User talk:SteveBaker/archive3

Tux Racer

I am interested in doing some development for this game. I've posted more details on the discussion page. Please let me know if you plan to be the Sourceforge package maintainer. Bluej100 00:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

MINI Cooper'S

I've seen this apostrophe'd description a couple of times today, and wondered if you could clue me up on this. Is this a simple error (i.e. assuming it's named as if it was John Cooper's personal car), or has it been adopted unofficially by afficionados? I can't see it referred this way in your MINI (BMW) page, so I'm presuming it's not correct and have been replacing the apostrophe with a space if I'm editing the page (e.g. Intercooler). Is that OK? --DeLarge 19:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The apostrophy shouldn't be there. I (and some others) got into the bad habit of putting it there because the 'S' tends to get "lost" in email conversations. Sorry about that - and thanks for fixing it! SteveBaker 19:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

DEMs

If NASA really has a 10cm accuracy DEM, please point out where. I would really like that data. However, NASA's recent 2006 ASTER DEMs only provide 7m accuracy. Frankly, I think you are mistaken, and that no such product exists, because I have looked for the highest accuracy DEMs in the past and never done better than several meters for products of global scope. Dragons flight 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no - read what I said - it has 10cm VERTICAL precision - the horizontal is something like 5m - maybe 7m - it probably depends where on the earth you look. I think you may be thinking of the same thing. SteveBaker 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I also meant what I said, ASTER has 7m absolute VERTICAL error. Over small distances the relative error may be less, but over large distances the absolute vertical error is substantial. Dragons flight 00:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey dude, you must have taken a lot of time out to answer my reference desk questions on evolution and such. Just wanted to say many thanks. 69.223.135.80 22:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem - it was fun! I generally learn quite a bit from researching those questions...it keeps me sharp. SteveBaker 23:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Black hole as this week's WP:ACID winner

AzaBot 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How did you put photos.........

How did you put photos on your user page?ˑ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ciara me (talk • contribs) 23:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Same way as any other page - just use the 'Upload file' thingy - after you have the photo uploaded, do a cut/paste of the title of the image ("Image:whatever.jpg") and stick it between two square brackets just like on any other page. SteveBaker 02:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Visual Thinking

What a visual thinker... *laughs out loud*. No, seriously, whoever I tell about your response at the desk has a big laugh. You really should read the article about this. --Taraborn 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand what you're finding so funny. I'm very familiar with the article. Tell me more? SteveBaker 02:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but it is hilarious that somebody that uses his real name as a Wikipedia account could have said something so stupid. "I am a visual thinker" you say, and after a while you prove that you _thought_ you were one only because "if I have to explain to a mechanic at the garage that my car is 'hesitating' during accelleration (sic) - I feel a strong desire to sketch a quick graph rather than trying to put it into words". Man, that's completely ridiculous, it is an absolutely normal behavior. That's not a visual thinker, I'll repeat it, that's not a visual thinker. Autism, Asperger's, Schizophrenia and so were coined because they had clearly defined and differentiated patterns, not veeeery slight and subjective variations of what is (supposedly?) normal. You are just a normal thinker (linear, verbal or however you want to call it) that either didn't have a clue what I was asking for (which you repeatedly deny) or, well... felt a need to be special in some way. That would be as ridiculous as claiming you are a synesthete because some sounds remind you things. You say you are familiar with the article... well that makes things even worse, because being that true you still haven't understood anything. You have just exemplified what makes difficult in this kind of research where scientific method is difficult to apply. --Taraborn 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - OK. We'll take it as read that you can see inside my head after two paragraphs of my writing. If you actually knew me - you'd think differently. But fine - whatever - be happy. SteveBaker 02:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Automobiles

Possible hoaxer around, see contributions of Hardlinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for details. --sunstar net^talk 14:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Plane refuelling

There is now a follow-up at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Plane_refuelling. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You did it!

