User talk:Hydrox/Archive 4

Discussion about "greatest and least elements" in JavaScript

Hi, Hydrox. I've started a discussion at Talk:Infinity#"Greatest and least elements" in Computing section about "greatest and least elements" in JavaScript and whether JavaScript should be used as an example of a language that has such things. Let me know what you think. —Bkell (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You deserve this Barnstar not just for your help in reverting vandalism, but also because of the way you warn the people who make mistakes. Your messages are personal and polite, and those who read them understand what they did wrong and what to do right. Wikipedia needs more people like you. Greengreengreen red 20:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) --hydrox (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Board games

I agree with you that the article names for board games should be in italics. I have changed the infobox game template to reflect this. St Anselm (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very clever, great way to deal with it. I only italicized the German Spiel des Jahres winners' titles. The previous usage was inconsistent to say the least. But it's great we can use this to change the titles categorically. However, one must note that games like Chess and other "traditional" games should not be italicized, per MOS:TITLE. I propose we add | italic title = yes/no parameter to the Infobox, because by rule the modern board games should italicized, unless they have become "traditional". --hydrox (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC) And, this is apparently how it has been done already. So, let's get to adding "traditional games" with | italic title = no. :) --hydrox (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes - I'd forgotten that. Good work. St Anselm (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had to give up :( There are just too many false positives, and I don't have the time to categorize all the 1300+ pages that use the Infobox. I think it's technically worse if the article shows italicized title where it should not, than that there is no italicized title where there maybe should be, so I have defaulted the | italic title = parameter in the template to "no". Opened a discussion on template talk. --hydrox (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Republicanlogo.svg)

Thanks for uploading File:Republicanlogo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sauber C32 livery

Hi Hydrox,

I thought I'd let you know that I have undone some of your edits to the Sauber C32 page, particularly the ones that dealt with the changes in the car's livery. The reason for this is because these changes are not important to the overall performance of the car, especially when compared to other elements like the skinny sidepods. If the changes to the livery are to be mentioned at all in the article, they certainly should not be mentioned before changes to the actual design of the car.

There is, however, a page dedicated to liveries, which I think is probably the best place for those changes to go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. My initial thought was the addition was removed in error. Cheers, hydrox (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MediaInfo adware

"12 February 2013‎ Hydrox (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,215 bytes) (-68)‎ . . (rv misguided slander. how are adware and open source even mutually exclusive? you can add a section about how the distribution is financed if you really think it's relevant.) (undo)"

The financing is relevant, but only indirectly important. What is truly significant is that installing this software is unsafe. The authors do not deny this. Installing this software includes a risk of inadvertantly installing unwanted additional software -- such unwanted software is installed by default. The word "adware" is the simplest, briefest way of mentioning this risk. It sounds like you are objecting to the word "but" more than the word "adware"; it would be better if you left the word adware in the article -- or found some other way to mention the risk.-96.237.4.73 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is truly significant is that installing this software is unsafe. The authors do not deny this. Installing this software includes a risk of inadvertantly installing unwanted additional software -- such unwanted software is installed by default. Can you re-read the source you provided? I think you might have misread it. It seems to say the exact contrary: "Some may consider this distribution "bundling" as adware. On the other hand, the distributor does not show the usual nasty negative traits of adware: ... No unwanted software is installed - sponsored offer is explicitely indicated as such. Totally your choice!". Also, they offer non-bundled downloads as well.

It sounds like you are objecting to the word "but" more than the word "adware"; it would be better if you left the word adware in the article -- or found some other way to mention the risk. The source you provided specifically leaves it ambiguous whether this is ad-ware, so can't really say such.

I edited the article to show that Windows users can choose to download the software with an adware installer. Calling MediaInfo itself adware is not justified IMHO, because they offer non-bundled downloads as well. --hydrox (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sport1 Germany F1

Sport1 Germany didn't show live FP1 that start very early morning (2-3-4 AM), never in history, this year too http://mediencenter.sport1.de/de/tv_programm/wochenprogramm/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.197.93 (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see you already added it to the article. --hydrox (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

Thanks for catching my mistake on ITN/C so quickly! :) --LukeSurl^{t c}

You're welcome ;) --hydrox (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helsinki/northernmost European city

Hey! I believe my statement as to Helsinki's Geographical location (being the northernmost city) to be factually correct! Why the censorship? I am even voting for you guys in Eurovision tonight! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7681 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No censorship, but I should have been more verbose in my edit summary, so sorry for that. I could identify three problems with the proposed addition:

If you look at the second paragraph of the lead section, it already says "[Helsinki] is the world's northernmost metro area of over one million people, and the city is the northernmost capital of an EU member state." The addition is almost redundant to this information.
I believe the proposed information is trivia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and one of the long-standing goals in our articles has been to use the opening paragraph to "define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific". The addition was to the opening paragraph, and I found it overly detailed for this location in the article. I would rather recommend developing the second paragraph I mentioned earlier. It will surely need to be updated if Iceland's application to EU is successful, possibly with the wording you used.
Wikipedia requires using citations for most claims, and it's great that you have understood the importance of this policy. However, there's an error in the way you specified the citation. You linked the source as an external link to the article, while you should use an inline citation by surround the citation text with <ref></ref> tags (help) A great help in adding citations is the RefToolbar gadget, that can be enabled from your preferences, if not already enabled. RefToolbar presents a nice UI for adding a web citation ("Cite web" button) and also uses the correct syntax to a citation template to render a more verbose, standardized description of the source you used.

Of course, problems #2 and #3 could be easily fixed by another editor. But #1 is the reason I undid the edit rather than fix it (the addition being [almost] redundant). The wording needs to be re-thought if Iceland joins EU, as Reykjavik is north of Helsinki, but is there point in adding a third "northernmost" superlative to the lead section right now?

P.S. Thanks for voting for Krista. Too bad she didn't do better than that :/ Cheers, hydrox (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helsinki, Climate

Hi, the record temps for Helsinki were emailed to me by Finnish Meteorological Institute meteorologist Asko Hutila. It's a private email, so I don't know how to make a source of it. I told him it would be for wikipedia purposes. So the new records are correct, I just don't know how to make the source available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syfes (talk • contribs) 13:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, they can not be really used in Wikipedia unfortunately. Wikipedia sources need to be verifiable. If you want to use this data, FMI ought to publish it somewhere. --hydrox (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]