User talk:Hoof Hearted/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello Hoof Hearted/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  - UtherSRG (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikifun starts on Sunday

Hi,

I thought you'd like to know: Wikifun Round 13 starts coming Sunday at 21:00 UTC. -- Eugène van der Pijll 18:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This message has been sent to you because your user page is included in Category:Wake me for Wikifun.

Discography charts

Hi Hoof Hearted.... I came across some of your discography (singles) tables on artist pages and I just thought you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts in order to refine the template you're using. The Tables for Charts guideline discourages using the "#" symbol and the repetitive wikilinking of the album on every row (especially if there is already an album discography above the singles). Thanks.... -- eo 13:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, OK. I had no idea there was a guideline and there seemed to be a lot of variation throughout wikipedia. Thanks for the info. Hoof Hearted 19:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ass Ponys

To answer your questions: Yes, and yes. I'll undelete it now. --InShaneee 16:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Psydonyms 1

Hey, I see you've gotten on the pseudonmy category bandwagon as well. What is your opinion on people who are know by a shortened version of the first name or a nickname that involves part of their name. For instance, Springsting Guitarist Steven Van Zandt's nickname "Little Steven". In your opinion, does that count as a psydonym or not?--Dr who1975 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Psydonyms 2

Hi there,

Originally, I was thinking that if someone changed there last name but not they're fisrt (like Bob Dylan) then that would count as a nickname but not the other way around. Thinking about it more asnd reading your comments, maybe it is OK to have people like Ritchie Valens and Ace Frehley on the list. I also agree with you about people who shortened there name (like Chere) or the nickname is too similar to their real name (like Little Steve).

With regards to GWAR, I've been debating this in my head since I added them. While most of the characters have been played by different people, Oderus Urungus has been consitently played by Dave Brockie, and even though many may know him byu his real name, he is also know by the name of that character, so my opnion is that Oderus Urungus and only Oderus Urungus should remain.

My take on it is that if a person has a nickname that they are sometimes known by and it's a reasonably well known thing, then the nick name should be on the list. For instance, I'm having a war with Steven Seagal fans who like to call him Steagal, if they could just prove to me it is a somewhat well known nickname I'd add it even though he is definetly known more often by his birth name.

I also think former and multiple nicknames count. For multiple names: I was trying to figure this in my head when I added both P Diidy and Puff Daddy and my opinion is that this works so I think I will go back and also add Diddy and Puffy sometime in the next few days. As for fromer nicknames such as Pee Wee Herman and all the Spice Girls, I think they still have revelance and thus should stay just like the ones of dead people. And while Prince is actually his name, I wanted The Artist Formerly Known As Prince up there because it was so amazingly rdiciulous that it could only be a pseudonym.

BTW, What is the symantic difference betwee a nickname and a pseudonym anyway?--64.3.5.194 16:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

REMO

I recently started a page for REMO (the drum head company) and was extremely surprised that it was not already an article. However, REMO is still a stub and I would appreciate the help of a fellow drummer. Thanks!

I will not hesitate to eat you. 02:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Star Wars: Jedi Starfighter

A combat flight simulator simulates military aircraft flying in atmospheric conditions. You could argue that the game is a space simulation like Star Wars: X-Wing or Star Wars: Tie Fighter on the PC, but IMHO these games are more "realistic". Starfighter is more of a shooter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fjbex (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Heywood Banks article.

Hey, Thanks for backing me up! ("Now where did that title go, anyway...") Take care, Larry Lmcelhiney 18:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

e2

e2 is the sister channel of CNBC-e. It started broadcasting one month ago, so it's quite new.You can find info on its official webpage here.. And its subpage for American Idol is here. I started the new page for it on E2 (TV channel). --Bugtrio | Talk 21:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

DAB Self

I've looked into this. The conclusion I've come to is that a disambiguation meaning is absent, and that it doesn't match any of the present meanings.

There needs to be an article on Self (spirituality). I wrote the article on Ego (spirituality), it's a similar thing that's required. It would reference things like the "I-I" of Maharishi, and the article on Atman (Buddhism). Do you want me to write a short article for that topic? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Self (spirituality) now exists, and the DAB page for "Self" reflects it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

American Dad!

