User talk:Zodon/Archive 1

thank you

Good job splitting up the low-power article. Thank you. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Performance per watt

Sincerely, thanks/well_done on your recent edits. --Rebroad (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy discussion on DOIs

Hi-

In case you somehow miss it, there's a policy discussion on the use of DOIs here: WP:AN#DOI bot blocked for policy reconsideration. Your voice would be appreciated, I'm sure. ASHill (talk | contribs) 00:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Birth control methods section order

Hi, I was browsing your "To do" list and came across the musings on Template:Birth control methods. The sections are currently ordered by degree of invasiveness/complexity/reversibility: see David's comment here and edit summary control methods&diff=125685335&oldid=125672311 here, and a discussion on (mostly) ordering at Template talk:Birth control methods/Archive1#Behavioral vs. Physical. I hope that helps explain how the order got to this point. Lyrl^Talk _C 18:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I had come up with the question, and hadn't found much obvious in the talk. The pointers really helped. Zodon (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

SSD power consumption

Hello,

You removed my edit on Solid-state_drives where I removed the line

Higher power consumption – at idle or under low workloads laptop battery runtimes decrease when using an SSD over a 7200 RPM 2.5" laptop hard drive, flash drives also take more power per gigabyte.

stating that the source article was consisent with the wiki.

There are several reasons why it is inconsistent:

In the idle benchmarks, the two best performing drives were both SSDs.<ref>http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hard-drive,1968-11.html</ref>

In the low workload benchmarks, those same SSDs out-performed the HDDs.<ref>http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hard-drive,1968-10.html</ref>

It makes the leap from some SSDs requiring more power under certain conditions to making the general claim of "higher power consumption".

The claim that flash drives take more power per gigabyte is true when compared with hard drives with a larger capacity, but that is not true for hard drives with equal capacity. This is a disadvantage of capacity, though. Neither hard drives nor flash drives consume any power to simply retain data, and it is the reading, writing, and idle operation where power consumption has any role, and where flash drives out-perform hard disks.

The original article is still sourced, even though Tom's Hardware admits to "a procedural mistake" and that the workloads were inconsistent.<ref>http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hard-drive,1968.html</ref> Could you please reinstate my changes? Or at least remove the invalid reference and modify the claim to be correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestion I removed the older Tom's Hardware reference. The item is consistent with the conclusions in the cited Tom's hardware article, will look at the details you mention to see if the article itself is consistent.

If you are comparing devices you have to have some commonality for comparison. As noted elsewhere in the article, the power consumption per gigabyte for SSD is lower for some small devices, but higher for larger devices. This is not a disadvantage of capacity, you can get large SSDs, but on a power/gigabyte basis they generally take more.

Note that the article is about SSD, not just flash drives. So also includes RAM based devices, which take power to retain data, and appear to take more power/gigabyte than either flash or hard disks.

At this point, I think that refining the item would make more sense than deleting it. Zodon (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

RIndMA disk

Would you, please contact me [e-mail address deleted] on the issue Stasdm (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to e-mail me, use "e-mail this user" in toolbox, or we can discuss on talk:solid-state drive. Zodon (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to Vasovasostomy information

Good day Zodon. I feel like we having a bit of an issue resolving conflict of information and revelance dispute. I am asking other editors to take a look at the content issue that we have with us. Please reference WP:COIN for more information. Thank you for working with us to make sure the information on the disputed pages is relevant and informative.

We discuss some issues

Main article: vasovasostomy

You seem to be making unverified changes to Wikipedia, and possibly violating WP:NPOV

(e.g., removal of references to vasectomy reversal contributions as well as other modifications item control in articles, "see also" list of vasectomy), when sources claim equivalence you should not have modified them for other reasons. Also you've edited reproductive rights to articles of family planning I believe that this should not have been done.

Pdbs (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The primary edits I have made to vasovasostomy have been to further wikify it and remove repeated attempts at adding advertising links for your business to the external links of the page. Rather than repeatedly adding a questionable item, or trying to modify the format of the article away from wikipedia/WP:MEDMOS standards, please discuss WP:BRD on the talk page, or ask for help.

As to your comments on reproductive rights and family planning, please be more specific, it is not clear what changes you are referring to.

So far I could not find the entry on the COIN. Please provide link when/if you make a posting there. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Vaccination and religion

Hi Zodon, I'm wondering why you reverted my additions here with the edit summary that "chiropractic is not a religion".

While chiropractic does contain metaphysical elements, your edit summary is quite right, and that was never claimed in my contribution, IOW your summary is a straw man.