FA for the Moke! Good job! --Justanother 20:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Holden VE Commodore FAC

I have responded to your message regarding the issues found in the Holden VE Commodore article. I think that I have done just about everything mentioned, and was wondering whether you would like to support the article for FA yet. Regards OSX 06:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's looking better - I have struck out three of my complaints - but there are still fair use images that don't need to be there - and the article is still unnecessarily wordy (although not you fixed the example I gave - the entire article suffers from over-verbosity) - so I can't switch to a 'support' right now. Sorry. SteveBaker 15:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced two of the fair-use images in the article with free alternatives. I have also removed most of the redundancy words (i.e. also, and additionally etc}, with only a few examples still present. OSX 05:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record

I just wanted to clear these two things up. First, I DO assume good faith, and I assumed good faith when BD started on Wikipedia a year ago as Take Me Higher. I have offered him a few tips to improve his images [1], which he ignored. It was only after he ignored out original RfC that I started to turn from Good Faith and him becoming a problem. It was only of lately that I started to get tough with him. It was this edit[2] that finally drove me over the edge and caused taht little slip of profanity on is talk page.

As for teh block, I didn't know that they changed the image policy, so I uploaded a few fair use images fir Oldsmobile Silhouette and Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser. Well, an admin then blocked me for 24 hours for "Blatant image copy violations". Karrmann 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this converastion on the RfC page - it shouldn't splatter out all over Wikiland. SteveBaker 23:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you were acting like I got my block because I pulled a Wiarthurhu, so I naturally wanted to defend myself. Karrmann 01:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Bot problem

The problem was in ca:Mini, somebody placed interwiki wrong, I already corrected articles to prevent futures errors. best regards --Rei-artur 16:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for cleaning that up. SteveBaker 12:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of George Demeny

An editor has nominated George Demeny, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Demeny and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for pointing out my bite, I didn't realize at first that it was so pointed... I've been a bit irritable today, and didn't intend to carry it over to Wikipedia. V-Man - ^T/_C 02:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I know what you mean. We all do it sometimes - don't sweat it. SteveBaker 02:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Reward - Antikythera mechanism:

For your fixes on the footnotes of the Antikythera mechanism article, a barnstar for your troubles. -- Spawn Man 07:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

Like the picture says, good job & keep your eye out for any more rewards I may post on the reference desks. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 07:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! I shall place the original in a bank vault at an undisclose location and exhibit a replica of the award on my front page. SteveBaker 07:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiWorld

Hi Steve - In case you've lost track of the WikiWorld comics, I figured out a way to present the "Buffalo buffalo" article in the form of a cartoon. It's in this week's Signpost; Hope you like it. --Greg Williams 11:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I saw it - you did a great job. It's definitely one of my favorites! It's a classic example of how a cartoon can actually help the explanation along as well as illustrating it and adding humor. Many thanks! SteveBaker 15:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Help please

Your urgent help would be most appreciated here. -- Jreferee 21:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution

"Wikipedia is not about recording the truth" hehe I love this line. I guess wikipedia is about reporting the truth as recorded by reliable, citeable published sources. :) WookMuff 12:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Right in the first paragraph of the leading document on our philosophy: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. - this reads REALLY badly. It's just inviting people to quote it as if Wikipedia is not about publishing the truth. We need to say something like "Wikipedia is about publishing the truth. Our best guidance as to what is true is whether these statements are attributable to reliable, published sources." - the end result is the same - but it puts the truth squarely at the forefront of what we do - then explains how we decide what the truth is. SteveBaker 12:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and agree wholeheartedly, but it sounds clunky. You need to try to pare it down so it flows. Truth equals beauty, beauty however does not need to equal truth. WookMuff 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where I just saw it but the quote went something like "The threshold for inclusion is set to a higher standard than truth alone. The truth must also be attributed to a verifiable published source." Blckdmnd99 00:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Lil' bites

Some of your answers, although excellent, also seem to have a bit of a bite to them, like: "A little thought would allow you to answer this for yourself. A window is a cuboidal glass slab - what happens when you look out of the window? Is everything magnified? Fuzzy? Smaller? ...Nope - I guess not." I know it's frustrating when someone asks a question which is obvious (to us), but we need to accept that not everyone out there is as bright as us. StuRat 22:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi Steve,