I just added a solution to the infobox for the Newspaper headline. However in doing this, I wanted to link to the explanation of what this thing means. But it's not even IN the American Dad! article. I advise highly to describe this element somewhere in the article. Not as detailed as The Simpons Couch gag perhaps, but something that at least can be linked to from the episode articles, so people can find out what the hell these American Dad fans are talking about :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Help request

Hi, thanks for responding to my help request. I am attempting to get a third party to comment on a dispute, which I have done before but the process seems to have changed. Before I had to put a template on the talk page and fill it out as well as list the dispute on another page. I cannot seem to find this now. I did find a different page though with a different process but have yet to have anyone respond or offer assistance. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction for getting help resolving a dispute? Dispute is at Anchor and involves someone adding biased commercial information to the article then at my removal of it is even accusing me of vandalism. Thanks! Russeasby 16:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, it seems the third party request process has simply changed then from what I had used before. It is indeed a tricky topic that a third party not familiar with the subject may have a difficult time seeing the fine points of the dispute, but I do think if looked at closely someone without knowledge of anchors can see that this ammounts to commercial spam and presentation of modified copyrighted data. Russeasby 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Hoof Hearted to use this way to comunicate with you.. but I don't know any other possibility. If necessary, after reading my message, please remove it. You can also contact me directly on my own E.mail: Poirauda@yahoo.com.br

About the Anchor article, You asked the question: The crux of the problem is whether or not the Rocna chart, which plots a ratio of release force to anchor weight, is a valid comparison of anchor performance. I have no idea what all the factors are that go into selecting an anchor, but this appears to be a fair evaluation of the design.

It is well accepted that the holding of an anchor is related to the surface area of its fluke (or blade(s) )

If someone want to realisticaly compare the holding of anchors of different sizes, he has to do it by comparing ratio of holding power / anchor surface area.

In the anchor test report presented on Wikipedia, the Rocna anchor has a surface area of 1030 sq cm, to be compared with, for example, 800 sq cm for the Spade.

On the three reports done by three different magazines from the test organised by West marine, the first anchor has been the Hydrobubble anchor, the Fortress, then the Spade and the Rocna only in fourth position.

The fact of using the holding to weight ratio did change completely the results.. Also Rocna is using only one curve published by only one out of the three magazines, which doesn't represent the overall results of the test.

For more info, please contact me directly on my E.mail

Sincerely

Hylas 03:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Alain POIRAUD

Hoof Hearted. I apologize for you being dragged into this, Alain is just as biased as Badmonkey, Alain as well designed a popular anchor, the Spade, his comments are POV as well (I do give him credit for at least admitting this, where as Badmonkey sidesteps his association with Ronca). Alain is who brought the issues with the Anchor article to my attension in the first place, and I do suggest that both he and Badmonkey who touts Ronca anchors are biased. I am completely neautral and find them both abusing Wikipedia. I own neither of their products and I do find both of their products to be top notch, but the biased view they both are trying to present has no place on wikipedia. The thoery that surface area is most important is antectodal, in real practice it is probably true, but only probably, we dont really know yet (even though I for one do accept it as a yachtsmen). I came to this conflict as a third party myself, between Alain and Badmonkey, I think they are both contributing biased information to wikipedia, thats why I stepped in, as an unbaised yachtsman with real world experience on the matter, I sit all day and all night throughout the year on an anchor, which is neither of theirs (but I would prefer either one of theirs to the one I am sitting on now, but again, thats antecdotal, not fact). Russeasby 03:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hoof Hearted,

And many thanks for your kind answer,

Thanks again for the translation of the Acronym NPOV, but as they are many other used.. it will take too much of your time to translate all of them to me.. :0)

You said, “just seemed to me a 100 lb anchor will naturally have more holding power than a 10 lb anchor” and you are perfectly right, but If I will show you a photo, side by side, of a 1080 sq cm anchor compared with a 800 sq cm anchor, (only two third of the size) and if I ask you wich will give the best holding, I’m pretty sure that without hesitation you will answer the biggest one.. (I have such photos and it looks very impressive)

Yes, the link is well the original SAIL published study, In fact, the test has been organised by West Marine and reported by three diferent magazines: SAIL – Yachting Monthly and Power and Motoryacht

http://powerandmotoryacht.com/gearreview/boat-anchor-test/index5.aspx

and none of them are saying that the Rocna was the first on the test, SAIL is the only one showing this strange figure called “AVERAGE OF PEAK STRAIN” which become the Rocna’s modified curve called “comparative holding power” (another modification made by Rocna)

There is no mention about the figure named “effect of location on HOLDING POWER” (page 68) which shows the Fortress, the Hydrobubble and the Spade giving much beter HOLDING results than the Rocna.

