User talk:Hairy Dude

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: Please add new comments to the BOTTOM of this page, unless they are in reply to something else. Hairy Dude 13:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Note for the humourously challenged: The Am-0 template on my user page is a joke. I accept that non-British dialects of English are as valid as British ones, and I even use American English on WP when it's appropriate. Any comments on my opinion of non-British dialects will be ignored, because they are invalid. Hairy Dude 19:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive: /Archive 1

Contents 1 Thanks for nuking the non-notable 2 Categories 3 Personal names - feudal names 4 "Fork bomb" article

[edit] Thanks for nuking the non-notable

Thanks for getting rid of the non-notable World of Warcraft material on Small matter of programming. I'm usually too chicken to get rid of text which I don't see as belonging on Wikipedia, but I'm glad someone takes care of these things. Kingdon 02:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you're not sure what is notable, it's probably wise not to delete stuff - WP:BOLD does have its exceptions! :) I might add that my own idea of notability has been enhanced by the deletion of the article on a relatively major student computer society of which I am a member: we thought it was notable for what seemed like good reasons, but WP consensus disagreed because there weren't enough independent sources of information. It's very much tied in with verifiability. I suppose the confidence to get rid of NN stuff only comes with such experience. Hairy Dude 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I messed up. Can you fix it?

The proper useage is in the plural - and I misspelled it when I tried to move it.

Thanks. --Ludvikus 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

---

What we have now is Categoies. --Ludvikus 01:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the name of an article :) Please continue at Talk:Category (philosophy). Hairy Dude 13:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal names - feudal names

I was trying to find some information and wound up following from link to link (as procrastinators are wont to do), and wound up on the personal name pages. Is there a reason that Quixote and Lafayette are rendered in small caps? I was thinking is was some sort of vandalism, since it's next to a reference about the "disgusting name" of the musical "Man of La Mancha". Before changing it I was hoping you could let me know what's up so that maybe I wouldn't have to.

Thanks, Datsun Eleven 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Personal name. Hairy Dude 00:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Fork bomb" article

I really do not believe the fork bomb article requires references. It doesn't contain any questionable factoids. Any programmer or information security expert (or armchair expert) could verify that the information in that article is accurate. Any script kiddie could tell you how to write a program to saturate a system's process table. There are no weasel worded statements like "A common dilemma is that most Unix-like operating systems assume that all system users are trusted by the system administrator and therefore do not include protection against internal denial of service attacks." Do note, however, that the article may have too much original research or statements based on editors' experiences with this. Furthermore, if the need for references is a major issue, act on it and hit Google. However, I doubt anything you'd find would be a "reliable source" as I doubt any such source would inform people how to bring down a computer system that they can execute code on. --Victor 22:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion every article needs some references, if only to show that it's not just Wikipedia that came up with the idea. Sure, any expert could tell you what a fork bomb is, but what if the reader doesn't have access to such experts? Anyway, sometimes I add {{unreferenced}} rather than adding references myself because I don't have time. "So fix it" only works if you are able to. Hairy Dude 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt most readers question the validity of Wikipedia content (which is a grave problem) but topics like these are usually lacking in decent, neutral sources. --Victor 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)