User talk:Hayford Peirce

All Previous Material Moved To Archive 6; Start New Headers Below This

 * I am honneured to begin this page by announcing: answers on my Talk page! Ro Thorpe 20:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Chandler
Hayford, a long time ago I started a stub on Raymond Chandler and I seem to remember that you promised to write a full article. What are you waiting for? ;-) --Paul Wormer 20:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And when you are at it: write a nice piece about Dashiel Hammet too. I will be forever grateful.--Paul Wormer 21:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If I suggested Perry Mason, would that be a Masonic conspiracy? (Where is Chiun when we really need him?)Howard C. Berkowitz 22:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll hit you with a brick if you persist in this sorta stuff. (And who is Chiun, anyway?) Hayford Peirce 22:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Master of Remo Williams and Kvetcher-in-Chief. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I don't know who Remo Williams is. Hayford Peirce 23:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Destroyer, who makes Matt Helm look wimpy, with a trainer that has worse lines than Mac. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh. Yeah, now I vaguely remember a long serious of pulps like that. He may make Matt look wimpy, but when the smoke has cleared in the last chapter I know which one of the two would be standing. Hamilton actually was a very accomplished writer, something that has generally been overlooked, at least after the first couple of books, when critics began to take him and his skill for granted. Donald Westlake once wrote a very long, very laudatory article called "The Four Donalds", which was about four very skilled postwar writers: John D. Mc, Ross Mc, Hamilton, and Westlake himself.... Hayford Peirce 23:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

ISBN
I wouldn't worry about it. Yes, I know it's important in publishing and cataloging, but, to be honest, I have never actually used an ISBN as the primary key to find anything.

Barbara Boxer would only be a cover. Barbara Mikulski is indistinguishable from a foghorn. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Approval of Relative volatility
Hayford, I added a null space to the draft and it didn't work. Then I added a null space to the metadata template and that didn't work either. For some reason, neither the approved article or the draft article is showing up in the Chemistry, Engineering or Chemical Engineering workgroup or subgroup listings. I think that help is needed from Chris Day. Milton Beychok 16:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yah, I saw that you had done that and that it still wasn't working. Since it really isn't a big deal to anyone except Constables who do the approving, let's wait 24 hours until tomorrow and see what happens. If the change hasn't been made by then, we'll holler at Chris. Hayford Peirce 16:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked to make sure that you made the metadata changes before everything else, because if you don't, we know that that will cause it, but it looks like you did, so that is not it. I did add some pieces of the metadata template that got deleted, so maybe if you jogged it again, that would work.  Otherwise, it must be the lag or something new. D. Matt Innis 17:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I jogged four different articles -- one of them must have worked, the article is now listed in both Chemistry and Engineering Workgroups as being an Approved article. Hayford Peirce 18:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, it's still showing in the Chemistry part of the Ready for Approval article. But not in the Engineering. Hayford Peirce 18:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * All is now well!! Relative volatility is displaying in the pertinent workgroups and subgroups as it should. What did the trick must have been those missing deleted pieces of the Metadata template that Matt replaced. Milton Beychok 18:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Not sure so. Joe Quick went in, I saw, and physically removed a couple of the Ready for Approval items that *should* have vanished by themselves but didn't.... Hayford Peirce 02:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look over this. I don't think the missing pieces from the metadata would have made a difference. Also the CZ:Live category cut by Joe was not part of the problem. Actually, that category never should have been on the original page in the first place. As for the edits Joe made at the CZ:Ready for approval‎ page those do need to be done manually, their presence is not controlled by the metadata.

The more likely problem was in the order of events leading to approval (although I have not confirmed this was the case). First event should be to change the metadata, then subsequent edits will 'jog' the new categories into place. If the metadata is changed late in the approval process some of the pages are not 'jogged' and so the categories do not register correctly. I have a potential fix for this (unfortunately a complete kludge, nothing elegant) but i need to get the bugs people to addjust some settings first. Chris Day 14:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked, but it looked like he did the metadata first from what I could tell. The only thing different was that instead of copying the cat1 - date section, he cut it.  I agree I can't figure how tht would do it, but all else appeared equal. D. Matt Innis 17:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulation, Hayford! Now that you have done two final approvals, you are eligible for membership in the Constable's union. And did Matt tell you that the dues are $500 a year and membership is mandatory? Milton Beychok 02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait till I do the third one tomorrow, when the dues go up to $750 -- fortunately I'm waiting for an IRS refund, so I'll apply that.... Hayford Peirce 02:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Send the check to The Constables, 9929 Albemarle road, Charlotte, NC... I'll make sure it gets to the right person:) I also accept direct depeosit. D. Matt Innis 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was talking earlier this morning to my banker about a number of transfers between accounts -- I'll tell her to add you to the list! Hayford Peirce 17:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Were you talking about your offshore AIG accounts? D. Matt Innis 17:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And Swiss bank accounts as USB.... Hayford Peirce 17:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

copy - don't cut
Remember, don't cut this section out. Just delete the information (not the stuff before the '=' sign).


