*I don't really blame you for reverting it.  I did the same thing when I first saw it (the original version of the code was from a secondary source).  I don't think the comment is added for shock value or to be gratuitous.  It is helpful to have the original source in there to avoid the constant back and forth over different interpretations (if you look in the various secondary sources, each has a slightly different way of initializing the float or writing the newton-raphson part); the original is one version where we don't have that issue.  Beyond that the statement "what the fuck" is not PG but is hardly hurtful or foul enough to really justify removing it.  I'm not really *wedded* to it, so if you can give me a strong positive reason why the comment as it is currently constituted should be removed I'll bring it up on the article talk page.