George, and Ringo. Quite easy to identify. Two have gone extinct because of human activities, but the other two are still up and running. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, don't forget all those "5th Beatles", like Stu Sutcliffe. StuRat (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wool[edit]

Cheers, Stu, that actually answers my question. Funnily, I never get it when I am with a girl who wears a woollen sweater or jumper, but only when I wear one. I also get it in the fragrance sections of department stores. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is an actual allergy to lanolin, then, as they do use it in many cosmetics. Then again, you might just have another allergy or sensitivity to perfume. It bothers me, too.

BTW, on your talk page, I don't know how to close the box left opened on that applause section. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second Coming and the Environment[edit]

By soon, I mean very soon. I am asking this because there are some Christians who claim and believe that Jesus will come back and the world will end very soon. They believe that there are signs of the Second Coming and many of these signs have already been fulfilled. For example, look at this article. Jesus talked about these signs in Wikisource:Bible (King James)/Matthew#Chapter 24, Wikisource:Bible (King James)/Mark#Chapter 13 and Wikisource:Bible (King James)/Luke#Chapter 24.

Great Time (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but as many others have pointed out, people have been predicting that Jesus will return "soon", ever since he died, so betting everything on the latest guy's prediction makes little sense. StuRat (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refdesk question[edit]

Hi Sturat,

Thanks for your answer in the refdesk about the structural design of the O2 arena in London. To answer your question, it has support columns at the front. Theres some pictures on this forum. [28] Clover345 (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, those on the lower level would have a partially obstructed view, if the balcony extended beyond their position. This is a good reason not to extend it very far. StuRat (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the limitation with the O2 arena is that its constructed within an existing structure. The roof of the arena was actually constructed off site and lifted from the floor to the top of the structure, using a lift mechanism. Clover345 (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was the Q about why they don't extend the balcony forward farther, wasn't it ? If so, I'm not sure how that construction method for the roof would affect it. StuRat (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was about why there's no top tier at the front of the arena. I thought because of the way it was constructed, maybe that's why they couldn't make the arena long enough to accommodate an upper tier. Clover345 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Equal treatment?[edit]

Hi. I've done the right thing. Any chance of an equivalent gesture from your good self? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. StuRat (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

gifs[edit]

Cool images. How does one get the appropriate red-blue glasses for the 3d image? μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! You can find those red-blue glasses in many places. The store Dollar Tree had them for $1 at some point, and Wendy's gave them away with kid's meals recently. I suppose any hobby store would probably have them, although you might have to buy a 3D comic book or some such thing to get them. You could also make a pair yourself by taping pieces of red and blue colored transparencies to a pair of glasses. Or you could just ask around, probably some friend or relative has a pair they could lend you. (Note that there are other more expensive types of 3D glasses, such as polarized or electronic shuttering glasses, but those won't work with my GIF.) StuRat (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-flash gear, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Guns of Navarone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee strategy[edit]

Thanks, StuRat. It's nice that you responded to me when others just deleted my question :) Have a nice day, buddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.110.69 (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and you too. StuRat (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Telemedicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Injection (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're a real rat[edit]

Hi. I've just noticed after all these years that your name is an anagram of Rattus, the scientific name for the rat. So you really are a rat after all. I don't hear you denying it, so ...

I have taxonomically named you after yourself: Rattus sturatticus.

Cool. Have a nice day. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a gladiator name, StuRaticus Maximus (which works out well, as my first name is Stu and my middle name is Max). StuRat (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. All this time I thought his name was an anagram of "stuart". :D Yashowardhani (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted changes to your user page[edit]

Just to let you know, I reverted some user box additions to your user page added by our friend on the RD who keeps posting probably copyvio nonsense about bacteria to the RD. Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wonder why he targeted me. I wasn't involved in that. StuRat (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rats deserve everything they get. :) ---- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

3D animation[edit]

Hey! I saw some of your 3D animations. They're awesome! How do you do it? :) Yashowardhani (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! I wrote Fortran programs to create individual frames, then stitched them together into animated GIFs using ImageMagick. If you follow the links near those animations, you'll find some of the discussions that came up regarding such animation, along with sample code/examples. StuRat (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try that. You're making me repent not opting for computer science at high school! Yashowardhani (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too late. There are even free online courses through edX etc. StuRat (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the site. Unfortunately, it only offers university-level courses. Yashowardhani (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they still have the Introduction to Computer Programming courses, those aren't too much to handle. And it's not like you pay for it, so if you have to drop out, there's no penalty for that, therefore you might as well give it a try. There was also a course on Computer Graphics, but I wouldn't recommend that one until you are comfortable with programming. StuRat (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, I'll ask my parents about it. Yashowardhani (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Recent Reference Desk Answer[edit]

Hi. Just to say that you can probably move your most recent Reference Desk answer (on what the richest people in the US are doing with their money) directly into your list of "Correct Reference Desk" answers. :-( RomanSpa (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, thanks. StuRat (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

alternative biochemistries (BN, F, etc.)[edit]

Hello, StuRat. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Alien Worlds???....
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Maybe I should discuss this with you on your talk page or open a new thread for this, because it is kind of derailing the OP's original question (Si biochemistry). Double sharp (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's close enough to their original Q to stay there. I doubt if they meant "Tell me about silicon based life but please don't mention any other possibilities". StuRat (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't feed the trolls[edit]

Hi StuRat,

It would be best to treat Alex Sazanov as a troll. Don't feed the troll. Just ignore him until he goes away.

If you provide an answer, it triggers others into answering.

Some folk have given him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he is using machine translation, which can certainly put out what seems to be garbage. However, the variety of posts he's made make trolling far more likely. A very obvious thing to do when using machine translation is, after translating your native text into the target language, get the machine to translate it back again, and compare it with your original input. He's claerly not doing this. And he inventing words not existing in English, and for which there is no plausible source in Russian. He's been repeatedly asked to either use Russian Wikipedia, or type in his own language, with no apparent compliance.

121.221.156.103 (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But his Q's don't seem trollish, they seem like serious ones. Maybe he's just barely literate in Russian, then uses a machine translation to English on top of that. StuRat (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Comparison of PPM and animated GIF.PNG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odor[edit]

Per WP:COMMONALITY, neutrality isn't about finding a NPOV or unoffensive word, but about finding common ground between spelling variations. You say "odor", I say "odour" - no big deal, but spelling differences are best avoided. I thought "smell" was a synonymous word, but perhaps there is a subtle difference in meaning. But I can't think of a better alternative: "aroma" and "bouquet" aren't appropriate in Flatulence, nor are "stink" or "stench". "Smell" does not seem to be inappropriate to me, but if you really don't like it, then please revert to "odour" as this spelling would be consistent with the rest of the article, per WP:ENGVAR. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your link above (and in the edit summary) doesn't work. It takes me to the top of Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and that gave me no clue you were talking about English variants. I'll go ahead and make it "odour". StuRat (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link works for me. MOS is a long page though, so perhaps it takes time to fully load before jumping down to the relevant section. I don't really see what the problem with "smell" is, but anyway, I won't argue with your last edit. Cheers, 23:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What about "AC power"?[edit]

That distinguishes most household "non-mains power" from the mains within an inch of plugs that rival cul-de-sac pipes in thickness. There's "off-grid power" if you want short specificity that your outlet power happens to not be coming from real mains (which might still too small to equal the smallest non-electrical mains, at least one wire at a time). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs at AN/I[edit]

You have been mentioned in a discussion at WP:AN/I. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, the nannies are going after us. Including the one just above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Those various redlinks and IP's are from a banned user (which one, I don't know - possibly Cuddlyable3) and that's why they keep getting reverted. At this point, it's best to not respond to their questions. Give the admins a chance to block them and zap their questions. I'll try and do likewise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but which ones are and aren't banned users ? Is there any easy way to know ? StuRat (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an IP from Venezuela, it's him. If it's a redlink whose first entry is of the same obvious bent, or a redlink who has made some useless entries just to get confirmed and get past the semi, it's him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please-please-please don't edit-war over the quiet-as-possible removal of edits by banned users. It's exactly what the troll wants. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but an absolute minimum requirement is that any removal must list the reason. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any comment in the edit summary feeds the troll. However, if it will make you happy, I can say "wp:deny" instead of leaving it blank. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Otherwise we are headed to a situation where anyone can delete anything for any reason, with no explanation given. We also shouldn't delete good faith answers. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And stop reverting the deletion of banned-user questions + answers. Banned users are not allowed to edit, and anything they post is subject to deletion on-sight. And deleting the question and leaving the answer not only renders it nonsensical, it feeds the troll. Stop it already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also, by the way, the user you've been edit-warring with, Minky543, is actually that same user, playing both sides of the game and loving every second of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't delete answers by non-banned users. Box it all up, if you like. StuRat (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave this alone for a little while, and let you and Schultz slug it out with the admins who are trying their best to counter the troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive its versus contraction it's[edit]

Stu, I read your replies on the Reference Desk often and appreciate your insights and helpfulness. However, I have noticed that you often use "it's" (the contraction) when you mean to use "its" as a possessive pronoun. --Thomprod (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's intentional. I believe "it's" is more consistent with other possessive forms, like "Bob's" and "Mary's". I realize that my usage is nonstandard. StuRat (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive comment[edit]

I find your comment highly offensive and ask that you choose your words more carefully in the future. It's not my fault if your comments are so unclear such that they were legitimately misintepreted by me and as I've said, it's not the first time you've asked to be clearer. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody considers being accused of nitpicking to be "highly offensive". And there does seem to be a popular game here to try to misinterpret someone's comments, then say they are wrong (under that misinterpretation). It would be damned near impossible to write anything that couldn't be intentionally misinterpreted. I am reminded of the Sheliak species in the Star Trek universe, who wrote a half million word long treaty in an attempt to remove all ambiguity: [29]. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Risk assessment[edit]

If I can ask you to be clearer on something else, how does "increased risk in flying over a war zone where 3 aircraft had already been shot down is a no-brainer" measure up with "Looking at the past record is only one way to determine risk, and not a good choice for infrequent events."?

Not trying to be a dick, just curious to whether you think flying there would be more, less or just as risky today. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Is there some reason why you didn't add a new section ? In any case, I did it for you.)

I meant the past record of the actual event in question, in this case shooting down a passenger jet. Related events, such as shooting down of military jets, are also useful for risk assessment, especially where those related events are more common.

Ironically, flying over that area would likely be safer now, even as the perception of risk is much higher, since the militants probably realize that they screwed the pooch big time, and the resulting threat of serious sanctions may cause them to lose vital support from the Russians. StuRat (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Not trying to say you're wrong or right, just wondering. Didn't add a new section because it seemeed relevant to misunderstandings. My bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I would like to apologize for getting a little snippy on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Dataflow_driven_programming_framework. I know you're just trying to help. :-) I think you caught me in a bad mood, and took it too personally, since I've already put so much effort into understanding and accounting for every little detail of the system and putting checks in place to catch as much unexpected behavior as possible. Obviously I agree that it is always good advice to assume you haven't accounted for everything and have a backup plan in place. :-) Katie R (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just seen so many programs that failed to handle conditions which they assumed could never happen, that I always try to plan for them: "The best-laid plans of mice and men (and women) often go awry." StuRat (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The software I work on tests things that put mice and men and women into space, so I try to be careful. :-) Katie R (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better not send any mice to the Moon, in case it's made of cheese. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative "answers"[edit]

Hi Stu. I thought it would be more polite to post this here, and not distract from the thread. Do you see how this [30] is an example of why your un-cited claims bug people? Why make stuff up? Sure, it sounds reasonable that you can't use the wind to go faster than the wind -- but that's incorrect, as you would have known if you'd read the info on wind turbine land vehicles in Katie's link. It's also common knowledge among people who've been sailing, and is often mentioned as a fun factoid the first time a newbie boards a sailing vessel. It's a reference desk, not a "sounds reasonable" desk. I suppose you could say it doesn't matter because your error was quickly corrected, but for better or worse, people might believe the things you say, and there's not always someone right there with the time and knowledge to set the record straight. I'm not trying to be mean spirited. I didn't want to search through your extensive post history to find examples of this sort of thing, but when one popped up this morning, I thought I'd bring it to your attention, in light of the previous talk page thread. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather skeptical. The only source I found in that article appears to be this one, from an admitted amateur: [31]. And that seems to violate the conservation of energy law. So, like cold fusion, I need more proof than one experiment, before I accept it. What that source might be saying is that it can move slower than the wind, store up energy, the use that to sprint ahead of the wind for a short period. If so, that seems possible, but that still limits your average speed to below that of the wind. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source I found, which says "Even professional aeronautical engineers can’t agree": [32]. So, if I'm wrong, at least I'm in good company. StuRat (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit]

I apologized for my snappy remark and mischaracterization in the unhealthy ingredients question - I misread what you had written and responded poorly, my fault entirely.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! I think we are really both saying about the same thing, perhaps with me putting a bit much more emphasis on individual ingredients than you. I certainly agree that processed food should be avoided, whenever possible. StuRat (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mason jars[edit]

The term for a mason jar lid that doesn't have a separate ring and gasket lid is "storage lid" or "storage cap" - search those terms on google/amazon etc. [33]. Good luck, SemanticMantis (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, StuRat (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CRT[edit]

"On my CRT monitor...." LOL. You should let your family know what to get you for Christmas. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be bad for the environment to dump my CRTs (3 TVs + 3 monitors) in the landfill. And sending thousands of dollars to a non-democratic and increasingly militaristic power, the Chinese, seems socially irresponsible, to me. StuRat (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These things are cheaper now. Less than 1000 overall and I think most aren't even made in China anymore. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 1 Adar 5775 00:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, would you kindly examine my GFortran post at LinuxQuestions.org.[edit]

StuRat hi. I know you are an expert on GFortran. I recently had a problem and posted at a linux forum. In the end I solved the issue myself but I still do not understand why my FORMAT statement did not work.

My question is: "What is wrong with my FORMAT statement" If for some reason you will not be able to see the thread, I will post it here. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will take a look. StuRat (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did get an error when trying to view it, apparently you must be a member of that forum to view it. So, please list it here. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had this file with columns of data:

File gray_h_20.dat:

0 1956.353271 ; 1957.88532 ; 1958.421583 ; 242.7323189

1 3041.603197 ; 3044.183214 ; 3044.777652 ; 577.2555817

In real file the semicolons were absent. The total number of lines was 256.

program main

  real :: val1,val2,val3,val4,diff1,diff2,dcent1,dcent2
  integer :: reason = 0, ii = 0, jj = 75
  100 format (I4,f15.6,f15.6,f15.6,f15.6)   ! for reading from unit 1 file
  200 format ("reason = ",I10," jj = ",I10)
  700 format (f8.3)                   ! for writing into the unit 3 file
  500 format (I3,". val1= ",f11.7," val2= ",f11.7," diff1 = ", f8.3," or ",f6.2,"%", " diff2 = ",f8.3," or ", f6.3,"%")                ! for writing into stdout; unit 6
  open (unit=1, file = "gray_h_20.dat", status = 'old')
  open (unit=3, file = "diff_h_20.dat", status = 'old')
  DO WHILE (reason .eq. 0)
    ii = ii + 1

! THIS STATEMENT GAVE ME TROUBLE

    read (1,100,IOSTAT=reason) jj,val1,val2,val3,val4
    write (6,200) reason,jj
    diff1 = val1 - val2
    diff2 = val1 - val3
    dcent1 = diff1 / val1 * 100
    dcent2 = diff2 / val1 * 100
    write (3,700) dcent1
    write (6,500) ii, val1, val2, diff1, diff2, dcent1,dcent2
  enddo
  close (unit=1)
  close (unit=3)

end

I get this error, and also one line of "output" which is no output at all:

Quote:

reason = 5010 jj = 75

1. val1= -0.0000142 val2= 0.0000000 diff1 = -0.000 or -0.00% diff2 = 100.000 or 0.553%

This is how I resolved it and it began working.

read (1,*,IOSTAT=reason) jj,val1,val2,val3,val4

I would like to know why the first FORMAT statement failed.

Thanks --AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One question, do you have a blank at the beginning of each line in the input file ? If not, try that. I believe certain format statements expect the first character to be a special control character, and that might mess things up.

Also, instead of just using blanks to separate the columns, try commas. StuRat (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat hi, It is kind of interesting but unfortunately impractical. Someone else supplies the input file for me and it is not in the format I am using. This person sends me columns of numbers in .xlsx format which is Office Excel. I cannot use it in Ubuntu, at least I don't know how. So I copy about five columns at once to the clipboard and paste them into a .dat file in Ubuntu Terminal. Inserting commas manually is not for me.

Now the blank at the beginning of each line? There are no blanks, but entering the blanks manually? I can try that to prove the principle because this thing puzzles me. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me know how it goes. You can delete all but 2 lines, insert a space at the start, do one test, then add commas for a 2nd test. Once we know if either of those are the problem we can look for a solution, if you want to go beyond unformatted input. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the first 10 lines one position to the right thus giving each line a blank byte at the beginning. The formatted input did not work as before. This is what I got in the output file: ******** (one line only). --AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try the commas ? I suspect that without those, it will read by column. For example, an I4 read will try to read 4 characters and plug them into an integer. If part of the next number is in that 4 characters, things will go haywire. StuRat (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not do it yesterday. I did it now and it gave the same result: ******** . Just one line if it can be called a line. I inserted the commas as you suggested. Even if it worked I probably would not do the commas. It is kind of ridiculous to do it by hand on a large file given the fact that unformatted input works so well. So the problem has no answer. You can actually take my code and run it and confirm. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I've had a similar experience with formatted FORTRAN reads. They are extremely particular that everything be in exactly the right place. Unformatted input is safer. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention one interesting thing. I failed to remove the commas and the line shifts one position to the right. The unformatted READ ignored the nuisance as it were not there and read the real stuff: floating point numbers.

