Difference between revisions of "User talk:Sethile"

From Pipedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(New Question)
(Removal of Link)
Line 118: Line 118:
  
 
:::::It apparently refers back to the original 1964 Surgeon General's report. Here is an interesting and fairly written [http://www.meerschaumstore.com/health.htm article by Mark Beale, MD] that mentions it as well as some other interesting and relevant information that rings credible to me, at least.
 
:::::It apparently refers back to the original 1964 Surgeon General's report. Here is an interesting and fairly written [http://www.meerschaumstore.com/health.htm article by Mark Beale, MD] that mentions it as well as some other interesting and relevant information that rings credible to me, at least.
 +
 +
::::::Thanks [[User:LaughingBuddha|LaughingBuddha]] ([[User talk:LaughingBuddha|talk]]) 14:34, 11 January 2013 (CST)
  
 
==New Question==
 
==New Question==

Revision as of 15:34, 11 January 2013

As per my other suggestion, perhaps it would be better to completely remove the Marks/Logo page altogether and just have a link at the bottom of each Brand/Maker's page to the Pipephil website for that particular Brand or Maker? --Frank - 3/26/09

Sure, that would work fine too. The advantage of the Marks/Logo page, assuming it were to get flushed out eventually, is for situations where someone is trying to identify a pipe with some sort of logo without knowing the maker. Regardless, I think relevant off site links should be added at the bottom of each article directly. --sethile 15:41, 26 March 2009 (CDT)
Lacking a Name Stamp, being able to identify a pipe from it's Logo alone would be useful. Pipephil does have a means of searching with criteria such as a Star or an Anchor or a Dot, etc., but it is lacking a couple of such criteria to search by, last I checked.--Frank - 3/26/09

Scott, Earlier on I checked on that item in Cyrillic that you deleted. I found a translation, and it is pipe related..--Frank - 4/13/09

Thanks, Frank! I put it back. I wondered about that.. I was a little on the delete button ;) --sethile 21:18, 13 April 2009 (CDT)

Notice for you

This thing needs a bit of scouring just to make it palatable to educated folk! C'mon, this is just lazy. I say "c'mon" because this is the talk page. The entry itself ought to be perfectly written, not sounding like a letter to a dopey pal in Wisconsin!Thundersnow 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)--A direct quote off the Tobacco page. It really needs work, that.Thundersnow 00:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Bridge Too Far?

QUOTE FROM ME: "Hello Eric, Thanks for your work on the Tobacco article. Yes, it does need a lot of work! Also, it would be great if you can help with the Savinellis article. In short, whatever you have time for would be most welcome in deed--I really appreciate your help! All the best, --sethile 01:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC) [....]

Uhm, I do not know any Eric except an old colleague. And I must say that it is just plain wrong to try to do that to a contributor who wished to remain known by username. And by the way, I am Rev. Antonio Hernandez.Thundersnow 03:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)"

Well, thanks a lot for this unwanted headache.Thundersnow 03:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


Since the email address (EricBlair@disciples.com), which you publicly posted, gave the name as Eric Blair, it was an understandable mistake on Scott's part, as he could hardly be aware that you use someone elses email address. I believe he was only trying to be friendly on a first name basis. Accusing him of "outing" you in such a heartless manner is a mean thing to do, since he obviously did not do it to deliberately "expose" you.
As you obviously aren't aware of the tremendous scope of this website, let me enlighten you of the fact that the vast majority of the design, information and contributions have been due to Scott's hard work. Furthermore, he is always extremely appreciative of corrections and contributions to the website.
Considering that you don't even know one iota about Scott, I find your jumping to conclusions about him offensive in the extreme. I also find your tone and attitude particularly rude and belligerent, especially as you claim to be a man of the cloth. - Frank 07:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Frank! For what it's worth I apologized on his user talk, but apparently that was not what Thundersnow was after. He has elected to deprive us of his presence and help for the present. All the best, --sethile 23:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

QuestyCaptcha not working?

Hi,

I operate a wiki and I was going to install QuestyCaptcha. Can I ask, does your Aug 14th note about spam mean your Apr 13th installation of QuestyCaptcha isn't working?

Are the bots responding correctly to both questions or just one? (The "What is this wiki's name?" question is probably very common, so spambots might be configured to always stick in the wiki's name when confronted with QuestyCaptcha) If they're getting both questions right, then I guess a human actually took the time to note your questions and the correct answers, so adding a few dozen new questions is probably what's necessary.