 * Okie. But in your instructions of two nights ago, you wrote: "When you are finished then type the "A editor" name (Paul Wormer) in the template and remove it from the ToA editor section. Delete all the information from the ToApprove section." In Dealing With Dummies, the title of my next book, which I will ask you to collaborate on, you gotta remember to change those instructions to: "Delete all the information from the ToApprove section, but only the information itself, not any of the category names before the = sign, such as "cluster =" and "now =" -- leave all of those!!." At least that's how I, as a Practicing Dummy, would word it. Hayford Peirce 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I find that the more words that I use, the more chance for error... or maybe the less likely the person will read it all the way through.  But, in reality, I suppose it is more likely that men will just do it and then go back and read the instructions later, which is the way that I prefer to teach (it's the boy scout way), it's called learning by mistake.  It is so much easier to show you what you did wrong than try to explain how to do everything right.  Besides, you may find a better way!  I don't know ho wmany times I watched and waited for something to backfire on a scout, only to find out it worked better than doing it the right way... of course, that was not what happened here.  You seem to experience things the Murphy way... sorry :)), but it is kinda funny :) D. Matt Innis 21:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that the Learning by Doing, Including Mistakes, is certainly a very valid approach. On the other hand, I always want to codify things (ie, write them down) so that the *next* time I know exactly what to do. I'll read through, very carefully, the How to Approve instructions in the article (not your great emails walking me though things) and see if I think I ought to add things and/or edit. Any things that I add/edit that are wrong can always be changed back....Hayford Peirce 22:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Youjun Wang
Officer, do we want Youjun Wang%5Ctechnical information in main space?--Paul Wormer 19:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good eye! We don't want it anywhere -- using my vast powers of the Constabulary, akin to those of Superman, I deleted the whole schmeer. Veddy weird what it was doing there and that no one else has caught it before. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 19:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, after more thought, I then Restored it and Moved it to Youjun Wang/technical information (with the slash pointing the other way) but after even more thought, I decided *that* was wrong, so I moved it to User:Youjun Wang/technical information. Which is where it *should* be, regardless of where he originally meant to put it. He was an active contributor about a year ago but has since vanished. Hayford Peirce 21:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

small boats -- mebbe Small Boats
For my new article about John Brock I want to work in a reference to the "small boats" department that either the SIS or Special Ops or some such Brit organization ran during War the Deuce as the late Jack D. Hunter (died yesterday, RIP) refers to it in some of his books. A bunch of *really* tough guys, I gather. I can't find an exact reference to them however, either in Caps or lower case. Am I imagining things from having read too many novels? Any pointers will be appreciated! Hayford Peirce 03:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is, and was, a Special Boat Service of the Royal Marines. I'm not sure when it was created, presumably after Sterling created the Special Air Service in the Northern Desert. Britain, however, had lots of odds-and-ends of units in WWII. As I remember, the "cockleshell heroes" were simply Royal Marines. Today, SBS has a RM heritage but is under Special Forces, much like United States Navy SEALs are immediately under Naval Special Warfare Command, who are under United States Special Operations Command.


 * As far as British WWII, if they weren't under Combined Operations (Keyes, and then Mountbatten), they would have been under Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) or Special Operations Executive (SOE). I don't immediately remember either of them having a maritime capability, although U.S. OSS had Maritime Operations and Operational Swimmers; the latter eventually became part of Navy UDT.