This will close the discussion, he, he. Thank you, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and good luck. I think the formatted reads go back to Hollerith cards, when each space on the card was specifically reserved for one data type, not like the CSV files we tend to use today, where spacing is ignored. Back then, space was at a premium, so they would put one number right up against the next, not using any spaces or commas in between, and the formatted reads were designed to decipher that. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Req Technical Advive[edit]

Hi, Stu.

You've been helpful before with TV questions. My parents have done away with cable entirely. The live 20 miles or less SE from downtown Philly and get all the Philly stations in normally very good HD reception. They have a 40-y/o outdoor antenna which works but could use replacing.

My Dad wants to install an in-attic antenna. He's looking at price and quality, but he's also interested in a hi-range antenna, since he lives 75 miles or less SW from NYC.

He'd like to get an antenna that would get the NYC stations, since it would easily double there number of stations, although much of the programming may be duplicate.

I have three main questions. Is a hi range TV that will also get NYC going to have to rotate every time he changes channels? (Frankly I think with his proximity to philly he can probably just keep the antenna aimed at NYC and get the philly due to the mere proximity of the signal.

Second is there any specific brands you can either recommend or warn him away from.

Third, is there any other issue I might not be thinking of that you suggest I pay attention to?

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really wouldn't recommend trying to get a digital TV signal from 75 miles away, but, if you're committed to it, it will take everything you can possibly do to get it to work, and then you can still expect to lose the signal regularly. (It's not like analog TV where a weak signal is still viewable, just with some "snow".) Some additional thoughts:

1) Some antennae are highly directional while others are somewhat directional or omni-directional. For that kind of range, though, I think you want a highly directional antenna. The directional ones also usually receive signals well from the opposite direction, and sometimes from a few other directions, as well. You might want to use both the new directional and old omni-directional antenna together. You can hook them up to a switch box at the TV you can use to select between the two. I have this setup.

2) Rotating antennae can be a bit of a pain. You need to use a remote control to rotate them, it needs to be lubricated periodically, you need to keep the area clear to allow for rotation, and you have to wait for it to rotate every time you change channels. I'd avoid those.

3) In-attic might not work. It may need the additional height you get by putting it on the roof. At 75 miles, you might have the Earth in between your antenna and the broadcast antenna, due to the curvature of the Earth, unless you go higher. 75 miles is really pushing the limits, so you'd have to go all out to make it work.

4) Something else to consider is the frequencies you are trying to receive. Different antennae are more sensitive to different frequencies. Note that under digital TV, the channel number no longer corresponds directly with the broadcast RF (radio frequency) signal. So, you'd want to determine the frequencies of the TV channels you're trying to get and select an antenna good at those frequencies. You won't be able to get low VHF at that range, because they are restricted on power output. For this reason most digital TV stations are broadcasting in either high VHF or UHF. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, that was very clear and helpful. My dad wasn't set on the NYC channels, and there was a miscommunication between us, he wants the antenna in the house itself, not the attic. His concern is that he gets pixelation when it's bad weather. He might go with on-the-roof, but he's 76 and it's not like Walmart will install it. (I can do inside wiring, but I have overpowering acrophobia (I got locked out of my apartment once and had to climb the fire escape from a 4th story to a 5th story window, which took about 30 minutes for me to do in inch by inch increments.)) The NYC signals come out of the Twinless Tower so they are pretty high, there are no mountains in between, he lives at almost the highest elevation in SJ, but that's like 100ft, so not much help.

One last question. Since almost all of the channels he gets are at 10 degrees west of due north from him, and they come in fine now on his 40 y/o antenna, is there any point in a unidrectional antenna? There are other stations, mostly PBS, which they like) that come out of Vineland and (S) Atlantic City ESE) and Trenton (N). Not knowing the right word, would an omnidrectional (?) antenna be a good idea, if there is such a thing? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are, but none are 100% omnidirectional, or 100% unidirectional, for that matter. What channels get the pixelation ? If those are the ones 10 degrees west of north, then a directional antenna for those and an omnidirectional antenna for the rest might work. As for brands, Winegard and Channel Master seem to usually have the best antennae. But as for putting it inside the house, and not in the attic, you have to realize that directional antennae are big and ugly, not the type of thing you want in your living room. Maybe if he has a utility or storage room, that might be appropriate, but you also have the antenna wires to deal with. StuRat (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For his convenience, he wants an omnidirectional antenna in the living room one in the botom center of the home that will get better than the one on the roof 30 ft up. I know this will cause my mother to have apoplexy. He also doesn't want to have to run wiring other than by the current route, which is down the West side of the house from the roof and across the garage into the living room. I am going to try to convince him either to put a new antenna where the old antenna is, or perhaps one in my sister's old room which is rarely used and has a northward view from the second floor. The Channel that comes in poorly is 23 PBS out of Camden, which can't be more that 1-3 degrees away from the Philly transmitters from his transmitters.

The problems at this point seem ones of effort, esthetics, and emotion, so again your advice has been helpful. He was going to get the Channel Master C2 if I remember (don't have my email open) but was going to try to fit that in an almost below ground room in the center of the house, in an 18" space behind and south of the TV. Thanks for all the practical advice, I will pass it along shortly. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, but be sure to explain to him the huge difference in reception he will get due to the elevation difference. If he wants to put a directional antenna behind the TV in that small space, it would have to be the bay type (http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=4228-hd is a good one). However, he would be quite limited in where he could aim it.

Also, you might be thinking that a new antenna would have to outperform a 40 year old one. This is not necessarily true. Very little improvement has been made to TV antenna technology over the last 40 years, because people have been switching to cable and satellite TV. There have been improvements in cell phone antennae based on fractal geometry, but so far AFAIK nobody has tried to adapt this to TV antenna. StuRat (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library - ScotlandsPeople - You've got mail[edit]

Hello, StuRat. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Philg88 ^♦talk 06:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your graphics software[edit]

StuRat, I want to know what graphics software you are using. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the animated GIFs from my home page ? As I said "I generate the panes using FORTRAN programs I write, then use ImageMagick to stitch them together into animated GIFs." You might wonder why I do it this way instead of using some off-the-shelf program. Well, my goal was to learn the basics, and I wanted to start from scratch to do this. StuRat (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember those animated pictures and this is why I asked you this question. My goal is actually different. I am not interested in animation. I was wondering if GFortran has intrinsic graphics capabilities. That was the impression I had when you showed that stuff to me. I currently use gnuplot which is outside GFortran, so I have to fill up a file with floating point values and then use a short file with gnuplot code and issue a simple command to display the graphic. There are numerous graphics program on the web. Thanks, ---AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've not found any. I believe I asked this Q at the Ref Desk some time ago. I do everything manually. The Netpbm format allows you to output a human-readable ASCII graphics file, which can be displayed directly. However, those are huge and slow, so you likely will want to convert them to another format. You could also theoretically output binary graphics files directly from FORTRAN, but debugging is problematic, since you can't read the file directly anymore. (I've actually been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet, so if you do, I'd love to get a copy.) Then graphics file compression is another issue, and even if you create binary files, you'd still likely want to use another program to compress them. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Emilie claire Barlow[edit]

I did send a self addressed stamped envelope and I got nothing. Please help me. Venustar84 (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How long ago ? If they answer their mail personally, it can take a very long time to get caught up. StuRat (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago. Venustar84 (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They still might still answer after that long, but I'd also try your other approach of catching her in person. StuRat (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help![edit]

To StuRat, Tcncv, Salix alba, Dismas and Mandruss. I gather that most of the time when you answer questions at the reference desk, you never hear back, so I wanted to let everyone involved in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2014 August 26#Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2014 August 17#Please help me buy the right wire redux know a few months later that it made a real convenience difference in my life and is much appreciated! Thanks again.--108.54.18.254 (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad we could help ! StuRat (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crudités, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salsa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being bullied by Baseballbugs[edit]

Any chance you could intervene here?

Every time I create a new question of the ref desk this particular editor swoops in with arbitrary removals of my question. This bully boy approach is really unhelpful and I have no idea why he feels compelled to pick on me personally. When questioned, he is unable to explain his actions. Which suggests to me that his behavior is purely driven by malice.

See my revision page.

Your Q "Why did Jimmy cross the road" seems to have been removed for good reason. If you meant something like "What was Jimmy Wales' motivation for starting Wikipedia ?", then you should have said so. Unfortunately, that question marked you as a troll in BB's mind. I suggest you sign up, then he won't recognize you. And avoid any more silly Q's like the crossing the road one. Your Q on Wikipedia biases seems reasonable to me, and I wouldn't have removed it. I'll put it back and see if he leaves it there now. StuRat (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This time he's blocked for a week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"::This time he's blocked for a week. ←Baseball Bugs"

Sort of.

And you were contradicted more reasonable, fellow Wikipedian's who kept my most current question live. Whereas you wanted to delete the whole lot. Friendly tip : best you keep that ego genie in the bottle. We all know he knows best, don't worry.101.108.214.59 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Does Wikipedia offer medical advice now?. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misc desk[edit]

I deleted it without comment because it was an obvious attempt at a BLP-attack on Wales. Please, don't start another troll-feeding bout. Revert yourself without comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted it on Wales' talk page so he can decide what it's about, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all obvious to me. Take it to the talk page and try to garner a consensus. StuRat (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Desk proposal[edit]

Hi Stu, I don't know if you've been following the recent threads on the ref desk talk page, but based on some review of that material, I have a simple proposal that I'd like your feedback on before I shop it to the whole group. It's very simple: For a trial period (1 month?), we agree to not remove or hat any questions for reasons of seeking medical/legal advice (and perhaps extend to include requests for opinion). Rather than a free-for-all, we first respond with boilerplate or a template, something along the lines of this:

“

Hello, and welcome to the Wikipedia Reference desk. Your question seems to be seeking medical or legal advice [or perhaps a request for opinion]. We do not give this type of advice [links to disclaimer and guidelines, header, etc], but our users will be allowed to post citations/links to informational references. We hope this information might be useful to you. If you further pursue advice here, this question may be removed.

”

At that point, we can remove any responses that diagnose, proscribe, treat any illness or legal situation, but allow links to RS. Perhaps even demand that any responses include references, or risk removal. Would that seem ok to you? The thing is, we really don't get that many medical legal questions, and I like how this puts us in the position to police ourselves as respondents, rather than posters. As I see it, this proposal is consistent with our guidelines, and it might forestall some debates, because hopefully the use of a template will warn all our regulars (and irregulars) to be on their best behavior. On the upside, we can then provide useful information, such as links to other people's opinion pieces, links to WP pages that are about medical topics, peer-reviewed literature, etc. So, any thoughts? Would you support such an experiment? Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that would work, as written, because of editors like Medeis, who think anything related to biology is medical advice. Give her the ability to delete responses without consensus and she would delete even more than she does now. If you add that deletions can only occur after a consensus is garnered on the talk page, then I could support your proposal. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we could do it that way. I'm certainly open to tweaking the details. The main thing I want to promote is to focus on responses, not questions. I see it as our job to behave ethically, not poster's jobs to read all our guidelines and know how to not even look like a hint of a troll or advice seeker. I was actually keeping Medeis in mind. My thought was that she could feel happy by adding that template to certain questions, and she might be less likely to delete a regular user's posted answer (i.e. not "drive-by IP" as some of them say), especially since theoretically further responses would be very careful to give advice. Oh well. Thanks for the feedback. I'll see what the others I've asked say, and maybe post on the talk page about it over the weekend. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give an example. Say somebody asks how many teeth an adult human should have. Under current rules, Medeis would hat the question as requesting medical advice, then everyone else would ignore her hatting or remove it, since it obviously isn't a request for medical advice. Under your proposed rule, somebody would give the answer, perhaps with a link, and Medeis would then delete it. Others wouldn't know the correct answer was deleted, and waste time providing their own answer, which she would then delete again. That's not an improvement. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the question were "How many teeth does an adult human have?", then that's not asking for medical advice, and I think if anyone tried to remove it, they would be resisted. And drama would ensure. I think my solution could make it better - here's my scenario - if we agreed on a template, it could be added to the question (even though I think that would be erroneous, I wouldn't mind) Then someone can say "see our article on Human_tooth#Permanent_teeth, which says that a normal healthy human has 32 permanent teeth" - and if anyone tried to remove that answer, they'd be wrong to do so, and I'm fairly confident our community would act to restore the response. Btw, have a look at Medeis' talk page. I dropped a line there too, and she seems basically amenable... SemanticMantis (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her argument would be that if we tell them how many teeth a normal adult human is supposed to have, that they would then conclude that they either have the correct number or incorrect number of teeth, which is a medical diagnosis, and we should not assist people in self-diagnosis. She's renowned for this type of absurd misinterpretation of the rules. Also, since some people have wisdom teeth and some don't she would also argue that we are not qualified to answer, and that they must consult their dentist.

And yes, her deletions would be reverted, if anyone knew she made them. They will only show up on our watch-lists until the next edit to that Ref Desk is made. I for one don't comb through the history of each Ref Desk page every hour to check to see what else she has deleted, and I doubt if anyone else does, either. So, the problem with unilateral deletions is they can easily slip under the radar. Not so for hatting or consensus deletions.

And I'm not at all surprised that she would favor any proposal that allows her to do unilateral deletions. StuRat (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no way trying to encourage deletions - exactly the opposite is my goal - to use a template instead of deleting. How about just the template, instead of hatting/closing? With nothing about further responses, neither explicitly preventing them nor allowing them. Something like this:

“

Hello, and welcome to the Wikipedia Reference desk. Your question seems to be seeking medical or legal advice. We do not give professional advice [ [34], header link]. Our goal here is to provide citations and links to informational references and WP articles. WP is the encyclopedia WP:ANYONE can edit, so we cannot make any guarantees ([35], [36], [37]). If you seek medical, legal, or other professional advice, please find a licensed practitioner in your jurisdiction.

”

The idea was just to get something fairly innocuous that we could agree on, that might both keep people from needlessly deleting things, and also help teach readers and posters about our guidelines. This form doesn't change any of our guidelines in any way, but it is designed to avoid any need to delete posts. If I can get Medeis (and others) to agree to post this template (or something similar) instead of deleting, wouldn't you call that progress, or at least a small improvement? I know I would, but I'm trying to see how others feel, so that I don't waste my time on a huge talk thread that accomplishes nothing. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks OK, as long as they sign it. An unsigned template like that makes it look like it's a consensus statement, when it's really just one person's opinion. Is there a way to make a template always add the signature of the person who left it ? StuRat (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piscine retribution[edit]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Misrepresentation of the Star Wars Original Trilogy Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 1 Adar 5775 00:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle...[edit]

...on My Mind, as sung by Ethel Merman. I doubt there's a recording of it anywhere. It was something I saw on a TV variety show back in the 60s. You've heard the expression about a singing voice that sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard? This was worse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Turns out it was on the Carol Burnett Show, March 3, 1969. So it might still exist somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing&diff=next&oldid=653489182#Quest_about_jkflip_flops_and_transition_state_diagramsg

please :( Doorknob747 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bedbugs question[edit]

Hi StuRat, I replied to your reply. Best wishes, Rich Peterson2601:7:6580:5E3:79CC:4600:8B68:8653 (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Areas of interest/expertise[edit]

Hi Stu, would you consider adding in some of your areas of interest/expertise to Wikipedia:RD_regulars? I know you're pretty expert on some types of computer stuff, maybe some physics and probably other things I don't even know about :) I'd like to get more people to participate so that it might become a useful resource for all of us. Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a user who may need a friend[edit]

hello StuRat it is dfrr this user who goes by the name User:Trimethylxanthine has not been getting messages from anyone but me in fact only one other user has sent him a message when he first came here to wikipedia. so lets send him him barnstars wikiloves messages anything to make him feel like people know he is here at wikipedia. thank you and have a great springDfrr (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darnell[edit]

Since you just brought it up: Was Darnell wearing a red shirt? The article doesn't mention it. — Sebastian 02:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pic (is that Darnell ?) seems to show a blue shirt. They weren't very consistent on shirt colors in Star Trek:TOS. StuRat (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which pic? — Sebastian 02:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right after my link to the article. Looks like he fell victim to the killer frog. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or leeches, I would imagine. — Sebastian 02:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

I'd like to invite everyone to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inequality[edit]

Hey Stu! I believe that you have your second inequality backwards over at WP:RDMA#Algebra. Presumably Clover's wording was imprecise. Cheers! -- ToE 23:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, good catch. Fixed now. Thanks, StuRat (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's still funky! The inequality shifts between both the first and second equation and between the second and third, though I can't quite tell which way Clover intended. BTW, I am somewhat confused at how someone who asks such a simple question can follow up with question about Rosenblatt transforms. -- ToE 00:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tricky part is "If x < y, then 1/x > 1/y, when x & y are both positive or both negative". We don't actually know that the left side is positive, do we ? I'm not sure what to do in this case. StuRat (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If L is a real number, then e^(-1/L) is positive. Also, I now see that Clover was clear about which inequality sign they meant where, with the first equation and the final answer using "greater than or equal to" and the intermediate equation using "less than or equal to". -- ToE 07:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Heading[edit]

Stu, you are well aware section headings are supposed to neutrally state an issue, not attack a single person. I am not the sole person who disagrees with you, keep you edits to the discussion because if you edit war over getting my name in the header I'll take action. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, listing a person's name in the header doesn't make it not neutral. I mentioned your action and why you claimed you took it, and nothing else, in my latest version. Your "Answering opinion with opinion" header was not even close to being neutral. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk problem - edit conflict?[edit]

Hi Stu, you seem to have inadvertently removed some other responses here. Did you have an edit conflict? DuncanHill (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your edit so as to restore what was there before. Could you re-add your response, as it will be helpful to other readers? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He probably shouldn't re-add it, as it was wrong. "Random" referred to the random order of cards in the machine, according to the magazine article (and common sense—random access is a feature of every filing system ever, so it wouldn't be a selling point). -- BenRG (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the earliest computer systems could only read sequentially, and being able to access data non-sequentially was a real selling point. Of course, now it's like "stereo", so widespread you don't really need to say it anymore, but some people still do.