I'd be very interested to hear more about the problem. Thanks. Ciaran 15:51, 16 August 2011 (CDT)

I'm not sure the bots responded to either question... It may just be my QuestyCaptcha configuration needs more tweaking. I installed it when I had a bunch of spam that appeared to use humans to make registered users in spite of using ReCaptcha (about 5 to 10 per day), and than that info seemed to be plugged into bots that used the registration information to spam. QuestyCaptcha shut that attack down. I had some new bot yesterday that was not spamming links, just junk. Looked like maybe it attempted to put in links and when it hit QuestyCaptcha it created new articles without links, or was deleting existing content and replacing it with a line like "Great post" or something similar. Apparently edits without links does not trigger QuestyCaptcha due to my settings.
It may be I can tighten up my QuestyCaptcha settings to catch this new stuff too. Haven't had time to play with it much. --sethile 16:20, 16 August 2011 (CDT)
I've been reading the docs:
... and the comments in the source code.
If you want all edits to require passing a captcha, change "false" to "true" in this line of nameofwiki/extensions/ConfirmEdit/ConfirmEdit.php:
$wgCaptchaTriggers['edit'] = false; // Would check on every edit
I haven't tried it out yet, but it seems you can exempt logged in users from the captchas by setting:
$wgGroupPermissions['user' ]['skipcaptcha'] = true;
Or logged in users who've confirmed their email address by setting these to true in ConfirmEdit.php:
$wgGroupPermissions['emailconfirmed']['skipcaptcha'] = true;
$ceAllowConfirmedEmail = true;
Thanks for the quick reply. I think I'll go ahead and install Questy for my wiki. Ciaran 16:59, 16 August 2011 (CDT)
Thanks for the links! I've poored over those same docs too, but it's been a while. I changed the settings to allow anonymous edits again, but they will all trigger Questy while users will bypass it. To create an account triggers it though. That should take care of the bulk of the problems I've been having while still allowing anonymous edits. I guess we'll see!
How did your Questy install go? --sethile 21:03, 16 August 2011 (CDT)

Hi. I only got it installed three days ago. (I don't have direct access to the server.)

To my great surprise, I'm still getting two or three spam edits per day: [1] !

I'm baffled. I've searched the Internet extensively and I can't find anyone else saying that spam gets past QuestyCaptcha. I think I'll mention this on the mediawiki.org site. Ciaran 17:48, 3 September 2011 (CDT)

My situation here seems to have stabilized for the present, although I had a new user and subsequent spam hit yesterday, but only one, and that was the first since I tweaked my Questy settings. It was different than most of the ones I've had in the past. I think it was a human... Your experience and my recent hit may mean the humans that were hired to work ReCaptcha implementations are now working on Questy sites. That makes some sense. I don't think it's possible to set up a captcha of any kind that will defend against humans without also severely limiting your potential contributions ;(
BTW, I hope your efforts against the Patent Trolls and other insanity with software patents proves fruitful. I heard a very interesting piece on NPR a month or so ago. Sounds like a completely out of control mess! I had no idea... --sethile 21:07, 3 September 2011 (CDT)

Gloredo

Dear Sethile You recieved like me a mail from these "other Gloredo" people. In my opinion there is no serious evidence for their activity in pipe making. The so called "Trademark Registration Certificate" you certainely got too has no value for me. I have to do with Chinese students and I know their degree certificate or diplom are sometimes "home made".

And for fun I made a little faux of this certificate changing "Gloredo" by "Dunhill"

see here

see also my comment in the gloredo's Talk. I think at least the two gloredos should appear on the GLOREDO page

Yes, I agree, and I responded in the Gloredo's talk as well. Regardless of the current status of the brand there is no reason not to include its history, which is way it is relevant... --sethile 09:38, 11 December 2012 (CST)
But there are TWO gloredos apparently. I think this should be clear in the article, no ?
OK, yes, I think I've got it now... I thought it was a buyout of some kind at first. What a mess!

