User talk:N Shar/Archive 2

Axial pen force

I noticed you voted to keep the article. At least your definition makes sense. Are you sure it's right? What the article actually says is:

Axial pen force is the force component which is the result of the normal pen force exerted on the writing surface.

I still maintain that this doesn't make sense. If it said "... is the component of the normal pen force in the direction of the pen axis..." I would be happier. But I don't even know if this is what it's trying to say. Rracecarr 19:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the AfD for the resolution of this discussion. --N Shar 20:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry!!

Im sorry about that edit I made I just wanted to help. So I downloaded the python pkbt 2.5 version. If you can tell me how to use it properly I think I can really help. {{hangon}}Lava159 20:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!

...it's only because, for my sins, I'm hovering over CAT:CSD at the moment. Deleting images at the moment, so yours will be the last "thank you" message I will get for a few hours! :o) 〈RED VEЯS〉 20:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I hope you don't mind, I added more information to AIM Ad Hack and removed the prod template. If you still have concerns over the article, please let me know. Thank you! --Nevhood 01:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I'm no longer concerned. Thank you.--N Shar 04:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing

I want you to know that I side-splittingly laughed for 5 minutes over your comment on the Afd for Fast Track Down. The funniest part for me was that everything you said was 100% correct. Thanks. Jerry lavoie 00:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-)
--N Shar 00:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salt

If someone meant WP:SALT they could have said so, instead they said "salt" and where is WP:FIRE? You underanalyzed the situation; these comments are bigoted and abusive, shame on those who defend them. Carlossuarez46 21:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Carlossuarez46. --N Shar 21:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numerical digit

Hi, NShar! Thanks for working on numerical digit. You definitely made it better.

I made a few small changes, mostly in the "Overview" section, which seemed a bit too repetitious. I also changed one reference to "rational numbers" to say "fractions". Anyway, you might want to take a look to be sure I improved it. ;^> DavidCBryant 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes were definitely improvements. I'm not very good at writing these encyclopedia articles. I'll probably take a day or two off of this one and then come back with some references. --N Shar 23:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, N Shar! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Hi there. I actually didn't protect the page as I'm not an admin. I simply noticed that the page is protected against edits by IP addresses, so I added the appropriate template to the page. Thank you, --NMChico24 09:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diff for Commons

I am 70.231.138.93 and I am voting for number 2 in the Commons Picture of the Year competition. --N Shar 00:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AVB

Nah, we had some changes to Wikipedia, and it broke the bot, and well, time is @ a bit of a premium at the moment -- Tawker 06:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diff I posted for the commons PotY competition was invalid

Hi thanks for the heads up on this - a later edit trashed my vote so I have left the trashed one and simply put a new vote in. Springnuts 22:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weather lore

Thank you for your helpful comments. Because of school and work commitments, I will be unable to get to this article before March 11, at which time I will give it some attention. I would just like to note the following:

"unencyclopedic tone" is a bit of an issue for me. Wikipedia itself is unencyclopedic in the traditional sense, and I believe that the best article is one which not only represents the facts, but holds the reader's interest. I want what I write to be inviting and accessible to the average reader. For instance, the typical formal encyclopedia lede does not attempt to grab the reader's attention, and formal encyclopedia entries often end abruptly without any trace of a summary, conclusion, or wrap-up. In this instance, I want the article to read like a short in Discovery magazine or Scientific American - crisp contemporary style.
There is no certainty to anything but very short-range weather predictions, at least not at this time, so words like "probably" and "in the next while" are about as close to accurate as you can get sometimes. If you have a big fat high pressure area sitting over you, you're probably good for a 48-hour forecast, but if there are a bunch of lows in the area, no one's calling for more than a few hours' accuracy. But I'll see what I can do.
I can't think of a more precise way to head the sections "True lore, and why", and "False lore, and why". I could get excessively wordy but still as accurate by titling them "Lore considered to be true/false", but that sounds kind of chunky to me. Your thoughts, please.
You're absolutely correct on the difficulty of finding references to folk knowledge. I've brought this article a long way from where it was when I first wrote it, but I've about exhausted what is available on the net. I will take your advice to heed, though, and will seek further sources for "False lore, and why".

Thanks for looking the article over. I just need some time. Denni ^talk 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I have stayed up waaaay past my bedtime in an effort to address your criticisms. I've titled each item in true and false lore, have added significantly to references, and have removed terms of uncertainty where possible. Please let me know what else you think needs to be done. {PS - I really like your userboxes. We have a lot in common, except that I'm neutral good.)Denni^talk 07:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you very much! I lost a lot of faith in Wikipedia when this article was delisted as a FA - you have restored it. I appreciate the time you've given, and the thought you've put into this. Denni^talk 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with you that the featured article process needs reform. I've seen plenty of articles that ought to be FAs but aren't, and plenty of articles that are FAs that shouldn't be. I think many editors make decisions by essentially counting references. Of course, the truly important thing is not how many references there are, but how good the article is. If it has only three references, but uses them effectively to build an article, that's FA-quality as far as I'm concerned. If it has fourty references (or, as I saw in one article, 240) but not really any content, that's not FA-quality. And certain decisions (like the de-FAing of Pythagorean Theorem because of a long-ceased edit war) make absolutely no sense. Oh well. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 05:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I absolutely agree with you. One of my major concerns is that it takes only one editor to promote or defeat a GA candidate. Even speedy deletes require two editors. In my opinion, GA candidates require the same attention as both FA candidates and AFDs, that is to say, a consensus of more than just two editors. I'm prepared to give some time to plug this idea - suggestions on where I might start? Denni ^talk 05:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Probably at the Village Pump. I think it's a good idea; I wouldn't go as far as to say it needs a community consensus, but I agree that one set of eyes is not enough, especially to fail or pass the article outright. When it's put on hold, that's a different story -- it allows more people to examine the issue. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 05:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA On Hold Image

We should try WP:GRAPHLAB, they may be able to help us out. If not we can always ask them to make a new one for us.74.116.113.241 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Back Dorm Boys

You stated: "If reliable sources are provided, this article could be kept." I think there are more than enough sources (and some notable ones, at that) listed on that AfD page for one to digest. -Pandacomics 16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. However, if I change the vote the nomination will be withdrawn, and I can't do that. I think it's important to set the precedent that: 1) Articles on YouTubers can be kept if sourced, and 2) Articles on YouTubers must be sourced to be kept. Let's let the AfD run its course.
- Gotcha. -Pandacomics 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

I was impressed by the elegance and thoughtfulness of your argument on the Brandt AfD discussion. Well done - and thank you! SheffieldSteel 21:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See combinatorial game theory

I wonder if you could answer the question I posted at Talk:combinatorial game theory. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]