As for being able to retrieve any cards in the specific order, regardless of the order in which they are loaded, that's the same thing I was saying. StuRat (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Duncan. I got an edit conflict, but when I looked at it it seemed to take my changes, so I left it, not realizing it had somehow wiped out the conflicting edit. StuRat (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change of section header[edit]

[38] It's Viennese Waltz, not Vienna Waltz. --Viennese Waltz 14:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the correction. And I striked out the comment, not because what any men think, but because Deb didn't like it. StuRat (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, although I don't agree with your reason. Men are just as entitled to object to sexist humour as women are, and their objections should carry no less weight. Your argument is like saying that a racist joke is acceptable as long as a black person finds it acceptable. --Viennese Waltz 08:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a racist joke, but saying things like "You my nigga !", which is acceptable in some black cultures. When everyone starts worrying about 3rd parties possibly getting offended, it becomes a political correctness nightmare. To put it in legal terms, you lack "standing" to object. StuRat (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Period[edit]

I'm sitting here wondering if all that, at RDL and the talk page, would have been avoided if I had simply ignored the comment from Dodger67. If I accomplished nothing but stirring the pot, I apologize. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciate it, anyway. Jayron never misses an opportunity to make a personal attack on me, amazing behavior for an Admin. I chose not to engage on either page, as that will just give them more opportunities for personal attacks. There seem to be a large number of people at the Ref Desk whose main purpose is to attack others, whether posters or responders. They all need to be more tolerant, and have a sense of humor. If the Ref Desk was as dull as they want to make it, I suspect it would die, because few would be interested in responding in their grey, boring world. StuRat (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ptolemaic numbers[edit]

Many thanks for your answer, which opened up several other interesting sidelines! I came to the conclusion that the original context must have meant Greek numbers, pity they didn't say Greek instead of Ptolemaic but it does sound more interesting / mysterious this way. Followed up Ancient Egyptian and Latin but they wouldn't work in the context: http://www.artisandice.com/order/kanji-and-runic-d20s/ Yes, this is the inoffensive link which caused me to start hunting. I really appreciate such an expanded and encompassing answer. It's a win! 14.2.30.233 (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome ! StuRat (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref[edit]

Needed here [39] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to his article, you should find all the refs you need. StuRat (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention[edit]

You do realize, of course, that the editor involved has been blocked indefinitely, that the question is not a request for references, and that the link will not go anywhere once the items are archived, so the clutter will serve no purpose whatsoever? Can you please explain why this material should be retained for any ref desk reason? μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will remain in the archives as a record of what occurred, and is far more accessible there than if we needed to look through the history to try to find it in the future. But none of this really matters, as there was no valid reason given for a deletion. Having a dead link in no way qualifies as a good reason. StuRat (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat is spot on. DuncanHill (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: Re the link, you can wait until the target has been archived and then modify the link to either a wikilink or a permalink to the section on the archive page. It takes less than a minute, no fuss, no muss. Whatever the arguments involved here, the link shouldn't be one of them. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latin[edit]

Hi Sturat, can you please add your reference to your answer about the use of Latin being linked to democracy (here [40])? Thanks. 184.147.127.87 (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you misunderstood my use of the word. I didn't mean democratic forms of government, per se, but rather "the little guy having more say in the world". The form of government is one way that can happen, but also technology changes like the internet now allow everyone to have a say (for example, by rating businesses), whereas only a few in the media had a voice before. To look at one example, let's say your lawyer throws Latin phrases at you rather than say them in simple English (say "writ of habeas corpus" versus "an order to charge or release the prisoner"). You can leave a review of that lawyer that says he does that, and find another lawyer who doesn't, all using the internet. Eventually that lawyer will learn to use simple English or lose all his clients. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS[edit]

Why on God's green earth did you feel the need to ~~restore~~ respond to that troll's speculations about biological warfare? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't look like trolling to me. I can certainly understand how someone might think "We defeated millions of enemies in WW2, so why can't we easily defeat a few thousand crazies ?". I haven't seen it explained on the news, either. So, I explained it. StuRat (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I almost never see eye-to-eye with user Fgf10, and we both agree it's trolling. The IP would be blocked already except the admins are asleep at the switch at AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will give them the benefit of the doubt until then. StuRat (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who, the IP? Read his so-called contributions for today. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is now blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I evaluate the Q, not the OP. If the Q seems reasonable, I answer it. Now if the OP gets banned, I will respect that, but I don't intend to start looking through all the contibutions of every OP before deciding if I will answer their Q. StuRat (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, others will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering my question. Hats off to you for breaking the mold around here and helping a questioner.

Pissing against the wall[edit]

You asked:

I wonder if it meant "males over a certain age", as male babies wouldn't be able to "piss against the wall". I also wonder why the translators chose the word "piss", versus "urinate", which comes from Latin and is considered the more refined choice. StuRat (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I don't know if the phrase means to exclude babies but in general it is considered to include even young children. I kind of doubt that babies would be excluded though because the purpose was to eradicate the male line altogether. Maybe one should not understand the present "pisseth" too literally. Biblical Hebrew finite tenses and verbal adjectives have, as far as I know, more imprecise temporal implications than English (or Modern Hebrew) equivalents. The so called verbal aspect is as important. Maybe "a pisser against the wall" would be closer to the meaning of the Hebrew (see, btw, Wycliffe's translation below). Because the Hebrew word that is translated by "pisseth" is a verbal adjective, not a finite tense, it can mean "a pisser", i.e. someone whose nature it is to (maybe not today but one day) urinate against the wall. As to your second question, some of the more recent translators do use "urinate" and some forgo the metaphor altogether and put instead some such equivalent as "male" or "male child" etc. As to why the KJV uses "piss" instead of "urinate" I don't know. Maybe "urinate" was not yet commonly used in English. EtymOnline gives 1590s for that word but maybe it was still specialized medical terminology. The oldest translations all seem to use a derivative of "piss". Wycliffe's Bible has "a pisser on the wall" or "a pisser to the wall". Since Wycliffe's is translated not from the Hebrew but from the Latin Vulgate I would assume that Jerome too picked an earthy Latin word to translate the Hebrew (but I have not checked the text of the Vulgate). Amazingly Young's Literal Translation (literal!) uses "sitting on the wall" (!) which is completely wrong. But what do you expect from a Victorian translation? In any case the earthiness of "piss" is not meant to reflect any connotation of the word in Hebrew, I don't think, since the word used is the only one for urinating (in Biblical Hebrew). This said, the Hebrew Bible does uses circumlocutions for some bodily functions, e.g. it is said to use "covers his feet" for "defecates" for example in 1 Samuel 24:4 (לְהָסֵ֣ךְ אֶת־רַגְלָ֑יו) (in fact, as far as I know, no root for "defecating" has come down to us from Biblical Hebrew, or at least not in the text of the Bible), but I don't completely understand this because this is not a verb that is used in Modern Hebrew for "covers". In any case maybe the use in Hebrew of the literal word for "urinating", especially in this phrase, instead of a circumlocution, is, after all, a popular, earthy idiom used on purpose, for stylistic reasons, by the (highly sophisticated) writers of these texts. Some day I will try to see if this Hebrew root for "urinating" is used in the Bible other than in this specific idiom. Contact Basemetal here 17:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps when they said "defile" they meant "urinate" (could be "defecate", too). "Cover the feet" seems like a bizarre euphemism for defecate. They don't mean "cover the feet with feces" I hope. Maybe they just meant putting on shoes, in order to go outside to defecate ? StuRat (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is not "cover the feet with feces", and not only because that would be gross

and entirely out of character with the habits of primitive people and in any case would take some doing given the standard squatting position which was general before the invention of the toilet seat. It is unthinkable that defecating on your own feet would have been such a standard modus operandi as to give rise to a phrase, even if it could conceivably occur as an accident to a particularly clumsy or hurried crapper. However that doesn't get us close to the origin of the phrase. If the ancient Hebrews had worn pants I could imagine "covering your feet" meant pulling down your pants. (This, btw, reminds me of a particularly funny scene in "Don Quixote") But they didn't. A robe on the other hand would be more likely to be pulled up than pulled down. Maybe the ancient Hebrews wore some kind of underwear, even if it was just a piece of rag, and that was pulled down and "covered the feet" so to speak, even though you'd better cover only the front of your feet, for obvious reasons. I'll ask someone who knows Biblical Hebrew well. Contact Basemetal here 20:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of something interesting I heard on the radio last night. Apparently an estimated 550,000 people in India still defecate outdoors. They seem to prefer it, even when an outhouse is available (I would guess because of the smell). But, as you can imagine, this leads to the spread of disease, and sure doesn't do much for tourism. So, the local governments have started using "walls of shame", where they snap pics of offenders "in the act" and post them in town. That seems to be having the desired effect. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing they don't put it on the net, Instagram or Flickr

I've often wondered why homo sapiens is so poorly equipped for mass communal defecation

When you see those seal colonies or penguin colonies or any seabird colony with millions of animals all happily defecating next to each other (try to imagine that) without any adverse effect (I'm not sure about the seals and sea lions, maybe they do it in the sea) it makes you wonder. (Do you know what the guano in Peru is? There's literally mountains of that stuff!) It is true cats are also very particular. It seems, as far as that is concerned, homo sapiens behaves more like a cat or a tiger or a predatory animal, than a social animal like a monkey ought to. I've got only two cats, but if I don't clean their litter box everyday its a revolution. I'm basically my cats' tattiwallah (or whatever that is called in India). Ok, I have to take out the turds everyday, but I've got three or four days to change the litter. But, seriously, only about half a million people? That sounds to me like a huge underestimate. The Times of India and The Hindu put it at more like 600 million. Besides hygiene and tourism there is that of domestic animals, such as dogs, eating the feces, and if it's too far from the village, the problem of attacks by wild animals, of scorpions, snakes, etc, and for women, the danger of rape, especially if done after dark. Btw, it's not always the fault of the people practicing it given the ghastly state of public toilets. I'm sure there are technical solutions to this problem (which is a problem in India and elsewhere, see article Open defecation). In my opinion, at least in the countryside, one has to start by having every family have their own toilet (preferably a composting toilet) of which they take care personally as opposed to public toilets. Relying on public toilets and professional "toilet cleaners" especially those belonging to a specialized caste who operate with minimal technology is bound to fail and the toilets will remain in that horrible state that drives people to prefer open defecation. Every family in the countryside should take care of its own toilet. In the cities, though, you have to have public toilets of course, and the problem is different. Paradoxically it seems the problem, at least in India, is more acute in the countryside. Contact Basemetal here 21:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I missed a set of zeroes. That's 550 million. As for other animals, I think it does spread disease and shorten lifespans, this being one reason why most animals live longer in captivity, since we clean up the manure. StuRat (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A documentary on bathroom repair in ancient Israel here Contact Basemetal here 11:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sturat[edit]

The issue I presented at Refdesk\Computing wasn't really resolved after all... It's wired, please see there. Would thank you dearly, Ben. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Teazle (video game) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Teazle (video game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teazle (video game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – czar 21:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

stool thread[edit]

Stu, if you check that IP's contributions, you'll see that the thread you restored was already posted and is already being discussed on the misc desk also. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The Science Desk seems like the proper place for it. I suggest cross links and/or moving one. StuRat (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Losing fat without aerobic exercise or eating excess protein[edit]

According to User_talk:Justin545#Losing_fat_without_aerobic_exercise_or_eating_excess_protein, you mentioned "Surprisingly, eating fats don't seem to make you gain fat", is there any reference about that? Thanks. Justin545 (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[41] cites several studies. The main problem with low-fat diets is that they tend to replace the missing fats with increase carbs, including bad carbs like refined sugar and white flour. Those cause a sugar spike followed by an insulin spike followed by converting that blood sugar into body fat. StuRat (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

was this nasty?[edit]

am I being nasty? But I am right, am I? I have had it with these people, what do they think the internet is? Asmrulz (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should try to be more patient. I would have just stated that I doubt if anyone would get enjoyment out of that and ask if they can provide any sources that prove otherwise. StuRat (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I toned it down a bit for less drama Asmrulz (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Control F[edit]

Re. your post here, I now have the same problem after chrome updated when I did a weekly re-boot on one of my devises (PC). Thought I let you know. Cheers, --TMCk (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. At least if it's something they did, we can have some hope they will fix it, too. Seems like there's a logical problem that both the search pop-up window and the window to be searched need to be "on top" for it to work, but only one can be on top at a time. Not sure how they ever got around this. StuRat (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's them who screwed up. So now at least you know there is nothing more for you to do other than waiting and hoping for a fix soon to be implemented ;) --TMCk (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Stu[edit]

This looks personal. Not how you usually operate. Come on, for consistency's sake you could probably create volumes of such diffs for a majority of users (including User:Stu Rat). ... ---Sluzzelin talk 23:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Jayron is the chief hyprocrite, and I intend to have links handy the next time he asks for refs on something completely obvious (thus not requiring refs). My links will have cases where a link is really needed, but Jayron refused to provide them. I may very well add other editors refusals to provide links to the list, if they start launching hypocritical attacks like Jayron has. StuRat (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

revert[edit]

This edit reintroduced a bunch of archived content which the bot dutifully archived a second time. So now it may be in the archives twice; I don't have time (or battery life on this chargerless laptop tonight) to investigate further. --Steve Summit (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was trying to fix the revert before that, which seemed to have inadvertently deleted all that, as well as restoring other material. Did the archiving and his revert all get combined into a single edit somehow ? StuRat (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I'll look at it some more tonight. --Steve Summit (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the revert before yours was proper, and did not need reverting.

this edit. at 17:12 on November 11, basically reverted back to 14:31 on November 9, after the bot archived November 1 but before it archived November 2. So it restored three days' worth of archived content, and deleted everything that had been added since
this edit. at 17:18, perfectly reverted the previous, deleting the re-added archived content and restoring the deleted content
but then your edit re-restored the archived content. --Steve Summit (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archives finally cleaned up. (I don't know what 5.81.235.234 (talk · contribs) has been up to. --Steve Summit (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding...[edit]

this - when are you going to start paying attention to what's going on? Do that kind of thing one too many times, and someone's going to suggest banning you from the ref desks. Don't let it get to that point, please. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His edit summary just said "(Reverted edits by 80.44.165.173 (talk) to last version by Paulscrawl)". Absolutely no mention that he was reverting a banned user. We can't be expected to read minds. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The revert came 2 minutes AFTER the IP was blocked for block evasion.[42] No mind-reading about it. When an admin reverts without comment, it behooves you to pay attention to what's going on. Before you think about re-reverting, check to see if the reverted user is blocked. If you're not in the habit of doing that, you had best start. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that was an Admin, I've never seen him before, And it's not our responsibility to research a revert to try to figure out the motivation behind it, which could take every editor who looks at it quite some time, it's the responsibility of the person doing the revert to state the reason explicitly in the edit summary, which takes one person 30 seconds. StuRat (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Stu, you're wrong here. And this is the same case as the one just above.

When you looked at the history before the revert you made, you would have seen this:

• (cur | prev) 18:51, 14 November 2015 Elockid (talk | contribs) m . . (86,079 bytes) (-5,611) . . (Reverted edits by 80.44.165.173 (talk) to last version by Paulscrawl) (undo | thank)

• (cur | prev) 18:50, 14 November 2015 80.44.165.173 (talk) . . (91,690 bytes) (+5,611) . . (For the lowdown on Future Perfect at Sunset see User talk:Dweller#Shenanigans at the reference desk.) (undo)

• (cur | prev) 17:49, 14 November 2015 Paulscrawl (talk | contribs) . . (86,079 bytes) (+164) . . (→Dali's Mustache (St. Petersburg): Which artist?: and the name is ... ?) (undo | thank)

Now, look at those numbers. +5,611, -5,611. It sure looks like Elockid reverted the immediately-previous edit by 80.44.165.173. This sort of thing happens all the time. It is your job to make the determination whether Elockid or 80.44.165.173 was the vandal, perhaps by clicking on the diff links. Yes, this is a nuisance and takes a little more time. But if you fail to do so, then vandals such as 80.44.165.173 will trick you into doing their work for them, which is exactly what happened here.