The section is about religious exemptions, and the properly sourced content I added was about religious exemptions. In this case it involves a controversial church started by a chiropractor which gives religious exemptions. It could have been started by anyone and it would still be relevant to the section. Likewise Barbara Loe's article about religious exemptions is relevant to the section. What gives?

BTW, DD Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, actually did suggest that chiropractic be classified as a religion. After all, according to him it originated "from the other world." He was an avid spiritualist. That's just an interesting bit of history:

• D.D. Palmer's Religion of Chiropractic

-- Fyslee / talk 06:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion might be more profitably carried out on the article's talk page, where it would form a part of the history for the article, and get participation from other editors. (e.g. WP:BRD) So I have created a new section Talk:Vaccination and religion#Vaccination, religion and chiropractic for it and copied your question there, along with my response. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. That makes sense. -- Fyslee / talk 13:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

HPV vaccine

Your revision of my additions were worthy to a point and I thank you for your industry. However, I cannot agree that a study by Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, stored on the FDA website is a low quality source. I take on board your comment about the small sample study and my misinterpretation. Would you say the same about the combined sample of 18 150 present in page 15 Table 21 that shows a -11.7% efficacy for Gardasil against the relevant type of HPV when compared to the placebo? Surely you must agree that these results in Table 21 show the Gardasil vaccine may increase the risk of cervical cancer in some recipients of the vaccine. Watergoesred (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The low quality source is the other source cited, which provided the interpretation of the data. The FDA background document notes study 13 (which is the only one of the studies combined in table 21 in which the placebo appeared to be better than Gardasil) as an area of concern to be discussed at the meeting. It does not say that that means that Gardasil may increase the risk of cervical cancer. It does say that there are other risk factors that may account for the results in study 13. As the meeting in question has undoubtedly taken place, the results of the meeting would be more relevant than this background document.

So as far as I can see the FDA document does not establish that Gardasil vaccine may increase the risk of cervical cancer. How you or I would interpret it would be WP:OR. (And no, I would not interpret Table 21 that way, I would start by seeing how the panel dealt with it, or check for review articles published in peer reviewed journals.) Zodon (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the clean-up. I'll try to be more careful. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

I responded to your concerns in my talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

New response on my talk.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

STD testing

Nice edit. [1] I should have thought of that.

--davidz (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Usc-title-chap

Thanks for fixing it. -- davidz (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonintrusive load monitoring

Thank you for your edits.--Nowa (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the article, interesting to learn about. Zodon (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexual health clinic

The talk page for the sexual health clinic article gets unwieldy. Would you please consider refactoring it. Consider breaking longer entries in Other changes into specific topics. Consider moving all discussion of Curable v treatable into one section. Roughly follow the structure of the article expect for topics that apply to the whole article. Preserve content but summarize as you see fit. Thanks. -- davidz (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please compare Template:Unreferenced vs {{Refimprove}}

Please refer to discussion on talk page for Progestagen --Kuzetsa (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sex

I see that you reverted my edit to Template:Sex. I've restored it because without the <includeonly></includeonly> tags, the template itself appears in the Sex category which is incorrect. I think your edit comment was regarding the weird character in the sort field for the category, but I didn't put that in there; it was already there when I came to the template. If you want to change that, be my guest, but please leave the <includeonly></includeonly>. Thanks! --Sapphic (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I copied your comments to Template talk:sex and responded there, so that others could take part in the discussion, and to keep the record with the template. Zodon (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Green Computing

Hi Zodon,

The current green computing article lists how different types of storage have a different amount of energy consumption, but doesn't describe any other aspects of storage energy consumption (power adapters, fan, auto-shut-off).

I won't contest the status 'quo and you've probably overlooked the Wiki much longer than I, but if there's a way to add some kind of additional information about storage energy consumption based on energy-saving capabilities in addition to comparing different types of storage - let me know.

The picture is just cool - a hard drive made of bamboo!

Anyways, let me know what I can do.

-David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.76.124.126 (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I tried to indicate what I see as the problems with the proposed additions on the talk page talk:Green computing#Storage - external hard drive. That is probably the best place to continue discussion of improvement of the article (keeps it with the article so everyone can find it).

I am not averse to covering more about energy and resource consumption of storage devices. (Notes on the trade-offs of external vs. internal storage for instance might be interesting, unfortunately I don't have any good citations to hand). But especially since "green" is now a marketing buzzword we need to be careful to use good evidence.