The text says (page 68)” Like the Manson, the Rocna was one of the better-performing anchor” if the anchor would have been the first on the test, the comment would also be different,

You have also a link to the Yachting Monthly test report: They are also publishing a comparative curve (page 71) where the first is the Fortress, the second one the (much smaller) Spade and the Rocna only in THIRD position.

And finally on the Power and Motoryacht report, they ask the question”So which anchor is the best ?” and the answer is not by any means the Rocna..

- For the Fortress anchor they give a maximal pull of 5,382 pounds

- For the Manson a maximal pull 5,332 pounds

- For the Rocna 5000 pounds

- And for the Spade a maximum pull of 5,236 pounds.. No comments..

Read also the comments from Russeasby (other independent studies, sea beds that may have favored certain designs, the fact that West Marine didn't feel it was necessary to scale the data to weight or surface area…),

After the test, West Marine decided to take the distribution of… the Manson Supreme anchor..

As I’m now retired, it will not change anything in my life if the Spade did perform well or badly, but I don’t accept that a small manufacturing company who is not at all representative of the market of modern anchors, use Wikipedia to make its own promotion, and futher more impede other manufacturers, (like Manson Supreme) to take part of the discussion..

Thanks for your time and your efforts to understand my points.

Best regards

Alain POIRAUD

Hylas 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Alain Poiraud

Anchor test results

Hi: just wanted to draw your attention to some comments I have made in response to your own, on the Talk:Anchor page.

I appreciate your involvement and time, and I would like to see a resolution to this. However, I am concerned by the attempts by Alain POIRAUD to manipulate/mislead, as witnessed above, and need to refute some of the things stated. I see Poiraud as a commercial stakeholder attempting to take advantage of the complex nature of this topic in order to see squashed independent test results which paint his product in a less-than-perfect light. Your initial reaction ("However, if the heavy anchor holds 500 lb and the lighter anchor holds 100 lb, isn't the lighter anchor a better design?") is quite reasonable and correct. Not to make an attack ad hominem, but you should also look at recent admin activity on User_talk:Alain_POIRAUD.

Badmonkey 02:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

---

So when you say the critical factor is weight or volume, and he says it's surface area, that indicates that there is no agreement on what the "best" scaling factor is for holding power.

No it indicates that Poiraud is deliberately trying to mislead you... :) Nevermind. A neutral source is any list of anchors; you will find that anchors are sized by weight. Consider any of the lists of products on West Marine's website catalog for example. Also, consider the data given alongside each anchor in the article by SAIL: the weight (along with the price). Lastly, do a Google search for +anchor +size - you will find a great deal of references to mass.

Weight is also directly pertinent to other factors not touched by SAIL; for example, any boat applies a vertical force in addition to a horizontal force to the anchor (unless the anchor is on dry land). This means the anchor must be heavy enough to overcome that force without just lifting out. It is what boaters care about when adding an anchor to their weight-sensitive cruiser, or when throwing it around on the deck. It defines physical volume and apparent size. It is the sole defining characteristic.

I think Russeasby makes a good point that if there truly was a universally accepted scaling factor the independent study would have applied it to their data. It also makes sense that scaling the data can be subjective since different customers have different needs.

No, because the article is intended as a consumer guide. It is intended to provide raw information on specific products (which vary in size) so the magazine doesn't touch it (it isn't possible to test anchors of all the same size; they simply don't exist). It is much more appropriate to scale the data for an encyclopedic entry intended to portray the differences between general designs, as this provides a neutral fair comparison. As others have pointed out, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a buyer's guide.

While you say that the first chart in the Sail article provides the best summary of results, I still think the subsequent scope and location charts show that there are cases where a different design produces better results.