 * When a country has such organizations as Popski's Private Army, anything is possible, but I think the most likely explanation would be that such a unit would be Marines detailed for a mission, eventually as SBS. Miniature submarine operations were Royal Navy, but I don't remember if they were under a Naval HQ or Combined Ops. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the info. I think that I've probably read a gazillion thrillers over the years in which various people (usually the good guys) worked for the SOE during the war, and were often said to have been in Small Boats. This may simply be a fictional thing that grew up and sounded good so that the next sedentary bloke sitting in Sussex and writing a thriller, said to to himself, "Oh, good, I'll just say that old Craig had been in Small Boats and everyone will know what I mean." At least I'm now pretty sure that there was never an official, or even a semi-official thingee called that.... Thanks~ Hayford Peirce 15:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * SOE and SIS did use boats in exfilrated people, and especially materials, from occupied Europe. I don't think, however, they had a permanently attached capability, because most of their infiltration and exfiltration was by air. Even there, I believe these were specialist RAF units rather than organizationally part of the intelligence and special operations agencies, who really didn't want to run boatyards. Even today in the U.S., the Naval special operations people are in secure areas of larger naval bases. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think these various thriller authors are simply referring to what you say in the first line. Thanks again. Hayford Peirce 16:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

.265 Magnum
Typo or myth. The diameter (caliber) of .265 inches is quite small. While there are smaller infantry rifles such as the .223 for the M-16, those have little penetrating power; they tumble and shatter. What I'd consider an elephant round would be a .475 or greater. Unsportingly, elephants are taken down with automatic weapons that are smaller, but probably .30 caliber and lots of rounds.

Now, mind you, I like elephants, so harmless elephant guns might be OK. Perhaps he travels with an elephant that he annoys with that bullet and the elephant does the damage? Howard C. Berkowitz 21:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe. The Brock books are quite quirky, being written by an advertising man, after all. As far as I can tell, there's no gun company called Kruger, nor a Hawkeye Special, nor, as you say, a .265 Magnum, which is sorta like a Giant Shrimp, a contradiction. I was pretty sure of this, but wanted an expert opinion. All of the Brock books are written firmly with tongue in cheek, but they're sure a lot of fun! Hayford Peirce 21:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is, however, a Pistol Shrimp, which has a claw that it can snap and stun its prey. Such shrimp, however, are most incompatible with glass aquaria. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good grief, man, lemme get back to work! How can I type with a straight face?Hayford Peirce 21:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Anymore....
....blocks like that and you'll destroy our reputation. :) Chris Day 00:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe! Whoever at WP wrote "a few very polite unassertive people" sure didn't have *me* in mind! Ain't you glad, when you see a page like that, that you have nothing to do with it?! Peace, it's wonderful! Hayford Peirce 01:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way the Kirkland vs De La Hoya claim that Rocky included in two articles is a complete fabrication. Who will be baby sitting him when he comes back? Or do we just pull the plug right now? Or will I have to eat my words when he actually references a legitimate source? Chris Day 01:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you think my last link was insane, see this one. Wales makes a lot of sense there but the lunatics have taken over the assylum. Chris Day 02:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How about a Giant Pistol Shrimp to babysit? There's something rather surrealistic with adults playing with blocks. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They're all flippin' crazy over there, if you ask me. As for whether we pull the plug on Rocky or not, I am bringing various matters to the attention of the other Constables and time will tell. The new fabrication will be noted, I'm sure. Thanks for pointing that out. Hayford Peirce 02:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wheat streak mosaic virus
Some weird goings-on for agent Peirce to investigate. Ro Thorpe 22:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hash (cooking)
Hayford, what happened to your appetizing photos in hash (cooking)? --Paul Wormer 00:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC) PS It is probably the problem that Milt signaled earlier today.--Paul Wormer 00:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Geez, I dunno! They were there a couple of weeks ago, I know. I haven't checked them since then. But I will, right now. Hayford Peirce 01:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just checked -- they're still there! Is a puzzlement! Hayford Peirce 01:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

HELP !!!! All LaTeX equations are not being parsed and many articles are a sea of red! Half of the imagas and photos are not displaying!
Hayford, all LaTeX equations are not being parsed and many technical articles are now a sea of red. Also about half of all the images and photos are not displaying. This is the second time this has happened today. I don't know how to report it to "bugs". Will you please notify them? Milton Beychok 03:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Milton, just so that you know in the future, over on the left-hand side of the screen is the pane with the various CZ links in it. Down towards the bottom, under the Header "about us" is a link to "Contact". If you click that, you'll see the Bugs link. In any case, I'll send your email to them. Also to Larry, since sometimes he can get things fixed faster than the Bugs people. Hayford Peirce 04:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg
Thanks for your reply, Hayford. Chris Day also commented, so I'm consolidating the ongoing conversation on my talk page. But I have one more request for you. Please also supply the text of the Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg talk page. It contained my notes. -- Tim Chambers 18:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)