This pattern happens a lot. The vandal picks an old version, edits it, and submits it. The edit therefore looks like (as you were asking me about earlier) a combination of deletions and insertions. Any insertions between the old and the current version get deleted, but any deletions between the old and the current version (such as done by the archiving bot, or by other vandal fighters, etc.) get re-inserted.

It's absolutely fine to do a simple revert of such an edit, as Elockid did, simultaneously restoring the deleted content, re-deleting any improperly-restored content, and deleting the vandal's addition. (And please don't blame Elockid for not supplying the edit comment you wish they had, because vandals have figured that out, too, and will use edit comments like "rvv" when they're committing vandalism, in hopes of tricking gullible editors like you into supporting them.)

You're not helping the project when you unrevert vandal-fighting reversions in cases like these. It probably took me an hour, spread out over several days, to clean up the mess that resulted after the last time you did this (when your unreverted content stuck around long enough to get archived a second time). If you can't be bothered to be a bit more careful when fighting vandals, please leave the work to people who can. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me why the Admin failing to write "Reverting banned editor" was a good decision on his part. As for me, I did look at the changes, and didn't see anything obviously wrong with the content. That, in combination with a deletion with no explanation given, by somebody I never saw before, made it look like that was the vandalism. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed over and over and over again, on the talk page, that when reverting trolls, it is best to be as low-key as possible. Your unwillingness to look at these situations serves to feed the trolls. Please stop feeding the trolls. Look at the contribs of the two editors and find out what's going on before you draw conclusions or take action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the "Reverted edits by xxx to last version by yyy" edit summary is the default one provided by Undo or Rollback or one of the other similar streamlined reversion tools. As far as I know, there is no requirement that users tweak the default message (and I believe that's especially true when one is mopping up after vandalism in a hurry). I know that, when I use these tools, I don't always take time to tweak the default message. I know that, when I see these default messages in edit histories, I tend to assume they're vandalism reversion.

It's fine to wish that people routinely did more in terms of edit summaries on reversions, but I think policy and common practice are currently against you. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit sidewalks[edit]

Since you answered my sidewalks-in-Detroit question at WP:RDH several weeks ago, I thought you might be amused/saddened/somethingelse by looking at this image, taken in Poletown East when I made another Detroit photo trip a couple of weeks ago. No money for most things, but they've just put in tactile paving on these never-going-to-be-used sidewalks. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that they got a Federal grant to do that. That's good for Detroit in that they aren't diverting other funds needed badly to rebuild Detroit, and presumably employing Detroiters to install them, but of course bad in the big picture, in that the Federal government should spend the taxpayer's money more wisely. Hopefully something will be built there eventually and they will be put to good use. StuRat (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This trolling speaks for itself Stu. See the current discussions at both Talk and ANI[edit]

(cur | prev) 14:31, 22 November 2015‎ Favonian (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (66,882 bytes) (-1,184)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 190.237.42.153 (talk) to last version by Future Perfect at Sunrise) updated since my last visit (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 14:30, 22 November 2015‎ 190.237.42.153 (talk)‎ . . (68,066 bytes) (+1,184)‎ . . (Undid revision 691872456 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk)) updated since my last visit (undo)
(cur | prev) 14:22, 22 November 2015‎ Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)‎ . . (66,882 bytes) (-1,184)‎ . . (rv proxying for block-evading troll) updated since my last visit (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 14:22, 22 November 2015‎ StuRat (talk | contribs)‎ . . (68,066 bytes) (+142)‎ . . (→‎Car 'hood' and cold weather.) updated since my last visit (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 14:14, 22 November 2015‎ StuRat (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,924 bytes) (+366)‎ . . (→‎Black Brutality) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 14:11, 22 November 2015‎ StuRat (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,558 bytes) (+818)‎ . . (Undid revision 691870427 by Medeis (talk) Is there a specific ban on this user somewhere at ANI ? If so, link to that ban.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 14:06, 22 November 2015‎ Medeis (talk | contribs)‎ . . (66,740 bytes) (-818)‎ . . (Undid revision 691870178 by 178.33.138.104 (talk) see WP:ANI) (undo)
(cur | prev) 14:04, 22 November 2015‎ 178.33.138.104 (talk)‎ . . (67,558 bytes) (+818)‎ . . (Undid revision 691836105 by Nil Einne (talk)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 09:27, 22 November 2015‎ Elockid (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (66,740 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Changed protection level of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous: Persistent disruptive editing ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 17:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 09:26, 22 November 2015‎ Nil Einne (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (66,740 bytes) (-818)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 95.68.148.0 (talk) to last version by Nil Einne) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 09:23, 22 November 2015‎ 95.68.148.0 (talk)‎ . . (67,558 bytes) (+818)‎ . . (Undid revision 691835663 by Nil Einne (talk)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 09:22, 22 November 2015‎ Nil Einne (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (66,740 bytes) (-818)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 125.2.114.28 (talk) to last version by Nil Einne) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 09:20, 22 November 2015‎ 125.2.114.28 (talk)‎ . . (67,558 bytes) (+818)‎ . . (Undid revision 691835446 by Nil Einne (talk)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 09:20, 22 November 2015‎ Nil Einne (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (66,740 bytes) (-818)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 69.156.106.97 (talk) to last version by Nil Einne) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 09:11, 22 November 2015‎ 69.156.106.97 (talk)‎ . . (67,558 bytes) (+818)‎ . . (Undid revision 691827983 by Nil Einne (talk)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 07:53, 22 November 2015‎ Nil Einne (talk | contribs)‎ . . (66,740 bytes) (-818)‎ . . (→‎Black Brutality: blocked sock) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 05:56, 22 November 2015‎ Ghmyrtle (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,558 bytes) (+96)‎ . . (→‎Black Brutality: ?) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 05:41, 22 November 2015‎ SineBot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (67,462 bytes) (+282)‎ . . (Signing comment by 175.199.5.105 - "→‎Black Brutality: new section") (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:40, 22 November 2015‎ 175.199.5.105 (talk)‎ . . (67,180 bytes) (+440)‎ . . (→‎Black Brutality: new section) (undo)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2[edit]

You're an island of calm in a sea of storms. Or have you not checked your talk page history in recent weeks? :) Have you thought of having your page semi'd? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need for that. I've just been ignoring it all. StuRat (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. You've got plenty of users watching out for you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, would you mind archiving your talkpage? You've got >200 threads on this page, spanning almost 10 years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016[edit]

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. – Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conservatory of Lliria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sax. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're requested to comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Future Perfect at Sunrise as a party[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Future Perfect at Sunrise and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, --QEDK (T 📖 C) 09:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request motions proposed[edit]

There are two motions proposed (here and here) regarding an arbitration case request where you are a named party. For the arbitration committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case request[edit]

A motion has been enacted in lieu of a full case. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ani[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

83 - Russian questions[edit]

I don't understand any of their questions. Maybe you mean that that one is even more incomprehensible than most. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can decipher most of them, but not that one. StuRat (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least they are not a troll, just unable to communicate in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing off-topic debate[edit]

Keeping murders down to a minimum is good thing, and if severe penalties act as a worthwhile disincentive, well and good. Mind you, the most severe possible penalty is execution, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the death penalty is not a disincentive, which is at least part of the reason why most countries have abandoned it. And if the death penalty is no disincentive, why would any lesser penalty work either (assuming one considers spending 25 years to the rest of your life behind bars to be a lesser penalty than death). But let's leave that argument aside for now.

I believe those studies showed the death penalty was not a disincentive WHEN COMPARED WITH LONG PRISON TERMS. That is, both are about equal disincentives. (Some people prefer death over long prison sentences, some are the reverse.) StuRat (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of what you say does not bear examination. As you always do, Stu, you've confected an argument in order not to have to change your position, or back down, or admit you misspoke.

Having a severe penalty for murder (not to mention other high crimes) does not mean the law assumes all citizens to be potential murderers, and I challenge you to produce any evidence to say that it does.

The law realises that human beings are imperfect and sometimes do things that are unacceptable to society, and when that happens, there has to be a system to deal with it. The crime must precede the response. Which is why if you go to the police and claim your neighbour is planning to murder you, they will demand evidence of actual threat, or actual plans to carry out such a deed, other than "He looked at me in a funny way". In no jurisdiction on Earth can someone be apprehended on the grounds that someone else believes they are intending to break some law, but without anything that would constitute evidence. So, no, the law does not assume everyone to be a potential murderer.

Equally, just because there are penalties for corruption, insider trading and all the rest of it, does not mean that all people engaged in public affairs (including politicians, lawyers, judges, police, financial advisers, accountants, property developers, salespeople and on and on) are assumed to be potentially corrupt or dishonest. It's just that, if they do act in a corrupt or dishonest way, there's a price to be paid. Would you have it any other way? Sure, laws have been toughened and tightened to respond to the changing landscape, where new and creative ways to make a quick and dirty buck or gain/stay in power are always being dreamt up. Laws will surely continue to change. But this is a very far cry from the law assuming all politicians to be dishonest.

If an individual wishes to take the position of distrusting all politicians, that is a matter for them. But that would be a very ill-thought out position to adopt, imo. You don't distrust your personal financial adviser / accountant / lawyer / doctor / dentist / car repairer just because some financial advisers etc have been known to be corrupt or act unprofessionally. Do you? You must lead a pretty sad life if you do. And just because you've managed to find a truly honest financial adviser etc, does not mean that all other people in these categories are dishonest. Or even that the majority are dishonest. Or anything remotely like that.

I know, how about you distrust all human beings because, let's face it, all human beings are fallible and make mistakes and cause harm/pain to others. Best to be protected. Sounds like a plan. Good luck with it. The trick is, how do you manage to trust yourself, the only person on the planet worthy of your trust? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do distrust all professionals:

1) I wouldn't give a blank check to a financial adviser or accountant. Would you ?

I would never give a blank cheque to anyone, ever. Not because I distrust everyone, but because it's a really, really imprudent thing to do. Pieces of paper can sometimes land in the wrong hands, through no fault of the trusted person you gave it to. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2) I would get a 2nd opinion for any major procedure recommended by a doctor or dentist. Wouldn't you ?

Not as a general rule, no. In a particular case, I might; but I've never had cause to do so thus far. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3) I wouldn't pay a garage fully, in advance, and would insist on a written estimate. Would you ?

Who ever pays a garage in advance? Never heard of such a thing. For major work, any garage worth its salt would offer a written estimate without waiting to be asked; but I'd certainly ask if they didn't offer one. But that's not because I distrust them. If that were the case, I wouldn't be using their services to begin with. It's just that I might be able to get a better deal elsewhere, and a written quote could help to sway the deal. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, there are penalties if they misbehave, from losing their license to operate to fines to prison time, so there is a disincentive for such behavior. If there were no legal checks on them, then I'd need to research each extremely thoroughly to determine which are the honest ones.

That demolishes your own argument. You now acknowledge that NOT ALL professionals are dishonest, contrary to your statement above. But even if you take the position that they're all "would-be dishonest if only there weren't those pesky penalties", at the end of the day it's how they actually operate that matters to you. If they treat you in a honest and legal manner, you'd never know whether it's because (a) they're naturally honest and always act that way, or (b) they'd have rather ripped you off but they considered the risk was too great. Either way, you wouldn't care. Unless you're one of those people who suspect people's motives even when they're behaving completely appropriately. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone isn't dishonest, everyone is POTENTIALLY dishonest. Specifically, different people evaluate the risk of dishonesty versus reward equation differently. For some, they would cheat even if they had a 99% chance of being punished, while others wouldn't with even a 1% chance. Of course, the actual punishment matters, too. And I don't particularly care if they act honestly out of fear of getting caught if they are dishonest. All I care about is the result. An interesting fact is that many psychopaths don't go around murdering people, just because they are afraid of punishment. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for not arresting people for being potential murderers, of course not, since that's not illegal. There have been some cases where the police assumed somebody could not possibly be a murderer, due to their position in society (such as fellow police officers), only to be proven quite wrong.

I recently had a case of a minor fender-bender, with no visible damage, and the other guy later said he needed $600 in repairs. After I asked to see the estimate from the garage, and he never contacted me again. Would you have just paid up ? StuRat (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not. What does this have to do with what we're discussing? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I trusted everyone, I would have just paid him and not asked for proof. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who ever said we should trust everyone? I never said anything like that.
It's wise to act prudently, and mitigate risks, and not unnecessarily expose oneself to risk, and insure one's property even against unlikely threats. But you're advocating distrusting ALL professionals, specifically ALL politicians. That is a completely different matter. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any difference. I don't trust random strangers because they are potentially dishonest. Whether you admit it or not, this is why you don't trust them either. StuRat (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant points you made at Entertainment Ref Desk were:

(John M Baker) If you believe that honest politicians don't exist, you ensure that they never will. You have to be willing and able to identify and reward honesty in politics. To refuse to do this is to work actively against honesty in the public sphere. John M Baker (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

I disagree. If we assume them to be honest, they can get away with dishonesty. If we assume them to be dishonest, and put in enough checks on them to counter this tendency, like Freedom of Information Acts, Abuse of authority laws with severe penalties, and whistleblower laws to protect those who turn them in, etc., then we can hopefully put in enough of a disincentive to dishonesty to get them to behave. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's Utopian about assuming the worst of politicians and taking actions to at least limit the damage they cause ? StuRat (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you changed tack from "all politicians are dishonest" to "all politicians are potentially dishonest":

You asked "...does this mean that people are generally assumed to be murderers?". My answers is yes, we are all be assumed to be potential murderers, and thus we need to maintain a system where murderers are likely to be severely punished, in order to keep the number of murders down to a minimum. To continue your analogy with politicians, we should similarly maintain a system where corrupt politicians are likely to be severely punished, in order to keep the number of politicians who engage in corruption down to a minimum. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume all politicians to be dishonest, because they are all potentially dishonest. Maybe "assume" means something different in Oz. Here it doesn't mean that it is the case, just that you prepare as if it were. StuRat (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, it can only be because all humans are potentially dishonest. It's not as if a previously honest person becomes instantly dishonest the moment they get elected to political office. But you talk as if this is a real possibility, from which you must protect yourself. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all people are potentially dishonest, but certain professions, like used car salesman and politician, select for those who are dishonest. Just like a used car salesman that tells you everything that's wrong with the car and how little he paid for it won't make many sales, a politician who tells everyone he will raise taxes and lower benefits won't get many votes. There are also jobs that select against dishonesty. For example, I just had a waitress bring me a stained plate, and when I asked her for an unstained plate she said "they're all like that" and refused. I've eaten there before, and know they aren't all stained, so she got a minimal tip. StuRat (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're doing what many people do, but about which you ought to know better: using single anecdotes to make a general case. That just does not stack up, and I know you know that. Look, I know it's a common thing to decry politicians, used car salesmen, lawyers etc as being the scum of the earth in the honesty stakes. ("How do you know when a politician's lying? When his lips are moving - that sort of thing.) But you talk as if this general perception is valid material to justify a belief and attitude that each and every individual politician is a lying corrupt scumbag. I know you know that is far from the truth. So, you're committing two errors: (1) using specific cases to prove a generality; and (2) using a (perception of a) generality to prove specific cases. You simply cannot do either of those things, as long as you wish to be considered a person of a reasonable cast of mind and mature intellectual demeanour. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to understand what I was saying, let me try again: NOT ALL POLITICIANS ARE DISHONEST, BUT MANY ARE, AND MORE WILL BE, IF THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, SO WE SHOULD TAKE PRECAUTIONS TO DETERMINE WHICH ONES ARE, AND PUNISH THOSE ENOUGH TO ACT AS A DISINCENTIVE TO OTHERS. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you loud and clear. But I naturally object to the "but we should assume they are" bit and all that follows.
I can see I've got you angry now, so I'd better quit while I'm ahead. :) Let us agree to disagree. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still thinking "assume" means something different in Oz. Let me give an example to explain it. Police officers are trained to assume that everyone has a gun and wants to shoot them. This does NOT mean that they should shoot everyone to protect themselves. This means they should watch the hands of each person and try to identify what they are holding and where it is aimed (if it could be a gun), and react accordingly. StuRat (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know exactly what "assume" means. It means you act as if something were true for the purposes of a particular context, knowing that it is not, or not necessarily, true otherwise. But you never give any context. Just being a politician is enough. If a person's role in society at a given moment is politician, you advocate they not be trusted, not necessarily because we know him/her to be dishonest, but because it's not safe to trust them. But the moment they leave politics and take on some other profession, they're suddenly trustworthy again? Is that it? Or, if you're saying that NOBODY should be trusted if we have insufficient knowledge of them, then just say that. Don't make it about a particular group of people (the group, ironically, chosen by the voting populace to represent them. What does that say about the voting public? They don't trust themselves?). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said that long ago: " I don't trust random strangers because they are potentially dishonest." However, trusting politicians is more dangerous, both because that is one of the professions which selects for dishonesty, and because the consequences of dishonest politicians are far worse. The Flint Water Crisis is one example near me, where dishonest politicians claimed the water was safe to drink, even though they knew it was not, and poisoned many, and killed maybe ten, due to Legionnaires' disease. StuRat (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "professions which selects for dishonesty". Can you explain? With a source if possible. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained, and gave examples (used car salesman and waitress). And no, I'm not going to scour the web to find refs for an off-topic discussion on my talk page. Go find your own. StuRat (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't even understand the English of "selects for <something>". Is it a recognised expression? I see you've used both "select for" and "select against" above. I've searched wiktionary and Google for an explanation of the idiom (if that's what it is), without any luck. I can understand a person selecting politics as a career, but not "politics selecting for dishonesty". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The profession of politician "selects for" dishonesty, in that those who are dishonest are more likely to be successful, and thus also more likely to choose that profession. And if an honest politician does manage to get in, they will likely be voted out of office when they tell the voters some truth that the voters don't want to hear. For example, in the US, if a politician were to say "The US is in decline relative to China, which will soon be the most powerful nation on Earth, politically, militarily, and economically, as a result of our decision to open up free trade with them, and there's no way to undo it now, so we just need to accept it", they would be voted out.