I've been wanting to get more involved here and have been poking around the various policies and projects. If you're still up for adopting I'd love to have some guidance from time to time. Not much to look at on my User:DjD page or Special:Contributions/Blckdmnd99 just yet but looking to change that. Let me know. Thanks! Blckdmnd99 00:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

more on faith-based vs. scientific explanations

[continued from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Perpetual Motion Machine Idea]

I'm probably more paranoid on this issue than I need to be, but I always worry about how little difference an outside observer might find between the statements

"I know that subatomic particles exist, because Richard Feynman tells me so"

and

"I know that God exists, because Isaiah tells me so",

or between

"I know that evolution happened, because I read it in a book"

and

"I know that The Flood happened, and that the animals existing today are the ones Noah rescued, because I read it in a book."

Maybe it's egotistical or elitist of me, but while I like to think I know and appreciate how the scientific method works, I fear that way too many of the people who are carrying on (say) evolution vs. creation arguments out there are arguing the evolution POV with no more understanding, with just about precisely the same degree of faith, as their opponents. Too many of the arguments end up having quite a "he said, she said" flavor, never adequately addressing (IMO) the unique reasons why we believe that scientific theories are not merely "beliefs" or matters of opinion.

Kids of a certain age start asking "Why?", and often turn it into a game, and the adults they play it with often get tired of the game, resorting to "just because" or "because I said so". Me, however, both with kids asking "why?" and skeptics asking "how do you know?", and as long as the questions are being asked sincerely and the answers being paid attention to, I believe we have to do our best to answer, as completely as we can, no matter how tedious it sometimes gets. (But no, if the questions are being asked reflexively or the answers not being paid attention to, we don't have to keep doggedly answering, we're allowed to say, "You're not really here for an argument, you're just contradicting me", or some such.)

—Steve Summit (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference is very simple. I can look at Richard Feynmann's peer-reviewed papers - I can look at his equations, repeat his experiments (well, in theory at least). Isiah, on the other hand could be just anyone - he could have had a hidden agenda in saying what he said - what references did he draw upon? We have no clue where his information came from...(maybe "In a vision" or something equally flakey). The point is that science builds on previous results - with each stage clearly documented and going back to the earliest work on each subject. Experimental results are never accepted unless at least one or two other people can reproduce them.

Religion boils down to taking some persons word for it - without one shred of solid evidence anywhere.

The difference is subtle - but crucial: I "trust" Richard Feynmann - but that trust can always be backed up with fact if I suspect Feynmann was wrong. He's left us clear explanation of his reasoning and experiments - I can follow his line of thought step by step from his publications and decide for myself whether he made a mistake someplace.

With religion I have to have "faith" - and if my faith waivers - I have no way to prove whether my faith was ever justified. I might choose to "trust" Isiah - but I have no possible way to back that up if I suspect he might be incorrect on some point. Isiah says such-and-such is true because he saw it in a vision or something - how do I know he wasn't lying or exaggerating the truth or on some kind of ego-trip. People claim to have been abducted by aliens - I don't believe them any more than I believe Isiah's visions of some utterly unbelivable supernatural being.

Evolution is a different matter - Darwin provided us with an explanation - once you understand it, it's really obvious that what he realised must be the case - if you understand what's going on, you realise that there is no way that evolution couldn't work. We see evolution happening all the time - just talk to anyone who treats TB patients and you'll soon find out that organisms evolve - there are hundreds of examples of evolution going on around us and I'm at a total loss to explain how any thinking person could deny it - other than because they have this blind faith in a supernatural being (who for me is PRECISELY as believable at the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus). I can directly understand how evolution works without the need to refer to Darwin - just as I can prove that the square on the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares on the other two sides of a right triangle without the need to refer to Pythagoras.