Removal of Link

Why did you remove my link on the health effects of smoking cigars and pipes? It was a link to WebMD, a well respected source for medical info. LaughingBuddha (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2013 (CST)

Hello Laughing Buddha. Thanks for you input. While WebMD has a lot of good medical information, this particular article was typical of the medical literature that attempts to lump pipes and cigars in with cigarettes by establishing the idea that all forms of tobacco are evil. This article allowed for some minor differences, which is better than some articles, but there remains in it a number of well documented inaccuracies typical of the medical literature. If you are really interested in this subject you could read through some of the other material we have linked too.
In return, I would like to ask you why you linked to the article. I note that it is your one and only contribution to Pipedia, made shortly after you registered. My guess is your not really interested in pipes, but are just against tobacco. This wiki is for those of us who are interested in pipes and pipe smoking. Our take of this issue is going to be more nuanced than one would typically expect of the general public. --sethile (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2013 (CST)
I have mixed feelings about pipe smoking because I used smoke pipes on and off for 15 years. I have three Savinellis, two Nordings and one Dr. Grabow to prove it. Also, my favorite tobacco brand was Peter Stockkebye's. Unfortunately, I eventually became addicted and smoked so often that I was staining my teeth and burning my mouth. Also, my dentist repeatedly warned me of the dental problems associated with pipe smoking including mouth cancer, so I stopped, which was very difficult for me. (However, I recently noticed England's "Pipe Smoker of the Year" list on Wikipedia. Many of them lived past 70. I found this very confusing.)
I noticed your section titled Pipe Smoking Health and perused through it. It seemed to lack emphasis on the health hazards of pipe smoking. I sincerely believe pipe smokers should smoke with their eyes wide open with respect to the information on the health hazards of smoking and for that reason I added the WebMD link. By the way, I was planning to make other contributions that had nothing to do with health-related issues but my conscience would have bothered me had I not added information to the health section first.
Even though the health hazards of smoking scare the hell out of me, I still love admiring the craftsmanship and artistry of pipes themselves. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent looking at pics of pipes on the internet. It's like porn for me. LaughingBuddha (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2013 (CST)
Thanks very much for your reply. I'm glad to hear you're not anti tobacco and are just genuinely concerned about the risks. Pipe smoking certainly involves some increased health risk, but it has been greatly over exaggerated in the main stream health media, which tends to lump us all in with cigarette smokers. We have a slight increase risk for mouth and lip cancer, but that is very rare and to even slightly increase ones risk for them would involve smoking many more pipes per day than is typical of your average pipe smoker. Most pipe smokers do not inhale, which elevates nearly all the main risks associated with cigarette smoking. They also tend to smoke much less.
The WebMD article has one statement that is completely false and very misleading, "...research shows that cigar and pipe smoking is every bit as dangerous as cigarette smoking, and possibly even more dangerous". That is a ridiculous claim. They don't even attempt to back that up, or cite the research they refer to. Unless I am very much mistaken, there is no viable research that would even come close to supporting that statement.
I think it would be great to freshen up the Pipe Smoking Health area, but this is an issue that involves a great deal of misinformation from otherwise credible sources so it's going to be tough to pull off. For instance, there is a great deal of legitimate criticism with regards to the integrity of the research on the dangers associated with 2nd hand smoke, and that is seldom if ever reported in the main stream health media. BTW, none of that research differentiates between cigarettes and other forms of tobacco smoke, which typically contain much fewer chemical additives, burning paper, and other impurities associated with 2nd hand cigarette smoke.
I hope you will do some more research. You mentioned being surprised at the older pipe smokers that were cited in the Pipe Smoker of Year list. I've heard of one study that indicates moderate pipe smokers that do not inhale actually live slightly longer on average than non-smokers. I have not followed up on that to verify it yet, but that is certainly supported by my own anecdotal observations and pipe smoking can certainly reduce stress.
If in your research you would like to freshen up the Pipe Smoking Health article here on Pipedia, I would greatly appreciate it. It's even OK to link to articles such as the WebMD article you had linked too earlier, but it would be appropriate to point out any obvious flaws with the article if you do. Thanks again for your reply. I look forward to your contributions on this or other areas of Pipedia that may be of interest. --sethile (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2013 (CST)
Thanks, your response strikes me as very reasonable. By the way, would you happen to have a link on the information you mentioned about the longevity of pipe smokers? I'd be very interested in reading it. LaughingBuddha (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2013 (CST)
It apparently refers back to the original 1964 Surgeon General's report. Here is an interesting and fairly written article by Mark Beale, MD that mentions it as well as some other interesting and relevant information that rings credible to me, at least.
Thanks LaughingBuddha (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2013 (CST)

New Question

What's the difference between an estate pipe and a conventional pipe? LaughingBuddha (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2013 (CST)

Nothing, really. Used or previously owned pipes have come to be known as Estate pipes. They can either be smoked or unsmoked and still qualify. They can be cheap or expensive, and still qualify, and they can come from an English Lord's estate, or picked up off of a dying bum on the street. It just sounds better. I guess like previously owned cars versus used cars ;) --sethile (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2013 (CST)
Thanks LaughingBuddha (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2013 (CST)