Here's a use of "selects against": [43], in this case meaning that certain antibiotic combinations will actually reduce the proportion of antibiotic resistant microbes. (A single antibiotic, of course, "selects for" resistance to that antibiotic, by killing any microbes which aren't resistant to it.) StuRat (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've sought more clarification on the expression and its origins on the Language Ref Desk.
Now that I know what you're talking about, can you give me a source for "those who are dishonest are more likely to be successful, and thus also more likely to choose that profession" (politician)? Or is that simply an opinion you hold? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's not going to be a study of the relative honesty of politicians, as it would require their honest participation. StuRat (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then how would anyone ever know that your premise is correct? It all comes down to personal perception and personal opinion, doesn't it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I take it that silence denotes agreement? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No you may not. Politicians get elected by telling people what they want to hear. Thus it is in their self-interest to lie. If you think people don't act in their own self-interest, then the entire basis for capitalism is wrong. StuRat (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-interest is fine, nay, mandatory, as long as it doesn't override the interests of others for which the self is to some degree responsible or with whom the self is associated. The whole basis of win-win depends on the self winning as well as others winning. Any of the other 3 combinations (win-lose, lose-win, lose-lose) turns out to be equivalent to lose-lose. "Politicians get elected by telling people what they want to hear" - sure they do. But does that automatically mean that whatever they say, they will turn around and do something different, or nothing at all? No, it doesn't. Broken promises get all the bad press, but there are plenty of examples of fulfilled promises. So, decent politicians get elected by telling people what they want to hear, and then work hard to give them what they promised. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People always want lower taxes and more benefits, so to get elected they must promise that, which is clearly impossible. And why does a win-lose situation always turn into lose-lose ? A sports event comes to mind as a case where one side often wins and the other loses. How did both lose ? StuRat (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat simplistic. Do you really believe that all politicians always promise lower taxes? There has never been a recorded exception? What about such a promise being out of synch with their party's official policy? And if it's so obviously impossible to achieve, what idiots would promise it regardless? And what idiot voters would believe them if they did? You can see through such impossible promises, so why can't the general mass of voters? And has there never been a case of a politician promising lower taxes, and actually delivering? There must have been, because taxes are actually lowered from time to time. No, it seems you're just trotting out vague cliches like "All politicians are liars", and treating them as incontrovertibly proven facts. And when I ask you to produce some proof, you just give me more of the same.

Trump is promising all sorts of things he can't possible deliver, like getting Mexico to pay for a wall with the US, and he seems to gain more supporters with each whopper he tells. And I never said all politicians were dishonest, you keep making that part up. I've explained that several times now, yet you refuse to learn. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my bad. Your thesis is that all politicians are potentially dishonest, but we must treat all of them as if they were all actually dishonest. Which is indistinguishable, in effect, from saying they are all actually dishonest. I think we've been on this merry-go-round before. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't treat them the same as if they were corrupt, which would mean you would throw them in jail. I gave the example of the police who assume every suspect has a gun and wants to kill police, but this does not mean they shoot all suspects. StuRat (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Win-win obviously doesn't apply to competitive sports and games, where by definition the only way to win is by making the other side lose. I'm talking about general human interactions. I think you know that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sports are human interactions. But if you want a non-sports example, say two people are up for the promotion to supervisor. One wins it and the other loses out. How did the person who won really lose ? StuRat (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's still a competitive context, where, by definition, there can be only one winner. A better example would be this very discussion. If both you and I treated it as a competitive contest and went all out to disprove the other's position, the one who ultimately felt forced to capitulate may feel vanquished and the other victorious. That's not an ideal outcome. If we were friends before we started, that friendship should be unaffected at the end, no matter what the outcome. That's why it's best to put points forward in good faith, and seriously consider what the other has to say, without rejecting their responses out of hand, or without contriving counter-examples designed to fit one's own case. Ultimately the discussion will come to its natural conclusion (as long as we don't allow it to just peter out through loss of interest/energy, or come to a stalemate). Both will have learnt something, and both will go away with a more nuanced understanding, even of their own position, certainly of the other's. There will be no "I told you so", or "I was right and you were wrong". Neither will feel they have "lost", because it should never have been about that in the first place. In that sense, both will "win". The way to proceed with such things is to want yourself to win while also wanting the other to win - and acting accordingly. The usual way we do things in the West is to want oneself to win while wanting the other to lose. Where has that got us as a culture? If you end up feeling that you have won at the other's expense, then some damage has been done to the relationship, and before long you'll realise that you have lost too. That's why win-lose, lose-win and lose-lose are all equivalent: lose-lose. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you can have a win-lose in any competitive situation, apparently, which to me is the only time the terms win and lose apply in the first place. StuRat (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's far from true. You need to get out of the competitive mindset. I acknowledge that may be anathema to the way you were brought up. There's a vast literature about the application of win-win in general human personal interactions where there isn't, or shouldn't be, a competitive aspect. In any commercial negotiation, if both parties don't come away feeling they have both won, then the negotiation has failed, regardless of immediate appearances. Here are just two of the multitude of hits: [44], [45]. Stephen Covey gets most of the credit for the philosophy these days, but it long, long predated him. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, I don't give random strangers money on whatever pretext they may offer, or ask them to mind my granddaughter while I run an errand, or whatever. It's not because I actively distrust them, it's that I know nothing about them, and certainly not enough to know with reasonable certainty my money or grandchild is safe with them. If you can't see the difference between that very responsible and prudent position, and "all politicians are (potentially) dishonest", I cannot help you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 2 possibilities with random strangers, you either trust them or you don't. If you did, then you would indeed give them money and ask them to watch your granddaughter. StuRat (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TB[edit]

Hello, StuRat. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#How_to_prevent_Google_Chrome_apps_from_knowing_tab_is_not_on_top_.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mathematics[edit]

I responded to your question on the mathematics antics reference page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crlinformative (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC) I added another way to understand the problem on the mathematics reference page. I am still no understanding which part of the previous statements you are both not understanding. If you could point out which sentence or which measurement you don't understand I would be happy to clarify that statement. @ StuRat (Crlinformative (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

The problem is you start somewhere in the middle of the question, assuming we already know things we don't. That was the Math Ref Desk, so you shouldn't assume biological knowledge there, only math knowledge. You should have started with something like this:

How many spherical items can be packed into a container ?

1) The items have a radius of R.

2) The container has a shape of A, and dimensions of B×C×D.

Note that I've stripped off all the biology that really isn't relevant to the problem. You also use rather nonstandard units, like 60/1000 of a mm. If you could put that in decimal form it would be more convenient. At first look I thought you meant 60 out of 1000 trials or something like that. StuRat (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The biology is reference to the problem, math is often in word problems. It takes a lot of effort to post to Wikipedia with this touch pad. Also, most people don't know what a μm is , but it is 1/1,1000 of a meter. Use a sphere for the first question with a diameter of 5cm. Generally on tests you are instructed to skip the questions you don't know and go to the next, there are many math questions contained in those paragraphs. Like I said, math often comes in the form of worded problems, there was a lot of reference information their which relates to the real world application for this math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crlinformative (talk • contribs) 06:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and those tests are to test people's ability to decipher a question from all that text, but we are not here to be tested, so just give us the problem in as straightforward a way as you can manage, please. JBL mentioned that you seemed to be writing in a stream of consciousness (narrative mode) manner, meaning you just write things down as you think of them, not attempting to organize your thoughts in any way. I agree. Also, your title doesn't name the problem (something like "Spherical packing problem" would make sense), and you spelled dilemma wrong. And you still haven't shown us your complete math. StuRat (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to do the math? The cell count is 500,000 and the diameter of those each cell is 20μm. How large would the required container be and how many of these cells would fit into a sphere with a diameter of 5cm. There are multiple avenues for reaching this data and one method gave a vastly different answer, while all volume related methods lend that such a capacity of cells is an mathematical impossibility. (Crlinformative (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

No, it's your responsibility to do the math, then we review it and point out any mistakes. This is to prevent people from having us do their homework for them. StuRat (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to get a second look at this information I order to rebuke the referenced information on a cell count reported everywhere the ovaries or oocytes are mentioned on Wikipedia. But here is the math I had and saved before a doctor deleted it from the talk page in defense of the references I suppose.

The volume using the above referenced cell measurement is ≈4.19mm. I will show the work with the math symbols: 4/3π(10μm)3≈ 4,188.79μm3 ; 4,188.79μm3 ÷ 1,000 = 4.18879mm3 ; 4.18879mm3∗ 500,000 = 2,094,395mm3 ; 2,094,395mm3 ÷ π ≈ 666,666.63407mm3 ; 666,666.63407mm3÷ 4/3 ≈ 499,999.97555mm3 ; 3√499,999.97555mm3 ≈ 79.37mm ; 79.37mm ÷10 = 7.937cm in radius.

The adult human ovary is reported to be 4cm x 3cm x 2cm so how can this volume fit inside of it? (The radius found is for a sphere which contains the volume of 500,000 cells, being a lesser measurement than actual reality as you loose the negative spaces you would incur by the stacking of spheres). (Crlinformative (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

(talk page stalker) Crlinformative, there's an error in your math when converting volume units. If 1000um = 1mm, then (1000um)^3 = (1000x1000x1000)um3 = 1 000 000 000um3 = 1mm3. So where you're dividing by 1000 to convert from um3 to mm3 you should be dividing by 1000000000. I think the numbers work out then. Good luck. 99.236.126.232 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please try it again and list your math and I will take another look at it. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just try to use distraction methodology; the doctor did the same when arguing. 5um x3um x 87um = 1,305um³. In conversions in the lab when you multiply unit symbols the symbols themselves multiply and to convert from one symbol to another you go by the number of mL in L, ect. So my question is why do you cube the conversion rate? Is it that you are converting each part of the volume gaining measurement? This is where I found the mathematical query, the difference in volume when using a cuboidal method and spherical method. That's what I was calling the mathematical dilemma. I will use the cell count of 1,000,000 for comparison to what IP address 99.236.126.232 wrote and not convert to avoid that potential error, this will enlighten the difference between cuboidal and spherical volume:

 (4/3)π(10μm)3≈ 4,188.79μm3 ; 4,188.79μm3∗ 1,000,000 = 4,188,879,000μm3 ; 4,188,879,000μm3 ÷ π ≈ 1,333,333,268.15μm3 ; 1,333,333,268.15μm3÷ 4/3 ≈ 999,999,951.11μm3 ; 3√999,999,951.11μm3 ≈ 999.99998μm ; 999.99998μm ÷ 1,000 ≈ 0.999mm in radius.

So why is the cuboidal measurement of the volume of this diameter/radius so much larger than the spherical volume containment of the same volumes? The doctor's claim is that 20μm x 100 is 2,000μm and 100x100x100 is 1,000,000 giving a 2mm space of containment. On that note, however, would not it be 8mm³? I know, that's 4 questions,and a fifth to check the mathematics, but those are my queries. The doctors deleted all our conversations in other locations, it seems he is the moderator of all those talk pages. (Crlinformative (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

It might help to look at a simpler conversion. Let's figure out how many cubic millimeters fit in a cubic centimeter. A 2D diagram may help:

m m m m m m m m m m
m m m m m m m m m m
m m m m m m m m m m
m m m m m m m m m m
m m m m m m m m m m 
m m m m m m m m m m 
m m m m m m m m m m
m m m m m m m m m m
m m m m m m m m m m
m m m m m m m m m m

Here we have 10 millimeters, each represented by an m, in each direction. If you count them, you will see there are 10×10 = 100, that's 1cm²=100mm². If we add third dimension, we get 10×10×10 = 1000, so 1cm³=1000 mm³. Does that help ? StuRat (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to understand the difference between spherical calculation and cuboidal in reference to "mathematical dilemma". I apologize I accidentally erased the math when trying to copy it and the. Didn't have it saved when I reposted what I had deleted. I will make the correction above. Also, if the container is 2mm x 2mm x 2mm would not that be 8mm³ instead of 2mm³?

Yes, and that should be written as (2mm)³ = 8mm³. Unfortunately, many forget the parens, causing no end of confusion. StuRat (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this all helps. I will have to try other methods them to do rove that humans are born with 1,000,000 primordial follicles, or that an embryo contains 4 to 7,000,000 of them. The only reference they have is books reporting it with no actual data to support the claims, that I have found. Thank you for your time. (Crlinformative (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Reference desk[edit]

Hi Stu. I see here [46] yet again you were the first to respond, and included no references. I can't speak for the others, but one reason I give you a hard time for no refs is that so often you post your unrefereced responses within minutes, before anyone else even has a chance to type up a better, referenced reply. I can't make you find and post refs. I can't make you stop posting unreferenced material. But I suggest that you'd get me (and maybe Jayron and others) off your back if you at least refrain from posting unreferenced replies until a few other people have had the chance to post their referenced replies. Just something to consider. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no claim there that you couldn't find a reference for, if you wish. (Lions are social animals, tigers are not, social animals require a higher level of social intelligence.) And I don't see your point about not wanting me to respond quickly. You can add all the referenced answers you want, before or after I give mine. It's not a race. StuRat (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no claim there that you couldn't find a reference for, if you wish. - that misses the point exquisitely, Stu. Users come to the Reference Desk, wanting - you guessed it - references. At least, that is the assumption we work under. They don't want the opinion of some anonymous jerk on the internet. If you believe a claim can be referenced, it's surely up to you to provide such a reference, not to leave it up to others. That's the lazy person's way, and it creates more trouble than it's worth. It's not that the claims you make are incorrect - not necessarily, anyway. It's that claims by themselves, with no supporting references, are worthless in the context of a Reference Desk. There's a reason it's not called the Opinions Desk, or the Easily-Checked Claims Desk. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this conversation already way too many times, and already stated that I have no intention of providing references for things which need no reference. If somebody genuinely doubts something I said, or if they want to see the source for some other reason, then I will be glad to help (as I just did at that very Q when somebody wanted a source on my unusual claim that tigers avoid white cloth, even going so far as to die as a result). I'm sure you don't provide refs for absolutely everything you say, either. But then there are people like Jayron who seem to ask for refs for the most obvious things imaginable, just as a sadistic way to make me waste my time. And let's not start a debate here, either, I've told you my position, there's no point in discussing it indefinitely, so just let it go. StuRat (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. It's not a race, but replies higher up are read first, and get more attention. And often you say some total wrong bullshit that I then have to spend time correcting. Whatever, you gotta do you, even if that means shooting of your mouth and drawing criticism from many different users at many different times. Just consider that the common and repeated comments you get indicate that you are functioning outside of our community norms. Even you admit it's happened "too many times". It's not just me. It's not just Jayron. It's not just Jack. It's very many of us, that have told you, in sometimes polite ways and sometimes snidely, that you do not provide the right amount of references. Nobody is saying you have to reference 100% of everything. Nobody is saying that they themselves have never ever posted something without reference. And yet still, you get these frequent complaints, while most of us don't. The common denominator here is you. So you can spin it any way you like, and you can do whatever you like. But if you continue to act outside our norms for acceptable behavior, then you have to accept that some people will criticize you for it, more or less often, more or less politely. After so many polite suggestions of mine go unheeded, please forgive me if I may seem a bit snide or impolite on this matter in the future. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When Jack said "If you believe a claim can be referenced, it's surely up to you to provide such a reference, not to leave it up to others", it sure sounds like he expects 100% of claims to be referenced. And I am far from the only victim of incivility at the Ref Desk. Bugs, for example, is always insulting anon IP users. Others insult anyone who didn't find their answer in a Google search, doesn't write English properly, etc. The constant reminders to keep incivility off the Ref Desk seem to have gone unheeded. And now Jayron has resorted to outright lies. I seem to be his favorite scapegoat at the moment, but he has been incivil to many others in the past. StuRat (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't meaning that. Of course there are times when a statement can be made and no reference is required. We can all be reasonable about this. But you often go into a quite detailed answer in point form, giving various reasons why you believe so-and-so is the case. Typically, these posts of yours will contain not even a link to a WP article, let alone any external cite. I know you'll now track down a counterexample, but I'm talking typically, generally, usually. A consistent pattern. A StuRat trademark. If I see a new post that's a longish list of dot points with very few or no links, I know it's from you before I've even seen the signature. I know it's an exposition of your opinions. Unless it's a subject I'm interested in at that time, I tend to skip over your posts unread. It mightn't bother you that not everybody reads all your posts, but that's not the issue. (Similarly, when I see a huge block of text with no paragraphs, I know it's from User:Nil Einne. Because it's unreadable, I skip right over it, and he's wasted his time, at least as far as I'm concerned. I've told him more than once that he's the king of TL:DR, but that doesn't seem to cut much ice. But at least he does provide some refs in amongst the unreadable verbiage, so we can't fault him on that score.)