Yes, and I wouldn't object to their inclusion, as per the SAIL article, but the fact remains they are only a subset of the main chart which is the summary/average (as titled "Anchor Testing Analysis - Average..."). These charts are intended to show the general impact of two variables: 1) scope and 2) location. The first chart on page 68 illustrates how varying scope can have a massive impact on some anchors but not others; the second shows consistency - or lack of it - across the three locations. The first chart includes only 2 of the 3 scopes tested. Neither distinguishes between "max pull" and "max hold before releasing". Neither bothers to list all anchors tested (14 total). As such it is clear neither is intended to be representative of the entire test.

Even the article concludes every boat should carry at least three different anchor designs and weights to deal with a wide variety of bottom types. Similarly, the Power and Motoryacht article states we never intended our test to be the definitive word but rather one more piece of data for you to consider when choosing an anchor.

I don't disagree with that statement, but I'm not sure any of this is enough to justify the removal of this entry.

What I am particularly concerned about is the nature of this controversy, which has been initiated by Poiraud's anti-competitors agenda, and appears to be only supported by Russeasby. The latter was just 24hr-blocked for 3RR violations and, in my eyes, is repeatedly vandalizing the article by removing the content with no consensus for it. This section has stood since October last year with no challenge, and I know that many of the experts I am in touch with are familiar with it - regretably most are cynical of Wikipedia's merit and do not bother to contribute. I hope to not see them proven correct.

- bad·monkey _{talk to the {:()} :: 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and bravo

Hi Hoof Hearted, I wanted to thank you for stepping in to help with the conflict at Anchor, the amount of time you obviously spent learning about this topic which you were unfamiliar with, then being able to provide thoughtful and inteligent and well researched comments, is outstanding and unbeleivable. You went above and beyond and I applaud that effort.

		The Original Barnstar
		For your increadable efforts to learn about new topics in order to give meaningful and helpful input to conflicts. Notably at Talk:Anchor Russeasby 00:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikifun

Round 14 is starting just about now. --Spondoolicks 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} replies

When responding to a user that has placed {{helpme}} on their page, please remove it once they've been helped. John Reaves (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see that. I answered and reminded him to focus on the encyclopedia, not his userpage. John Reaves (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

D_Yikes article

What exactly was BS about my edit? The necklace with the "λ" is plainly visible in many scenes in the episode, and the entire episode is a parody of "300". If you have a better theory as to what it refers to (or, if you believe it is too speculative an entry), there are more polite ways to say so. --Toredid 21:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Come to think about it, maybe it is too speculative an entry, so I'll leave it out of the article. I merely noticed the thing and seemed to me an obvious explanation. Obviously, not so for non-greeks :-) I guess the only way to confirm it would be to ask Parker & Stone, but why go to such lengths?

You got a point about the "Trivia" sections getting too cluttered, but on the other hand, what is "too trivial" anyway? --Toredid 21:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check this out. I hadn't noticed it at first. It turns out my initial interpretation of "λ" as "lesbian" was correct, though I had no idea such a symbolism pre-existed. --Toredid 16:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anchor issue continues back to square one

Since you were involved in offering a third opinion on the issue in the first place, I wanted to let you know that the protection has been lifted on Anchor and User:Badmonkey has readded the section in question. I am backing off for now and seeking advice on how to proceed, but thought you might be interested in watching the article and offering more input if you like. Russeasby 02:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

== You said You're Welcome! == As you said "You're welcome", I'll collapse your many UBX for you if you so wish. I will work on it at User:microchip08/HHUBX, for you to give the go-ahead for me to put it on your Userpage. I know I'm not meant to be doing userpages, but as I don't have anything worthwhile to do at the moment (as I have done my quota for today of proofreads) I will do it ASAP. By the way, do you know how to add a |pipe system to templates?

Microchip08 15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC for User Conduct of User:Badmonkey

An RFC has been opened for User Conduct of User:Badmonkey. Since you have been involved at some point in trying resolve a dispute with this editor I am bringing this to your attension. Note the instructings in the RFC instruct me to leave a note on the talk page of anyone who has tried to resolve this dispute and I am not WP:CANVASSing. I request you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Badmonkey and act or comment as you deem appropriate. Russeasby 00:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The complex question

I was refering to helping out the adminstrators with the articles mistakenly put up for deletion, acting a sort of half-administrator, meaning I can't delete anything, but I can clear the backlog.Evilclown93 19:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

{{helpme}} I have found 2 more Maurice Fitzgerald. How do i set up a disambigation page? Using Maurice Fitz Gerald as top gap

Go to WP:DAB#Disambiguation pages for more information.