The childrens' "WHY?" game is tiring - but that's how science works. You ask why perpetual motion can't work - I say "Because it's prohibited by the first law of thermodynamics" - you ask why I believe in the laws of thermodynamics and I say "Because Carnot, Thompson and Gibbs are trusted scientists and they figured it out". If you ask why they said this was true - I'd have to say "Well, it's a little out of my field - but if you give me time to look up their papers, I'll be able to explain to you how they reasoned out these laws"...and when I explain that reasoning to you, you may notice that one of them depended on the result of some experiment. Then you might ask why I trust that experiment and I'd respond that this key experiment has been performed many times by many different people - and I can find the references to the papers those people wrote about it - they may also have referred back to yet earlier work. But ultimately, I maintain that the "WHY?" game will end with a series of fundamental experiments that we could (in principle) sit down and reproduce - together with some mathematics that relates back to mathematical principles that in turn come from mathematical papers that go back in history. In the limit, those will depend on a handful of mathematical 'axioms' that are sufficiently simple that even the most sceptical person would be unable to deny them...things like "For every integer there is always another integer that is greater than it" and "Adding A to B always produces the same result as adding B to A". Eventually, with enough patience the "WHY?" game comes to an end. In the limit, every single little step can be traced back to it's origins and reproduced. You don't have to take anything on trust if you don't want to. Doing this for every single debate would be tedious and difficult in the extreme - hence the need for "trust". I have trust that the laws of thermodynamics are true - because I know that a lot of smart people have tested them in some serious manner - and that I could do so too if I was sufficiently determined.

Now - let's be a little careful. Sometimes we make mistakes - sometimes it takes generations to find and fix those mistakes. Newton slipped up when he figured out the laws of motion because he hadn't seen the 'Michealson Morley' experiment that showed that the speed of light is constant - and therefore hadn't considered the problems of travel close to the speed of light. His laws were accepted as true - all the way up to when Einstein found his 'boo-boo'. Fortunately, the error wasn't a serious one - if it had been, we'd probably have found it a lot sooner! So, yeah - it's possible for really subtle mistakes to creep into the scientific process - but we all work hard all the time to re-check those laws under extreme conditions. One nice trait that scientists have is that they LOVE to find mistakes and overturn our views of reality when they find one. Religion is notorious for the exact opposite behavior (think Gallileo here!).

Winding this argument back to the Reference Desk issue. How far back should we play the "WHY?" game? I think it's sufficient to quote a well accepted scientific law and call it a day. If the questioner doubts the veracity of that law then we can go on to explain how it came about, what experiments and/or mathematics lead up to it. But going to a great deal of trouble to explain why one particular perpetual motion machine doesn't work - when one can much more simply explain that NONE OF THEM WORK - for a really fundamental reason - seems more productive than arguing about the amount of force it takes to insert a mu-metal shield between a magnet and a pendulum and endlessly going on about needing to do this in a vacuum and with frictionless bearings and not in a gravitational field and not where light might shine on the object and....whatever. It's pointless to attempt to play the "WHY?" game all the way back to first principles. We have "trust" - and we can justify that trust.

QED

SteveBaker 01:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all that, but... I'm not the one you need to convince with any of this! :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm'K. Well, if you happen to come across anyone who does need convincing - the answer is right here! SteveBaker 03:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Liquid Nitrogen Comment

Dude.. it was just a joke. Actually, I meant to say "try touching liquid nitrogen if you want... to feel something cold, but I lost my train of thought and left it out. Also, one of my chemistry professors put it in his mouth! It's not like it instantly kills you. Yes, it's damn cold, but it's no more dangerous than accidentally touching a hot pot on a stove. I'm sorry if I offended you, or the reference desk. --Russoc4 16:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter in the slightest what you intended it to be - there is a very good possiblility that a simple statement like that could be misconstrued as real advice. You know and I know that liquid nitrogen is much colder than solid CO2 - but our readers post these questions precisely because they don't know. Please - be really careful about what you might inadvertently convey. SteveBaker 20:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

SS100X

was the secret service code name given the Lincoln that Kennedy died in, not "X-100", you dumb bastard....Next time do your homework.

