User talk:Scicurious

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Scicurious, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brain capacity[edit]

"Brain capacity" We have an article that claims "It is estimated that the human brain's ability to store memories is equivalent to about 2.5 petabytes of binary data" see link here Void burn (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your PROD[edit]

Hi, I was just curious as to why you decided in the first place to propose Comparison of C Sharp and Java for deletion. Whatever it is, your reason seems to be controversial so someone's taken down your PROD tag. If you still believe the article should not be here, a proper WP:AFD discussion is the way to go. Cheers, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ref desk response[edit]

Hi, I didn't want to further de-rail the ref desk question. But since you asked about the legality, my answer is "I don't know and I don't care". I take WP's WP:COPYVIO policy very seriously for main space, and I wouldn't post that link in an article. But I also know that these issues are convoluted, and my job here is not to be a defender of Random House. Surely you've downloaded a research paper from a professor's web page? Some publishers would say that is copyvio, while many professors would say it is fair use. I don't know that such an issue has ever gone to court, but I tend to err on the side of accessibility of scientific information. The ref desk is classed as a talk page, and as such is fairly ephemeral. Wilson is doing just fine, and people should buy his books if they want to read them. But a quick skim is fair use IMO, akin to browsing at a bookstore. Anyway, if you feel very strongly that this link should be removed, feel free to redact my link, provided that you clearly state what you are removing, why, and sign said edit. I have a little more leniency on this since it is a book, but expect more pushback from me if you challenge any of my links to freely-accessible research articles ;) The main problem with the ref desk is too few refs, not too many, IMO. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just asking. I understand what you are aiming at, but I am not sure if you are bending the rules too much. Other Wikipedia editors have had trouble with similar behavior.--Scicurious (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a political statement.[edit]

I didn't mention that deadly Presidential duo because they're conservative. Just because they had a lot of innocent people killed and one is the other's dad. If Clinton or Obama's father did what their sons did, they'd get the same from me. If it's just speaking ill of the office that makes me liberal to you, then yeah, I'm liberal. I frown on waste and scowl at "health food", though, so I'm also conservative. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there[edit]

Hi scicurious I saw you hatted my question at the refdesk72.211.210.198 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hatted it. --Scicurious (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's' wrong with my question?It seems a perfectly valid one to meWinkplan211 (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a valid question for the reference desk. The RD is there for answering questions with references. Your question implies analyzing the intentions of others, and leads to lots of discussions. --Scicurious (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I've seen other people ask those sorts of questions, and they don't get hatted. Also, other users were providing me with good references to other articles.Winkplan211 (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC) May be you should bring this up on the talkpageWinkplan211 (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question moved[edit]

Hi there. Just a quick note to let you know I've moved your question about Thunderbird from the Language desk to the Computing desk. Tevildo (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Scicurious (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Clarify[edit]

There's nothing at all wrong with your general question as such. The problem is you used a living person as an example, and mentioning him is not necessary for your question to be answered. In fact, if you read the relevant article, you will see that a higher court stayed the charges a week before trial would have begun, meaning they did not find that the trial court had a prima facie case to proceed. If your question is just about hurrying along the trials of elderly defendants, that's one thing. But if this is going to be a discussion of the merits of that one case it does not belong at the ref desk, and probably not even at the subject's talk page, since those talk pages are meant (per the guidelines at the top of the page) for discussions about improving the article, not about the topic of the article itself. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]