You recently asked for some references to support someone else's claim, and you were given half a dozen in no time flat (Humanities: Hillary Clinton and Benghazi). But when we ask you to provide references for your claims, we're told: There's no claim there that you couldn't find a reference for, if you wish. If you wish!! Do you see the mismatch here, Stu? It's always someone else doing the work of tracking down references, while you're content to just make claims, opinions and assertions. You refuse to back up your own claims, but imperiously ask others to back up theirs. You've accused me of being unfair to you in the past. Well, first remove the log in your own eye, mate. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is I don't ask people to provide refs just to be annoying, but only when I genuinely want to see the refs myself or question whether a claim is true. When people ask for refs for that reason, I am happy to comply, as I already told you (and provided an example) in my previous response. When they are trying to intentionally waste my time, I don't take the bait.

Now you've fallen into your old pattern of repeating the same argument I've already replied to, indefinitely (like how you keep bringing up your grudge about apostrophes). Just learn to let things go. StuRat (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only raised that apostrophe thing because you told another user how they "should" spell something, while our efforts to tell you how you "should" spell its go unheeded. Again, it's a case of "do as I say, not as I do". I just wanted to highlight the hypocrisy that often seems to be your stock in trade. I don't like using words like that, particularly with people I have regular and usually positive dealings with, but your actions have a way of attracting such criticism. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you are great at largely remaining civil, and for that reason I do cut you a little slack. But not a free pass. Check out my talk page archive for some rather nice things I said about you even when you were spouting bs at the time. And you know what? I have repeatedly criticized Bugs for being uncivil, and not just to IPs! I've also told TRM to not be so bitter and mean at the talk page. I've also told Nimur to be less gruff and offputting at times. So there's no way in hell I'm singling you out, and I am being civil, too. On the other end, I've been criticized too. I think twice in my tenure here. Once was early on, when I mentioned a folk remedy and someone removed it as medical advice. The other was when a user told me I was getting to heated/involved in a thread, and maybe I should step away from WP for a few days. Both suggestions were annoying in the moment, but actually good ideas in the long run. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit[edit]

I edited some text of yours that used to be on the talk page; hope you don't mind. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that fits the new location better. StuRat (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Special Barnstar
	Something you deserve i.e. owed. Regards. Apostle (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! For anything in particular ? StuRat (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For being the smartest guy in WP. For always helping out me and others. For being a convict (not providing references to your statements cause you are just too smart). And so on...

-- Apostle (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 May 24#Price of a bottle of Coca-Cola in ~1916[edit]

I remembered that you mentioned about 2 L (70 imp fl oz; 68 US fl oz) of pop costing $1.10 and today I just came across this. Here a 355 ml (12.5 imp fl oz; 12.0 US fl oz) costs about $2.50 and over $3 if you buy it at the convenience store. A 591 ml (20.8 imp fl oz; 20.0 US fl oz) bottle costs over $6. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are plenty of stores willing to charge far more. My price is what you find on a 2 litre bottle sold at a normal (not a luxury store like Whole Foods) grocery store, on sale (which is pretty much every other week). StuRat (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Narner[edit]

Hi Stu, why did you delete my answer on the language ref desk? Rojomoke (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry. I didn't mean to do that, I was just trying to add to my answer. I got an edit conflict, and tried to resolve it, but I guess I messed up. StuRat (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13 Colonioes[edit]

StuRat, you should have linked to History of Louisiana, not Louisiana Territory ( You'll be bathing in the anachronisms ). Cheers! --Askedonty (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I switched to Louisiana (New France), which seems the most appropo. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk behaviour[edit]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Proposed sanctions against StuRat". Thank you.

Stu, this is entirely unacceptable. I won't repeat what others have been saying repeatedly over the years, but I think the time has come to make this official. I'm sure you'll get a fair hearing. Tevildo (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback (WP:RD/S)[edit]

Hello, StuRat. You have new messages at Sagittarian Milky Way's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Note[edit]

That user monkey-man-something was likely telegraphing that he's the same guy who asked "Black People like monkeys!?!?" a day or two prior. The reason he would have created a user ID was so he could spell out "Jews" instead of having to invent a phonetic equivalent. As you may have seen, that monkey is easy to smoke out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN[edit]

There's a discussion at WP:AN you may be interested in. --Jayron 32 14:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which discussion is that ? StuRat (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom. --Jayron 32 14:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested there, StuRat. Tiderolls 14:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gb / GB / GiB[edit]

Stu, when you warned Iapetus about using Gb: "you should use "GB" for gigabytes, as "Gb" is sometimes used for gigabits" perhaps you ought to have also mentioned that memory is measured in GiB, not GB. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really seen that used much, have you ? StuRat (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every day. Most open source (read GNU/Linux + derivatives) use it consistently. The only time the non-standard Giga = 2^30 is used is in legacy applications where it is retained for compatibility. The standard system utilites changed from using blocks to KiB, MiB and GiB a decade or more ago. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get about 20x as many Ghits for MB as MiB. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Areal[edit]

Thanks for posting this question. I had the same thought when I started reading it in the notices that I was getting on my phone a few months back. It was new to me then. †Dismas†|^(talk) 16:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. StuRat (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Desk behavior[edit]

Look, I can try to be more professional when I ask for citations, but this is getting a bit ridiculous. It's not just me, it's not me, it's not just Tevildo, it's not just SpinningSpark, it's not just Jayron. When literally dozens of people tell you that you need to provide references, consider that it might be that they are right, and not that we are just all out to get you. I apologize for my sarcastic comment about wikipedia the other day. I also removed it. I will not apologize for calling out your offensive joke. That shit is offensive, and again, it's not just me who thinks so. I got thanked three times over that thread, and also supporting comments from two other users in thread. Now, maybe we are all overly sensitive, but that doesn't change the fact that this is not a joke desk. I tolerate your jokes when they are merely lame, I will not tolerate them when they are offensive to me and many users in our community. Note that I didn't simply delete the joke, as I'd have every right to. Nor did I box up the joke, which I'd have every right too. I merely wanted everyone to voice my opinion on your joke. If you are allowed to make offensive jokes, then I'm allowed to call them offensive. It's pretty simple, isn't it?

I'm happy to let this drop here. But if you persist in fighting for your right to make offensive jokes without anyone telling you they are offensive, this will turn into a huge shitshow on the talk page, and you're going to come out looking like a classless cad. I don't think you're a bad guy, and I don't think you're homophobic. But your comment certainly looks that way, akin to santorum equating gay marriage to zoophilia. So honestly and truly, I suggest there's better hills to die on. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016[edit]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. 147.126.10.21 (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query re belief persistence[edit]

Nobody else said anything about your argument at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Belief_perseverance being wrong so I finally did. I'm interested - do you actually feel that you were right in saying that part 1 was all that was wrong? Perhaps other people think the same as you. Dmcq (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the original premise is correct, then the rest follows logically. The problem is with the unconditional acceptance of the original premise. This is rather similar to the classic Q: "A fair coin with a 50% independent chance of landing heads or tails each time is flipped 1000 times, and every time it lands heads up. What is the probability of that ?". The probability, if one accepts the premise, is 1/2¹⁰⁰⁰. But, as a practical matter, this means it will never happen, so our original premise must be incorrect. But if you do accept the original premise, unconditionally, then you must accept the results. StuRat (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I saw was with part 3 where if somebody else says the coin was actually fair then coming to the conclusion they must be biased seemed okay - but then coming to the conclusion it must be even less likely to be fair than one originally thought is I bbelieve a real bad step without further information. I think it is quite interesting that you think that part 3 follows okay. Dmcq (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's modify the scenario a bit. The person who told you it is a fair coin is somebody you absolutely trust, and the person who told you they flipped it 1000 times in a row and it always came up heads is somebody you don't know. In that case, wouldn't you assume the 2nd person is the liar, and not only about this, but potentially about everything else ? StuRat (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would think there was a high probability of the person who told me they flipped the coin 1000 times and it came up heads every time being a liar. However it would not make me trust my friend more and in fact I would consider there to be a possibility of them being wrong even though I would normally absolutely trust them. Dmcq (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, StuRat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes[edit]

See here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with much they said, except that at one point the balding man said that saturated fats were the problem, then they seemed to be saying we should avoid all fats, later. That's "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Unsaturated, plant-based fats are absolutely essential to a healthy diet. Also, two issues they didn't address have to do with carb overload. That is, even if your body is working normally and the blood sugar is getting into the cells, you can still have a problem if sugar is going into the blood stream faster than it is going out. The reasons the glucose goes up so fast now are high refined carb meals (like white flour/white rice and lots of sugar) with little fiber to slow the digestion process. They looked at the Asian diet, high in rice, but it also has lots of veggies for fiber, and healthy vegetable oils. It's when you remove the veggies and just have the white flour and sugar, as in a cake, that the problem occurs. As far as beef being unhealthy, I agree, because of the saturated fats. Eat fish and eggs for your protein instead.

Also, there may be a more general problem with grains in that they cause inflammation. This is a natural defense mechanisms on the inside of the grains, as they, unlike berries, aren't meant to be digested (berries are meant to be digested, all except the seeds, to propagate the species). The hard husk is another such defense. We only recently (in evolutionary terms), learned how to grind off the hard shell to eat the insides, so haven't yet adapted to the chemical defenses inside. StuRat (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting someone else's comments?[edit]

Can you explain what was wrong with my answer here that caused you to delete it? If it was a mistake, could you correct it then? --Jayron 32 19:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was a Wikipedia bug. I've seen this occasionally with edit conflicts. I re-added your comment. StuRat (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No troubles. It happens from time to time. Thanks for fixing it. --Jayron 32 19:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mushrooms[edit]

If you want to pursue this kind of thing then take it to ANI. I'm sick of the Ref Desk being such a safe harbour for users who aren't improving the project, in fact actively doing the opposite. See you there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Doesn't improve the project" is not a reason for deletion. Note that Jayron, an Admin, thought it was fine and posted a response. I've had endless arguments with him, but on this we agree. StuRat (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to promote posts that provide a how-to guide on how to take drugs which can make people very sick, then that's your call. I don't believe it belongs in the project. Please feel free to take this matter to ANI where I will make sure this kind of garbage which the Ref Desks currently actively enable is discussed in a much wider forum; perhaps we can finally get rid of the Ref Desks altogether if this is the kind of nonsense that's being peddled there. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misc ref desk[edit]

That one IP is spouting the extreme-right line of "thought" on these subjects, basically trying to foment arguments. It's probably time to semi this page, except WP:RFPP seems not to have a place for it now. He also accuses me of 3RR violation, when he's also guilty of it, just under more than one IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore it please. StuRat (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've concluded it was all IP trolling, and have boxed it up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful[edit]

Hi StuRat,

May I suggest that in the future you restrain yourself from posts like this one? You have given a uselessly vague pointer to a person who already provided in their post a much more precise one, and your other thoughts are miles from anything that could reasonably be called "a bidding strategy."

Thanks, JBL (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The whole point of the Q is to determine the number of bidders, and I gave a strategy to do so. StuRat (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong on both counts, and obviously so. "You should be able to estimate ..." isn't a strategy; it's not even an idea. Please, do not answer questions if you have nothing useful to say. --JBL (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the insults and let's have an actual conversation about the answer. If there are 5 bids on the first item up for auction, or 5000, you really don't see that difference as an indication of how many total bids there will be on all the auctions ? StuRat (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are criticisms, not insults. Indeed, it is true that 5000 > 5, but this trivial observation does not constitute a strategy for anything. --JBL (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've since added more. It now lists a precise way to estimate the payout. BTW, the way to state your case without being insulting is: "I believe the OP was looking for a specific bidding strategy, and your reply appears to lack such info". Avoid words like "useless". StuRat (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice now amounts to a strategy, with no evidence to suggest that it is a good one. And a link to the article game theory for a person asking for a strategy for a particular style of auction is indeed completely useless, regardless of whether it is polite to say so. --JBL (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. The problem is that if he waits to see how many people bid on the early auctions, rather than bidding, to gauge what the overall response will be, others may do the same, making these observations less useful than they otherwise would be. This is an aspect of game theory, having to consider what others are thinking about what others are thinking, etc. And disagreeing with someone is never cause to be impolite. That's the Donald Trump strategy, not how civilized people behave. One way to determine if you are being needlessly rude is to think about if you would say something like that to someone in person. If not, then it's not appropriate online, either. Meanwhile, I've seen no contribution from you, making your criticism of my proposed strategy even more puzzling. StuRat (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By precisely the same reasoning, it would have been very helpful to include a link to the article mathematics because mathematical reasoning will be involved in giving a good answer to the question. Frankly, you should be embarrassed to make this argument. I have not made a contribution on the thread because, unlike you, I have the sense not to make comments on the reference desk if I do not have anything useful to say. (Note that specialized knowledge is not required to tell that your initial post has no value whatsoever.) --JBL (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it did have value. It contained a portion of a strategy, which could then be expanded by others (as it was, it was expanded by me), to provide a complete strategy. Each answer does not need to be comprehensive. Giving part of the solution is better than offering nothing whatsoever, as you have done. And I see you continue to be rude. What would it harm, if you behaved politely here ? And what does it help, to continue to act rudely ? StuRat (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial post has three sentences. The first one is meaningless hand-waving; it has no content at all, and is certainly not a strategy or part of a strategy. The second sentence is a useless pointer. And the third sentence is irrelevant rambling. It is literally true that it was not better than nothing: anyone who read your first post wasted 5 seconds of their life and learned nothing. (Your follow-up on its own is still a bad answer but at least could conceivably be related to a good answer, namely, a strategy together with a theorem demonstrating (or at least a heuristic suggesting) that the strategy has positive expected value.) --JBL (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence: "You should be able to estimate the number of total bidders there will be by the number who bid on earlier auctions." This is literally taking a sample and using it to predict the nature of the population, similar to using exit polls to predict the election results. This is a well-established statistical method.

2nd and 3rd sentences: "However, we get into game theory here, in that others may also take a wait-and-see approach to gauge the amount of bidders, too. So, it could end up like an Ebay auction, where it's pointless to bid until the last few seconds, as doing so gives away too much info." This is pointing out a limitation of the sample method here, if others also avoid early bids until they can take their own samples. My second post then gave a method for dealing with this limitation, by assuming that the ratio of early bidders to total bidders will remain the same from year to year. Together they are a complete method for predicting the total number of bidders, and hence payout, using established mathematical and statistical methods. Your complaints are totally baseless. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have not responded to my statement that a reply need not be a complete solution, as even a step in the right direction is helpful. You also have not said you will attempt to be move civil in your responses. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "You should be able to estimate ..." has no content whatsoever. Maybe you intended to say something else that does have content, but if so, you failed. The other sentences also have no conceivable value in answering the question asked. The whole post is completely worthless and should never have been made. In the future, please do not make posts on the math reference desk unless they have some useful content. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You statements are patently false, as I've proven. If you are unwilling to engage in a civil discussion, stay off my talk page. Calling me an ass in NOT civil discussion: [47]. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man[edit]

An endless stream of vitriol emanates from TRM towards a good portion of the editors and Admins he interacts with, often with no apparent cause other than TRM disagreeing with them on some matter. We don't need people here who behave like that. He was apparently forced to resign as Admin for such behavior, and now he got a 1 month block, but he refuses to change. My advice to everyone is to refuse to engage with him. He seems to feed off the trouble he can cause, and denying him this pleasure may get him to leave. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage template rename[edit]

User:StuRat has {{RefDesk}}, a template that is not related to, but whose name is confusingly simiar to, {{Refdesk}}. The one you have is now a redirect to {{RefDesk help icon}} to avoid that confusion. Could you update your userpage so that we can scrap that old redirect altogether? Thanks, DMacks (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. StuRat (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Upper and Lower Egypt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hapi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Book learning listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Book learning. Since you had some involvement with the Book learning redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trout[edit]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You've successfully defended your right to make wild speculations on the ref desk over the years and I'm resigned to it. However, wildly speculating about eye safety [48] earns you a trout.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) You can't put the trout in the title, it messes up the heading. I fixed it.

2) I assume that you, along with many others, misread the Q as "What eye protection do I need to protect me from a high-powered cutting laser directed at my eye". This is not the Q. It's about whether ANY protection at all is needed against the REFLECTED light from a low-powered SIGHTING laser. So, the level of protection needed, if any, is quite minimal. StuRat (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are headed over the line of "no medical advice". Stop now so you don't get blocked. DMacks (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has absolutely nothing to do with medical advice. You don't ask doctors which safety goggles to use. StuRat (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it is not medical advice. Also, although following the advice could get someone into trouble for violating OSHA regulations, it's not legal advice either. Is there actually a guideline that covers such cases?~~, or is advice (as an extreme example) to go out and point a loaded gun at someone allowable by RefDesk guidelines?~~--Wikimedes (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem to be missing that we are talking about the reflection from a low-powered sighting laser, not a direct hit from a high-powered laser. Using your gun analogy, that would be like giving advice that somebody point a loaded paint gun at somebody else. StuRat (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had just come to remove the extreme example; I figured it would 1) only inflame things further, and 2) derail the question with protestations that it is in fact a much more extreme example. Since the latter has already occurred I'll strike it rather than remove it. I understand that this is about reflection from a low-powered sighting laser.