I've left a friendly reminder to this contributor to mind WP:NPA "or else." I've also recommended that he remove the offensive comment, although it would also be quite acceptable for anyone else to do so. (I'm avoiding it because I prefer to keep them for future reference). It might also be a good idea to have an admin keep an eye on him. V-Man - ^T/_C 00:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know what he's talking about?! X-100?? SS100X?? Lincoln/Kennedy?? I don't recall editing any articles containing any of those terms! I plan on not feeding the troll. SteveBaker 00:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then maybe you should do your homework! ;-) V-Man - ^T/_C 00:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops

I had you confused with someone else, but all things considered, you and your friends can still kiss my ass...Harry and margereat swoger....

#define

On the Reference Desk, you wrote:

#define int entier

I suspect you meant:

#define entier int

-)

Atlant 00:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep - I did. But it's to be expected - I've only been writing C for 31 years! SteveBaker 05:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA?

Hey Steve. I recall seeing you in your November RfA. You were a very strong editor back then. Now you have improved vastly in most of the areas (mainly admin-related tasks) that was recommended by other users. I see you've been helping a lot of new users, so I am assuming your communication skills have improved lots also. Would you like to consider for RfA again? I think you are ready; if you can remain calm as ice consistently. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, sadly, I'm having to drastically cut back my Wikipedia contributions after the end of April because I'm starting a new job and it's going to be pretty demanding for a while. Perhaps this is not the best time for me to take on new responsibilities. I think I'll respectfully decline for a few months until I get settled in. I'm flattered that you thought of me though. Maybe you'd consider a nomination in a few months time. Thanks! SteveBaker 05:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's alright. Good luck! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi Steve,

I am looking for an adopter that is, even if only vaguely, interested in science, and your name came up. I am getting started on Wikipedia and have seen plenty of science article I'd be intereted in editing. You can find my page, that I started earlier today, on User:Francis thebird. If you are interested, please let me know.

Francis thebird 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey!Thanks for answering so fast. I use Wikipedia on an everyday basis as a chemist (I work in the concrete industry), and have come accross plenty of things I have changed as an anonymous user. I'll be starting grad school in chemistry in three months, and wanted to get to know wikipedia better so that I could by then be familiar with the concepts and have a few edits to my count to be able to easily modifiy and edit as a surf through life and grad school. I have looked a lot at the Wiki Project Chemistry and would be glad to help with some free time to achieve some of their goals. Anyways, thanks for your answer, and I'll talk to you soon. Francis The Bird 19:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! Well, I'm no expert when it comes to chemistry - but you clearly are, but I'm not going to be helping much with content anyway. But anything like "How do I do X?" or "What is the procedure for Y?" or "Who the heck is this idiot Z and how do I get him to stop putting nonsense into my article?"...that is something I can work with you on. Working with a 'WikiProject' is a great idea - they typically have a bunch of standards and guidelines that help to keep the articles under their umberella under some sort of control. So one place to start would be to look under Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Requested articles and see if there is anything there you can write about. But as a relative beginner, you might prefer to look in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Worklist for existing articles that need improvement - that lets you sharpen your wiki editing skills. But make sure you have fun - do stuff that interests you - Wikipedia editing isn't a paid job! OK - well, you know where I am - my virtual door is always open. SteveBaker 19:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks in advance, I'll keep in touch. Francis The Bird 13:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edits

I have noticed that you have over 6000 edits on wikipedia very good, maybe you should put this userbox on your user page. User 6000e
Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 07:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! That number kinda crept up on me there. The last time I looked it was under 2000. SteveBaker 12:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your review which contributed to the Holden VE Commodore article being promoted to featured article status. Your dedicated attitude towards the subject is greatly appreciated. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Service awards

You should check Wikipedia:Service awards, there is a large range of awards that a user can put on his or her userpage in accordance to there number of edits. I have two on my userpage in my awards section (please look) why don't check it out. If you have any comments on this please go to my talk page.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 02:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)