The part bamboo case sort of reminds me of the old SOL-20. But I still wonder if the multiple-materials don't make it harder to recycle than say an all-metal case. Zodon (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

That was a workspace to deal with certain issues pertaining to two sections. Please restore it. -Zahd (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As indicated in WP:SUBP#Disallowed uses, drafts do not belong in main article space. Therefore the page was moved to talk space talk:human rights/temp, where it still exists. I also notified you and those who had edited the page of the move, and also explained it on talk:human rights#Fetal rights cleanup. If you think it should be put back in article space, please explain why (citing Wikipedia policy, etc.) on talk:human rights. Zodon (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for letting me know about the page move. Spotfixer (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

History of human sanctity

You might want to look at History of human sanctity to see if it qualifies for speedy delete. Spotfixer (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Intimate Examination

Thanks for your work on that page! I had been waiting for a "second" to my proposal. Altairah (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Not modern grid initiatives.

The rural electrification project is not a modern grid initiative. Perhaps you would like to create a history of electricity nav template? I welcome your comments about the coverage of historical material on Template talk:Grid modernization. -J JMesserly (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Responded on template talk page. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to my edit to Green computing

Nicely done. I very frequently am too wordy. Thanks! Jeh (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:USPL

Please see discussion at Template_talk:USPL.—Markles 11:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Brilliant! Think you can fix Template:USStat, Template:USStatute, Template:USCongRec, & Template:Federal Register, too? Please?? —Markles 02:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take a look at them. Zodon (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, think I fixed most of them. Changed them to check for missing first parameter and give an error message in that case. (Except for Federal Register, haven't quite figured out how to do that one.) Zodon (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Pro-pedophilia account

Per your nonesnese about civlity on my talk page. Read the block log edit summary, made by an admin after Arbcom considered this. Calls him an "apparent pro-pedophila" account. Here. [[2]]. My describtion was not dubious, not personal, and not an attack. Don't you have more important things to do then defend an indef-blocked sock account that was being used to, how to put this civily, to cast pedophilia in a more positive light?Bali ultimate (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. In the absence of that information, the comment appeared questionable. No interest in defending the individual in particular, but a lot of interest in maintaining a courteous environment, where misunderstandings can happen and people can safely voice unpopular opinions (when done courteously, and backed up with references, as this user had).

Again, please consider courtesy, rather than calling legitimate concerns nonsense. Zodon (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I found the manner of your request discourteous and your failure to investigate for yourself before talking to me about refactoring and what not discorteous, presemptous, arrogant and unwanted. Just so we're clear.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I did considerable investigation before posting, checking your talk page, the user and talk page of the user in question, their recent edit history, the ANI discussion, the discussion on User talk:L'Aquatique, and looked for (but did not find any) information on arbcom action - both by browsing and by searching. Wikipedia is a vast and complex system, and if there is a way to find everything that is relevant to such a topic, I don't know what it is. Just because somebody doesn't find something is not basis to assume they didn't investigate. (Wikipedia:Assume good faith).

No discourtesy was intended in the inquiry. Zodon (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Obelisk

The obelisk is 67m tall, but the "condom" doesn't even come close to reaching the ground. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Draft page

Just to let you know I have moved your draft2 page from Zodon/draft2 to User:Zodon/draft2. Cycle~ (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No probs. I've just done the same with User:Zodon/draft3.  :-) Cycle~ (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Thanks. Is there any way I can help with deleting the redirects? (I certainly won't contest deletion of the redirects, so if there is a faster code to delete them, or maybe we just have to wait.) Zodon (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Rights templates

Since you have done a lot of work on this... could we add Prostitutes (or "sex workers", whatever appears more appropiate) as rights holders to the templates, (see World Charter for Prostitutes' Rights).--SasiSasi (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Responded on the template talk page. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: POV tag on career management

Hello, I've responded to the above on my talk page. Cheers --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 21:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I made a quick couple of changes to a previous discussion on your page; the use of the ref tag was creating an error as there's no references section here. Here's my changes: [3]. Feel free to revert if you don't like them! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 21:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Microprocessor/Microcontroller

Yep, I goofed - thanks for the fix.71.135.170.231 (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WP not soapbox

"RE your recent postings on talk:Gardasil. Article talk pages are for discussing article improvement, not for publicizing views WP:NOTSOAPBOX, disparaging, discussing or attacking other users WP:NPA, etc. (i.e. Wikipedia isn't a general forum WP:NOTAFORUM). Thank you." FX (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you copied my message from your talk page to here, but your welcome. Zodon (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)