• Make sure all the Maurice Fitzgerald articles are named unambiguously - something like Maurice Fitzgerald (football player). See WP:MOVE if you need help renaming.
• Go to the unambiguous articles and click on "what links here". Fix those pages to go directly to the proper Fitzgerald.
• I'd make the page Maurice Fitzgerald the disambiguation page and add links to it. Be sure you follow the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages.
  • Keep lines brief
  • One link per line
  • Do not pipe links
  • Do not bold links

Hoof Hearted 13:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thank You. Aatomic1 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD

There is an AfD for an article whose notability you have previously commented on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oscar_Marion You may be interested. DGG 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Creating an Article

How does one create an article?OdC 09:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RepublicanEagle (talk • contribs) 09:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Fiddler

Thanks for working on disambiguating the links to Fiddler. However, please don't remove any items from Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Current list; this page is generated automatically and the pages that have been fixed are hidden but continue to be monitored in case new links are added. Removing a page from the list breaks the monitoring process. Also, please don't list a page on the current dump page if it wasn't there originally, as this breaks the running count of links fixed. Sorry to be a pain about this, but maintaining these pages is my pet project. --Russ (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Multiple Edits

Hi. I got your reply to my "Help Me" request on my Talk Page. Thanks a lot. Yes, I was looking for a second answer. That was why I replaced the "help me" notation. I did not understand the first editor's reply. But ... I really did not understand your answer, either. In part, because you made reference to the first reply -- which I did not understand to begin with. Can you please explain it again, step by step? I followed some of it, and then got lost. Let's say I want to undo the last 5 edits to an article, as an example. What exactly would I do? Thanks! (JosephASpadaro 16:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Hi. Thanks again for your reply. I tried what you suggested, but it did not work at all. Steps 1, 2, and 3 were fine. I went to Step 4, and I clicked the "edit this page" tab ... but I did NOT get any warning (about not editing the latest version). I proceeded to Step 5 and 6. There was no change to the article whatsoever. And, to boot, my edit was NOT listed at the top of the History page. What did I do wrong? Please advise. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 22:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Category:Tamil brahmins

You tagged Category:Tamil brahmins with a speedy delte tag, giving as the sole reason "A1". WP:CSD#A1 is a reason that applies only to articles, not categories. I'm not sure what reaosn you intended to use, please re-read criteria for speedy delete and select a valid reason if this should be deleted. DES ^(talk) 17:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing the mess -- BalanceRestored 06:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Miamisburg High School

Hello, I read your user page and it says your from Ohio...ARE you in the local Dayton, Area/Miamisburg? If so would you be able to take photos of the building? I need to get more photos of Miamisburg and their schools.

P.S Who do you want to win for President in 2008?

Userbox/Template/Category help

{{helpme|Please help me figure out what is wrong with either the babel userbox, template, or category as described below}} I know we're supposed to be focusing on article content, but I just ran across all kinds of red links in my instrument user boxes. For example {{user guitar-3}} places the userpage in Category:Wikipedian guitarists-3, yet this comes in as a red link. If you click on it to edit the category, a category list is already there. Is there something wrong with {{user guitar-3}} (and other instrument level templates), {{user instrument}}, or the Categories themselves? Or am I simply misunderstanding how the categories are applied? Hoof Hearted 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you just need to create the category. John Reaves (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Placing the category categorizes it, but you still need to create the text for the category. That is, when you click on the red link, it should take you into edit mode where you can simply type "Users in the category are advanced at guitar" or something like that. John Reaves (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Theathre

You wont need to take a photo of Victoria Theathre because I was granted to Photos by the Dayton CVB....They gave me permission and accsess to download photos for WIKIPEDIA ONLY...

Here is their link! [[1]]

Also I think Rudi/Brownback would bring Reaganism back to the country. We really need someone like Reagen...

Hey listen to WHIO: 1290Am or 95.7 FM For great right wing shows such as Sean Hannity,Rush,Dr Savage,Neil Bortz, ect I love that station. I hope the fairness doctrine is struck down... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkDonna (talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Ass Ponys.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ass Ponys.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)