The question remains: Is there a RefDesk guideline that addresses giving advice that is potentially medically and legally harmful, but is neither medical nor legal advice. (The question about whether there is such a guideline is actually directed at User:DMacks, though of course anyone is welcome to respond.)--Wikimedes (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a slippery slope. For example, offering the standard advice to "drink lots of water" could get a link to water toxicity and somebody arguing that this is dangerous medical advice and the user who said it should be blocked. We all need to just learn to tolerate statements we disagree with, rather than trying to block the editor. If you disagree, just state why, give any sources to support your position, and leave it at that. No need for any threats. StuRat (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice about what "is safe", without cite, is a problem. You know many other editors think almost everything you do is a problem, and I'm not going in that direction, merely that one particular type of answer is a more of a problem than just their concerns about "uncited and often wrong". You're welcome to ignore this concern, as you seem to do in general, but the wider admin group might not be so forgiving. DMacks (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this thread had anything to do with it, but thank you for your efforts here [49] [50].--Wikimedes (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd forgotten all about this thread. I do take eye safety (and all safety) seriously, as I did at this Q. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sperm[edit]

We don't give financial advice, which includes starting a business. You seem to think that my having enforced this rule invalidates it, but any editor can enforce WP:DISCLAIMER. See also {{WP:3RR]] since that's where this goes next. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) This Q is on how much sperm a man produces, and no business advice was requested.

2) You are to list the reason for any closure directly in the title bar of the hat.

3) You are to sign the closure in the same place. StuRat (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, if you do not revert yourself, I'm going to block you for 3RR and edit warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will revert it, but note it is being discussed on the Ref Desk Talk page, as this was an inappropriate ~~block~~ hat. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- You mean inappropriate hat, right? There hasn't been a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hat. StuRat (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good call to self-revert, considering that you were on your fifth, by my count. Best to keep track so you don’t accidentally violate 3RR. By the way, you may wish to give this a read: H:LIST#Common mistakes. In short, if the line starts with a *, start the next line with a *. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone just uses n colons followed by one asterisk, then it doesn't matter what the next person does, the first post still looks right. Also, your count isn't right, as the first few were reverts of the deletion of my sperm bank link, not the hat. StuRat (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The way your browser renders the styling may look right, but what actually results is a mess of unrelated nested lists. You can see this if you view the resulting page’s HTML source code (look for <dl>/<dd> and <ul>/<li>), or if you access the page in a number of other ways (as some users have no choice but to do). A simple solution is to copy the markup (colons, asterisks, or any combination) from the comment you’re replying to, paste it immediately under that line (i.e. no blank line between), and then add to the end of that. Or just stick with only colons or only asterisks in a given thread.

3RR relates to the number of reverts to a whole page, not individual repeated reverts. If I reverted something at the top of the page once, something at the bottom three times, and something in the middle twice, that would make six reverts to the page, and I could expect to be blocked for it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make much sense. So if I find 3 obvious instances of vandalism in an article, and revert all 3, I get blocked ? StuRat (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism is considered an exception, per WP:3RR. I highly suggest reviewing that page. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tojo[edit]

Dear StuRat, my self-deprecating sense of humor has evidently gone over your head. The edit you objected to so much referred to a mistake by myself, not you-note the smiley face next to the remark about the "ignorant editor", which is my way of saying I was talking about myself, which is something that you have completely missed. I was making fun of myself, not attacking you. The sentence I was correcting what was written by myself, which is something that you could have easily noticed if you had taken the time to look at the mistake I was correcting. You noticed my notice my edit, but somehow you assumed it was about you, rather noticing I was talking about myself. Instead, you just fly off the handle and accuse me of insulting you, which I was most certainly not. I will not apologize as the edit you are complaining about had utterly nothing to do with you, but I am sincerely sorry that your feelings were hurt. Note also that I thanked for your work on the Tojo article, which is inconsistent with your utterly baseless claims that I have something against you, which I assure you that I do not.

As for your remark about "Western racism", I have no idea what grounds, if any do this accusation on. If you really think that General Tojo forced by the Americans against his will to bomb Pearl Harbour and that he was an Pan-Asian idealist fighting to end white supremacy in Asia, a thesis that is extremely popular in Japan and in India, then you are mistaken. I am not seeking to put words in your mouth, but I suspect that is what you mean by "Western racism". If you really want to understand Japan’s war aims, you need to need the concept of “place”, namely that all of the Asian peoples were just one big happy family with each Asian people occupying its rightful “place” in the family. In this concept, the Japanese were at the head of the family, and of the others had to accept their “place” below Japan. The former Emperor of China, Puyi initially believed in all this Pan-Asian talk when he became the Emperor of Manchukuo, but soon learned that it was his “place” as a Chinese man to be a “good slave” to the Emperor of Japan; as a “good slave” he had to bow down and happily lick the boots of the Showa Emperor because that was his “place”. The story of Puyi in nutshell captures what the Japanese were trying to do in Asia. Furthermore, I do not understand how you can possibly imply that my work on the Tojo article is due to “Western racism”. I was the one who brought in a mention of Tojo’s role in with the “comfort women”, of whom 80% were Korean, and the rest were Chinese, Filipino, etc. The young women taken away to the “comfort women” corps were subjected to quite horrific physical and sexual abuse. The reader needs to know what the “Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere” meant in practice, to know this was the sort of world that General Tojo was fighting for. How is this “Western racism”? Please do explain? If the Japanese had taken India, they would done the same thing in India that they did in China, Korea, the Philippines, Burma, Vietnam, Malaya, and everywhere else they went. I am no apologist for the British empire; read the section on the Niall Ferguson (who is an apologist for the British empire) article on the British empire, which is almost all my work. Having said that much, if the Japanese had taken India, things would had gotten much worse, which is something that appears to completely elude much of contemporary Indian public opinion who still think the wrong side won World War II. Given that what the Japanese did in China is all very well established, just why so many Indians, even today, regret that the Japanese never got the chance to do the same thing in India is a mystery. If the Japanese had conquered India, the "independence" that India would had gained would been the same as the "Empire of Manchukuo", the sham state that was really a Japanese colony. The British left India; the Japanese would not had be pushed out with non-violence as the British were, which is a very simple point that many Indians cannot grasp-perhaps deep down they know their "place" was to be "good slaves" to the Emperor.

No, the article does not reflect “Western racism”. If Tojo comes across as an unattractive character, that because he was. Tojo was a stupid, fanatical and vicious man who caught up in all the mindless militarism of bushido, which glories war above all else. Tojo was a moron who actually believed the Emperor of Japan was a god, even though common sense should had dictated otherwise. Anybody with the slightest modicum of intelligence could see the Emperor was not a god, so that shows just how truly dumb Tojo really was. I have nothing against the Japanese people, but I do understand Japan, and bushido leaves me cold. The same armistice terms that the Japanese rejected in July 1944 were the same ones they accepted in August 1945; by keeping the war going on for an extra 13 months resulted in their cities being bombed to the ground; millions of civilians killed in Japan, China, Vietnam and elsewhere; and hundreds of thousands of servicemen killed and wounded on both sides, but at least they upheld their values of bushido. I ask you; was that a smart thing to do? The whole idea of getting yourself killed in a kamikaze attack because to die for the Emperor is the most beautiful world does not appeal to me. The Emperor was not a god, the war was lost, and the men of the kamikaze corps killed themselves and the American sailors for nothing. Indeed, strangely enough, despite all the glorification of war and death that went on in Japanese schools, the Emperor was not keen on dying-the Emperor wanted others to die for him, but he would never risk his own life. The Ayatollah Khomeini did the same thing in the Iran-Iraq war, having teenage boys run across minefields because to get yourself killed for Allah is the most glorious thing in the world and Allah would reward those who "martyr" themselves with 72 lush virgins to have sex for all time in the afterlife ; strangely enough the Ayatollah who was fanatical about wanting others to die for Allah, but never himself. This is not racism as you trying to imply; it seems sad that so Japanese men wasted their lives for nothing, dying for the lie that the Emperor was a living god, when he was not, just as the same way that so many Iranian boys died in suicidal attacks to please a stupid, bigoted man like the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was so dumb that he actually believed the world was flat. Having said that much, Tojo was a follower, not a leader, and it was the Emperor who was the one who was really in charge. After the war, the Americas decided to rule Japan though the Emperor, so they needed one especially evil figure for whom everything that went wrong could be blamed. Tojo was a bad man, but his malevolence has been exaggerated. The idea that Tojo was single-handily responsible for everything that went wrong is a post-war myth created by the Americans to justify not trying the Emperor for war crimes as he should have had been. The Emperor should had been hanged for war crimes, not allowed to reign on until his death in 1989, and absurdly to be presented as a pro-Western "moderate" opposed to Tojo(!). Returning to the main point, I am sorry that your feelings were hurt; I was only mocking myself and I meant no malice to you at all. I was not insulting you, and only engaging in my sense of humor. Good day and take care.--A.S. Brown (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) Wow, can I buy you a paragraph break (or 10) ?

2) I did miss that you were talking about your own edits. However, I thought you were talking about the edits of others, which did use rather poor English, not mine.

3) The racism I mentioned in the article was one of Tojo's justifications for war. If you had insulted others for not writing proper English, and this was because they were not native English speakers, then yes, this would be racism too. But you didn't.

4) As for the India stuff, I assume you mean Bose ? I was unaware that there is a strong current feeling in India that things would have been better, had Bose won control of India. Do you have any links on this ? Perhaps they are leftists who think India would be better off communist ?

5) Something that has always interested me is that Japan seemed to be unaware that they would be unable to defeat the US, despite having no plan to invade the US mainland. A simple analysis should have shown that US industrial capacity, when committed to war, would vastly outstrip their own. At best, they might have hoped to destroy the Panama Canal to slow the movement of US warships to the Pacific, occupy the Hawaiian Islands, and destroy the shipyards on the US West Coast. However, they didn't have a plan to even do this much. How they hoped to win when all they did was give the US a bloody nose at Pearl Harbor is a mystery to me (although if they managed to take out all the US aircraft carriers, they might have bought themselves another year or so, but then atomic weapons would have been available for tactical use, such as against Iwo Jima, but of course Japan knew nothing about this). As it was, destroying battleships may have allowed the US to rely more on the valuable carriers rather than relying on battleships and the outdated tactics they represented.

6) Do you have any insight into why Japan thought it could win, despite being heavily committed in China and elsewhere, and being vastly surpassed by US population and industrial capacity ? All I can think of is if they assumed the US would focus on Europe, but the Pearl Harbor attack would seem to make Japan more of an enemy to the US. Was there a vast misunderstanding of US psychology, thinking that Pearl Harbor would make the US want to give up, rather than fight ? The very racism that Tojo observed in the US would lead the US to think that the Japanese were inferior and would be easily defeated. They also seem to be unaware that a threat from an external enemy tends to draw people closer, as in the case of the ancient Greek city-states which fought among themselves, but then united when invaded by Persia.

7) There was some mention that the Japanese thought that their eagerness to die in battle would give them the edge, but this fails to account for the loss of personnel, experience, skills, information and possibly weapons and equipment that all those deaths would entail. The concept of retreating when about to be defeated and living to fight another day seems to have eluded them. ISIS has the same problem currently, losing their most devoted soldiers to suicide bombings. StuRat (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear StuRat

Good, I accept that the misunderstandings have been cleared up. In the spirit of friendly co-operation that supposed to characterize the project, I am going to let bygones be bygones. It is not gentlemanly to make fun anyone for their English, and I would never do that-the only person I mock is myself because I don't take myself too seriously.

Yes, you are correct that I talking about Bose, who is a major national hero in India. Note that there are Bollywood films with Bose as a hero than there of Gandhi. I do suspect that Bose's emphasis on violence as the best solution to any problem does appeal to a certain type of Indian man, much more than does Gandhi's pacifism. The Indians who stopped the Japanese invasion of India at Kohmia and Imphal are seen in modern India as the villains, and the Indian National Army who are remembered as the heroes. It really cuts across the party lines; there are leftists who see Bose as hero fighting the oppressed masses of India (note that Bose died on his way to Moscow in 1945), but also many on the Hindu right who see Bose as a hero. Even more objectionably, quite a few Indians today see Hitler as a hero. Bal Thackeray, a major Indian politician who appropriately for cartoonist was a caricature of a Hindu chauvinist brought to life and the founder of the Shiv Sena party was most outspoken in his admiration of Hitler, whom he often praised as a role model for young Indian men. It doesn't make any sense. Hitler was a white supremacist who was quite hostile to Indians in Mein Kampf, praised the British empire for keeping millions of non-white people down, and his favorite film was The Lives of a Bengal Lancer; it seems that Hitler's many Hindu chauvinist fans today misunderstand what he meant when praised the Aryans (a term meaning the "noble ones" in Sanskrit taken from the Hindu sacred texts), note that the swastika is an ancient Hindu symbol for good luck and think that any enemy of Britain must a friend of India. Check out this link here: of a film poster showing Bose and Hitler as heroes today from 2004. Only in India can you put up a film poster of Bose and Hitler shaking hands, and present these guys as heroes. Off hand, I am sorry that I do not have links, but I assure that it is an odd feeling reading books by many Indian historians, who tended to portray the Axis as the good guys in World War II. Check the link here: Battle of Kohima and read the comments section, where many Indian YouTube editors, though not all, are openly pro-Bose and pro-Japanese. Personally, I do not understand these people. Even the video notes that the Japanese massacred a hospital full of wounded Indian soldiers (fighting for the British) in February 1944, and all these people can do is write how the Japanese were India's friends, fighting to free them from the British(!).

You are quite right about American industrial capacity by far outstripping Japanese industrial capacity. In 1941, the United States produced 600 million tons of steel while Japan produced 6 million. I would agree with you that the decision-makers in Japan were completely irrational. The plan, such as it was, was to win enough victories, and then when the Allies sued for peace, ask the Pope to mediate, who General Tojo believed for some reason was pro-Japanese. The decision-makers in Tokyo were expecting a repeat of the Russian-Japanese war; just inflict enough defeats on the enemy until they sue for peace. Depending upon the context, the Japanese called their enemies the Anglo-Saxons (when German and Italian diplomats were around) or the white devils (when no Axis diplomats were around). A big part of Japanese thinking, which getting back to the subject of racism, was that they were a hard people who did not fear death because to them to die for the Emperor was the most beautiful thing in the world and the Anglo-Saxons-cum-white devils were a soft people who did feared death. There is a scene from a Japanese film from 1943 dealing with the fall of Singapore, when a Japanese soldier arrives in the barracks of the British officers in Singapore, and sees a table covered with a tea pot and mugs, and kicks it over in disgust. The scene meant to the British were a soft people, too fond of drinking tea while the Japanese were a hard and tough people. I do remember reading an excerpt from the diary of a Japanese officer at the Battle of Hong Kong saying the Canadian soldiers he was fighting were very effeminate because the Canadians cried when they were wounded. Yes, this is not rational, but this what the thinking was in Japan at the time. As I pointed in the Tojo article, he was actually on the moderate end of this, in the sense that was aware of the need to increase industrial capacity by creating a totalitarian national defense state; his rivals in the Imperial Way fraction were more extreme than him in seeing spirit, the will to win as the only factor in war.

Again, I would agree with your points in 6. The assumption in Japan that the Americans were a soft people, afraid to die, and all you had to do was kill enough of them, and they would give up. That was the lesson the Japanese took from the war with Russia in 1904-05, and they expected history to repeat itself. Even then, they didn’t understand history very well. The war with Russia almost bankrupted Japan and by March 1905, the Japanese were winning, but they were running out of men. Anyhow, the revolution of 1905 and the economic exhaustion of Russia was just as important in making the Russian sue for peace as the Battle of Tsushima Straits were, aspects of the war that the Japanese forgot about. There is a further point that needs to be emphasized in that in bushido, all that really matters is that you keep your honor, and winning and losing is almost immaterial. There is a book called The Nobility of Failure by Ivan Morris, which I strongly recommend if you really want to understand the Japanese. Only with one of the chapters deal with World War II, but it is a really wonderful introduction to Japanese culture and history. The book deals with the cult of the heroic failure in Japan. What matters in Japan is you keep your moral sincerity intact at all costs, even at the price of your life, which explains why heroic failures are especially honored in Japan. The man who keeps his honor and principles, even at the cost of his life, is the man the Japanese really love. Only one chapter in Morris’s book, the one concerned with the Kamikaze corps, deals with World War II, so I really cannot use that book for the Tojo article. Anyhow, Morris makes it clear that in 1944-45 most of the guys who volunteered for the Kamikaze corps knew the war was lost, but it was felt better to keep their moral sincerity intact by dying for the Emperor by clashing their airplanes into American ships rather giving up a lost war. It is a mentality so different from the Western mentality, this glorification of death, even a pointless death, as the morally superior thing to do that it is hard to understand. Even Morris, who lived in Japan, was fluent in Japanese and knew their culture very well, finds it a little bizarre. My point is in this way of thinking it win or lose, it doesn’t matter, just as long as you die with your moral sincerity intact. Actually it is even better that you die with your moral sincerity intact in a losing cause because it shows the depth of your moral sincerity. I know that one are not supposed to engage in OR, which is why I have not done everything along these lines, but in understanding the decision for war in 1941, it is striking that Tojo keeps saying that we need to keep our honor intact, no matter what. In other words, you are perfectly correct that Japan was heavily involved in China and could not hope to outmatch industrial capacity, but I am not certain if was the main criterion in Tojo’s mind; one gets the impression that Tojo did not really care if Pearl Harbour caused a war that Japan was going to lose; all that mattered to him was Japan keep its moral sincerity intact, even at the cost of millions dead and the all of the cities of Japan going up in flames. Even if you really interested in the philosophical basis of Bushido I would strongly advise reading this link: Zen and the Art of Diving Bombing The Dark Side of the Tao. It is a little heavy-going and opinionated, but it covers a lot very well.

Again, on 7, I would agree with everything. I am not into promoting hatred against anybody, and there are many admirable aspects about the Japanese, but bushido is not one of them. Bushido, at least the version that Japanese schoolboys were brainwashed into from the Meiji Restoration onward really was a death cult. This emphasis upon that the most beautiful and noble thing to do in the world was to die for the Emperor certainly produced soldiers and sailors who fought without fear of death, but as you noted, it was counterproductive in the long run. Tojo himself was not the most fanatical about this; it is noteworthy that he finally agreed to abandon Guadalcanal and called off the invasion of India after Kohima and Imphal, but throughout World War Two, there are countless cases of the Japanese fighting long past any reasonable hope of victory, or committing suicide instead of trying to live another day. Even more sickening, and this is something I am planning on bringing in to the Tojo article is that Battle of Saipan, when the Japanese government told the Japanese colonists on that island that the Americans were white devils who were going to eat them and their children; so the colonists murdered their own children and killed themselves by jumping off the cliffs of Saipan. It is criminal for a government for tell such an outrageous lie to its own people to get them to kill their own children and themselves. There were of things wrong with the United States in those days like the treatment of black Americans; but at least they could behaved with more decency than that. Despite the markedly racist quality to American anti-Japanese propaganda, the Americans were appalled by mass suicides at Saipan, and at the Battle of Okinawa, the American Army had Japanese-speakers broadcast a message over loudspeakers along the lines saying we are not cannibals, so please don’t kill your children or yourselves. Returning to the main point, this is not rational. Again, it can be explained only in terms of a death cult mentality that sees the willingness to kill and/or be killed as the only really important factor in war. A death cult is by definition is not rational. I am choosing my words here carefully here. I have no sympathy with Islam is evil school of thinking. However, there are different ways of interpreting Islam, just like there are different ways of interpreting Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Unfortunately, one of the possible, though not only interpretation of Islam, is the death cult mentality. A Sunni group like ISIS detests a Shia fundamentalist like Khomeini, but they both promote a death cult interpretation of Islam; the former more so than the latter, but the differences are degree rather of kind. Both al-Qaeda and Islamic State both like to taunt the West with a message that they are going to win because you love life while we love death. A variation is that the West will lose because Westerners love Coca-coke while they love death. Again, I am not saying all of Islam is a death cult (which is certainly not the case), but certainly the Islam as interpreted by groups like al-Qaeda and IS are death cults. At least Khomeini only sent enthusiastic teenage boys who were promised 72 virgins in heaven on suicidal attacks against the Iraqi lines, while saving his more experienced troops. Having said that much, one often gets the impression that Khomeini did not care if a battle was lost or won, just as long as he got a lot of his own people killed, which is sick. What all these people have in common despite all their differences, was or is the belief that in war, it is the side with the strongest will that wins, the side that fears the death will lose, and that all there is to it. As you have correctly noted, it was counterproductive in losing skilled men. That is why the Japanese lost so men in the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot-they had lost so pilots earlier in the war that to replace them, training standards had to be drastically lowered, meaning a bunch of guys who barely knew how to fly a plane were sent into the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot, which is why they were annihilated by the U.S Navy. Ultimately, the Japanese came up with the Kamikaze corps, where barely trained pilots were sent to crash their planes into American ships because that was the best they could do. All I can say if one is in grips of a death cult, none of this really matters because you know you are stronger because you love death while the other side loves life. The most important, and the perhaps the reassuring point here is these people are wrong. If anything, their death cult way of thinking ensures that they lose, which has got to be a good thing.

Sorry for getting off on a bad start, but thank you very much for your informative comments and interesting questions.--A.S. Brown (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the individual death cult, but not when some Japanese applied it to the nation as a whole, apparently preferring that Japan be defeated rather than back down (there was even a faction which wanted to see Japan destroyed rather than surrender, following the atomic bomb drops). Didn't they understand that the nation being defeated would mean the end to training students in the Bushido code and therefore the end of Bushido itself ? So you get to the odd conclusion that belief in Bushido means they supported it's destruction.

Also, I see no evidence that there was ever an analysis of their chances of winning, losing, or achieving a draw, and the consequences of each outcome. It just seems bizarre to me that such a momentous decision with long-term consequences for their nation didn't merit a thoughtful discussion. StuRat (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

editing my reply at the Reference desks[edit]

Hi Sturat, with this change [51], you have changed the nature and intent of my edit and thereby changed the way others will perceive it. You make it look like I only meant to box up some of the comments in that subthread, when I intended to box them all up - in effect, you make it look like I agree with the comment you made when I do not. If you disagree with the hat, please undo the whole thing not part of it, and then discuss on talk page. Thanks. 184.151.231.149 (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do disagree with your hatting my contribution, which was intended to help the OP improve their English, which is what they had asked about. The comments following mine should be hatted, though, as they are the typical hate-speech from Ref Desk regulars, and contribute absolute nothing to improving the OP's English. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done as you suggested, removed your hat, and put mine in (with my signature). Also, you deleted my reply to Jack of Oz when you undid my hat. Please try to avoid doing that. StuRat (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Term query on Ents Ref desk[edit]

Re your recent question on the above, now archived: I can't suggest a term for what you describe, but I had a half-memory of a piece whose structure somewhat fitted it, which happened to be played on BBC Radio 4 this morning!

The piece was Borodin's tone poem In the Steppes of Central Asia.

Hope this is of interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.208.125 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for You![edit]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you very much for all of your hard work at the Wikipedia Reference Desk, StuRat! Futurist110 (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! StuRat (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Also, thank you very much for being the only one who tried answering my question here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. While I might have asked this question in a clumsy way, I also think that the reactions to this question were excessive. After all, I am supposed to forget all moments during my childhood years (specifically back when I was ages 9 to 17) when girls in my class and/or at my school wore short shorts or short skirts? Futurist110 (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dare we hope?[edit]

Hi StuRat.

Is it possible that you have finally seen sense and are acknowledging that the third person singular neuter possessive pronoun is "its"?

Heavens be praised, the prodigal returns to the fold. Let spontaneous joy occur! :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never denied that this was the official way, I just choose not to use it. I would guess that there are some grammatical rules which you take a pass on, too. StuRat (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe, possibly, but I can't bring one to mind right now.

It must be hard for you, though, to be constantly switching between using the official spelling in contexts where you deem it to be unavoidable, and your preferred apostrophised version wherever you (think you) can get away with it. Some people simply don't know the difference, and always use it's. There's something to be said for blissful ignorance, I guess. But once you know this, you can't unknow it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to EO, "its" actually was written "it's" in older times.[52] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know: 'To "it's", the once and future form !' StuRat (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Cockney baseball fan might say that Pete Rose is the all-time leader in 'it's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mesopotamian Marshes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "fillet"[edit]

Greetings. For a re-run of the arguments, see this 2015 thread, which quotes Filet, fillet and the pronunciation of other French borrowings. That article says that "fillet" was first taken into the English language in the 14th century, at which time, the final "t" was probably pronounced in French, and "it could be that it [in its modern sense] was imported to the Americas at a time when its spelling had not yet settled down and the influence of French settlers headed it toward(s) the more modern French spelling and pronunciation". I am not posting this on the RefDesk, since I believe it would be a good idea to moderate our forays away from the actual question (no matter how fascinating), at least until such times as the wolves are not howling at our doors. Best regards, Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good idea. No matter how complex the etymology of this particular word may be, there does seem to be an attempt by the English to "Anglify" French words. Hence my point about them not particularly caring if they pronounce French city names correctly. And I would extend this to all soldiers in any foreign lands. StuRat (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It's"[edit]

StuRat your absence from the Reference Desks will be missed. The present mess of unexplained strikouts of your own posts leaves a sour impression of pettiness that will take time to fade. When a healing time has passed both for the community and yourself, I look forward to you presenting a fresh face to Wikipedia, one that does not treat criticisms by other editors as errors to be debugged. Whether, and how you choose to appeal the ban will be up to you but I believe that applying the KISS principle will serve you best. Show simply that you accomodate as valid the concerns that led to your ban, without necessarily proposing a new set of conditions for debate. If that is what you do, you may let me know and I would like to add to the friendly support expressed by other colleagues here. My small price is to be convinced that you will adopt Standard English in your usage of the apostrophe in "YOU'RE" (as not done here) and use "ITS" without apostrophe (when appropriate, not just by your whim). Blooteuth (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your example doesn't seem to show the possessive form, where I choose to use the apostrophe against convention. That example shows the contraction for "it is", and there is no disagreement on use of the apostrophe there. I do, however, note that I mistakenly said "a oblate" when it should have been "an oblate". StuRat (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"ITS" without apostrophe is the possessive form (actually the 3rd person singular possessive) and you are refusing to recognize that it exists in our language, apparently motivated by your expectation that your destiny is to teach Wikipedia a better(?) English. The facts that "it is" may be contracted as IT'S, and the use of "AN" before a noun that begins with a vowel, are not in dispute, so to reward your correct confirmations of them here is a story. On 19 November 1863 Abraham Lincoln had an all-day bout of Hiccups. Faithful to his presidential duties, he nevertheless struggled that day to deliver a prepared speech at a national cemetery. The event passed tolerably well because the speech, interspersed with hiccups, was not too long and the solemnity of the occasion precluded outright sniggers among those present. Nevertheless it is the hiccups that stayed in their memory, to the detriment of Lincoln's intended message which as a result, in this story, is lost to history instead of being cherished as one of the greatest and most influential statements of America's purpose. The story is a metaphor, where you are playing Lincoln and your whimsical superfluous apostrophes are his hiccups. There is no merit in persisting in distorting ITS to IT'S; the change merely forces the reader to pause and analyze what is your error that hinders sensible parsing of your sentence. No one will thank you for imposing that burden and, like sniggers at hiccups, it has probably contributed to the general annoyance of which you are now made forcibly aware. With undiminished respect for the contributions that you could make in the future, I see it as rational for Wikipedia to keep closed its door to you as long as you remain obsessed with an agenda to defy a basic grammatical convention that has been repeatedly explained to you.

its & it's

This user understands the difference between its and it's. So should you.

Blooteuth (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Random gnome edit[edit]

Start doing random gnome edits, like I do. Main space editing is the major reason for being on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "random gnome edit". StuRat (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hit the random article button & look for any spelling errors (for example) on articles. That's what I've been doing for years, check out my contribs. Spelling corrections, fixing birth/death intros, dashes, etc. is what I usually do. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that sounds really boring. If I happen to look up something and find an error while there, I will fix that. StuRat (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I too, found it boring, at first. But, it changes your approach & thinking on Wikipedia & slowy restores your status in the community. Right now, 75% of my edits are to 'main space'. That's a jump from 39% in 2011. More work/less talk is the best way, I found. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to do somewhere around 262,000 main space edits to make it to 75% main space edits (plus 3x as many non-main space edits as I make during that time). I will probably be dead before that could happen. But I'm not happy with Wikipedia, anyway, particularly the lack of civility. Not only do Admins not stop it, they are quite often the source. Instead, I shall look for a more pleasant environment to work. I've contributed some to WikiHow, and found that to be a more friendly environment, so I may go there. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame the admins, blame the community (or rather the miniscule fraction thereof who frequent ANI) who refuse to support the admins in enforcing civility. We are self-governed. Any admin who took a strong stand on civility in the current environment would find him/herself without a mop (after a few months of pure hell). ―Mandruss ☎ 18:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

belated missive[edit]

I'm sorry it came to this, and I'm sorry I didn't manage to get an oppose !vote in (not that it looks like it would have mattered in the end).

I do think you were often too quick to speculate on questions you should have left alone, but I don't think you deserved a ban. But the vitriol of a crowd on a self-righteous crusade can be a scary thing. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See you around[edit]

See you around Stu. I was hoping people could at least offer some kind of probationary period of good faith, but apparently not. I think it spells doom for one or two other ref desk regulars who frequently perform much "worse" than you ever did. Good luck spending all the time you spent at the ref desks doing something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not. If they felt the need for a ritual sacrifice, they've now gotten it out of their system for a while. StuRat (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I threw myself on your pyre, wailing gibberish. Hope you don't mind. You were a good rat, all things considered. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BTW, I have an Incredible Hulk joke I should tell you, since you seem to be a fan: Bruce Banner: "Don't get me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry." ... "I'm sure you're right, because I don't even like you now." :-) StuRat (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like him, either. David Banner was alright. My name is actually a lazy ripoff of the incredible ripoff. Common mistake, no worries. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, it did redirect to the Hulk page, and Stan Lee is known for using the same letter in first and last names of his characters. BTW, your link didn't work. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Parker was my favourite alliteration, if we don't count Hulk Hogan as a Marvel character. My (allegedly) broken link is to the legal origin story of how he became one. Spiderman had his own knockoff wrestler, but not famous enough for good allusion. Here he is battling the evil Lou Fabiano (not to be confused with Lou Ferrigno, from the David Banner universe). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Credit where credit is due[edit]

You conducted yourself with exemplary calmness and open-mindedness throughout the ordeal. I'm sorry it did not work out well. Bus stop (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I was willing to listen, but they weren't. StuRat (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support[edit]

...those of you who offered it, that is. I'm going to semi-retire from Wikipedia now. I'll probably stop in to check on messages from time to time, and if I happen to run across a Wikipedia article that needs a grammar or spelling fix, I might do that (at least until I need to add a ref to prove that my spelling is correct). And I'll also do some archiving on this page, as it's gotten rather long. So, see you all around. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct at Reference Desks arbitration case request archived[edit]

Hi StuRat. The Conduct at Reference Desks arbitration case request, submitted 30 October 2017, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, StuRat. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Hello, StuRat.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation Reviewing[edit]

Hello, StuRat.

AfC submissions
Random submission

3+ months

2,421 pending submissions

Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Night of the Comet, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased see WP:BURDEN. It is your burden to add a citation for this. Until you do, it does not belong in the article. You can't site the film for this, because the film doesn't label it as a mistake. Wikipedia is not the place to add unsourced trivia like this. Add it to your blog or the IMDb if you want to add unsourced trivia somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just what kind of source do you need to prove that when somebody beats the 6th place score, it then becomes the 7th place score ? This is patently obvious. StuRat (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's obvious, it should be easy for you to prove it via a citation to a reliable source that the film got this detail wrong. If you can't do that, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. In real life, people don't turn into zombies. There are many details that are not true to real life, but it's not Wikipedia's place to go around pointing them out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be able to find proof of the patently obvious. I doubt, for example, that you will find a peer-reviewed scientific journal article that proves that people don't turn into zombies. StuRat (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I probably could, but that's immaterial. The point is that unsourced trivia/"goofs" sections like this are original research and don't belong on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, StuRat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Stuart Graves[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Stuart Graves requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hexagons Pool[edit]

Hi, I see that long ago you offered to change the (wrong) name of the Hexagon pool article to "Hexagons Pool". Either you forgot, or somebody wrongly reversed it. The name comes from the many hexagonal basalt columns standing around the water, the pool is by no means hexagonal, nor is there just one column, and the original, Hebrew name is in the plural - more than enough reasons to use the plural as the only correct option, There might be a singular version used around the net, but I see no justification for it whatsoever. Also, Pool should be capitalised, as it's part of a standing geographic name. Would you mind making the change? Thank you! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

It seems to me that if you want to resume working on the Ref Desk, you could appeal your ban (assuming it hasn't expired already). Things seem calmer than they once were. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that was a mistake. I thought I was at another site where I answer questions. As soon as I realized I was here, I deleted it. Not interested in returning; just too many angry people here, many of them Admins. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SE Michigan restaurant status during COVID-19 (coronavirus) outbreak[edit]

Here's a list of the status here in SE Michigan:

Einstein Bagel          - Open for take-out only, some stores close early:
 Southfield Rd N of 12 Mile: 2 PM
 Woodward N of 11 Mile: 1 PM
Logans Roadhouse        - Closed
Panera Bread            - Drive thru locations only (no in-restaurant take-out)
Romano's Macaroni Grill - Livonia location closed, Ann Arbor open

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, StuRat. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Rich (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Self-competition[edit]

The article Self-competition has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Possibly a duplicate of Cannibalization (marketing) which has 10 cites whereas this has none

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Accustimisation" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Accustimisation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Accustimisation until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Accustimization" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Accustimization has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Accustimization until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]