User talk:Heron

2002 archive - 2003 archive - 2004H1 archive - 2004H2 archive - 2005H1 archive - 2005H2 archive - 2006H1 archive - 2006H2 archive - 2007 archive - 2008 archive

RFC on " Astobiological Potential "

Is what is happening here what I think is happening here? 198.163.53.11 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. --Heron (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's IP canvassing spam from a City of Winnipeg network. Make what you will of that. . dave souza, talk 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought as much; thanks Dave. If he doesn't make himself clear then I'm not going to do anything, anyway. --Heron (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude (force) page

I just wanted to say I think this page is a great idea and thanks for starting it! Sifaka ^talk 19:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement. I just hope the page doesn't fill up with the weights of hundreds of random objects! --Heron (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Award For Best Answer

		The Society Barnstar
		For best answer to Question "Paper Money in Banks?" under January 24 in the Reference Desk 33rogers (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, 33. I really appreciate the feedback. The moral of the story: on the Reference Desk, it's better to direct the questioner to the right article on Wikipedia than to try to explain everything all over again. Best wishes, --Heron (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

noise spectra images: thanks

Thanks for finding that other white noise image. I think we've reverted everything that needs it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I had a quick look at the Brown noise and purple noise plots, and they seemed to be about right. --Heron (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your pink noise plot. Pink noise is constant energy per %age bandwidth and so an FFT should FALL with frequency. Can you check this please? Greglocock (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The plot is correct. The response falls with frequency if you use a linear frequency axis, but this plot has a log frequency axis and is therefore flat. (Well, actually, it rises slightly, but I think that's just due to inaccuracy in the calculation.) Please see Colors of noise, which confirms what I just wrote. --Heron (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No it should depend on the sampling algorithm not the axis display. You can see this for yourself from the definition. If you use an FFT then white noise should be flat, pink noise falls as 1/f. Greglocock (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you are right, Greg. My apologies. Pink noise should fall off at 10 dB/decade. I'll see if I can find a suitable image to replace the bad one. Thanks for pointing out my error. --Heron (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Shaft collar

Thanks for adding a photo to this article, however, I'm not sure that what's pictured is a shaft collar because it's part of the gear. As I understand a shaft collar, it's a separate entity, and I believe that's the way the article states it as well. Let me know your thoughts. Wizard191 (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right. I misread the article. Thanks for explaining it to me. I've just removed the photo. Looks like I need to buy a bigger Meccano set! --Heron (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's all good. Thanks for the quick reply! Wizard191 (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

May 22

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Pekayer11 (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Which edit are you referring to? --Heron (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I see which one you reverted. Your automated comment is not appropriate to this situation, so I'm going to do the edit again. I will be happy to discuss my edit with you if you want to. Best wishes, --Heron (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hello Heron, just dropping you a quick note to let you know I commented on Pekayer11's talk page about his use of rollback and his use of an inaccurate template. No need for you to comment there, but since it directly related to your edits I thought I should let you know that I brought it up with the editor (I have the page watchlisted which is how I saw the reversions in the first place). Please leave me a talkback notice if you reply to me here, thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note. I read his/her talk page and noticed that I wasn't the only one disagreeing with his reverts. I don't want to be too critical of him at this early stage, so I'll ignore this incident unless a nuisance develops. Oh, and more thanks for alerting me to the existence of the talkback template! --Heron (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Updating the "flush toilet" article, could you help out a bit?

Hi Heron,
I couldn't help but notice that you have made some good contributions to the Wikipedia "Flush toilet" article over the years. I am an American plumber, who has traveled a small bit around the world, and who is only somewhat familiar with British and continental toilets. As such, I have recently significantly re-organized and edited this article. In doing so, I have tried to the best of my ability to accurately represent the status of the toilet industry in the UK and the continent, but unfortunately I have had to make a few 'educated guesses' along the way.
From the nature of your contributions to Wikipedia, I am guessing that you are most probably a Brit, and thus I was wondering if you might be able to check out my assumptions in the article, particularly about the prevalence of true "siphon-style" toilets, and of the prevalence of flapper-flush-valve toilets in both the UK and on the continent. I know that up until the last few decades, true siphon-style toilets were quite rare in the UK and in the continent, but I am wondering if the American type siphon-style toilets and flapper-flush-valves might be making inroads into these two markets. If you might have time, could you kindly review the the newly revised "Flush toilet" article for accuracy on these and other points?
Sincerely,
Scott P. (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Scott. Thanks for your interest. I like the way that the article is becoming more international, although it still has a long way to go. I will make a few small changes to the article, but it seems mostly OK. My only disagreement is with the statement that bowls outside the USA are mostly of the non-siphon type. I have seen (or rather heard) many siphon-type bowls in the UK over the last 40 years, and I had assumed that they were universal in the UK. However, you have made me realise that many modern bowls don't make a gurgling noise, so perhaps there has been a silent revolution here, with washdown types replacing siphon types.

As for the tank flush mechanism, the siphon type is the most common in older houses in the UK. I have seen the flapper type in South East Asia, and it may be in use in newer houses here too, but I am not aware of it. I shall see if I can find any evidence of this. --Heron (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your generous help with this. I must say that I am curious as to the true relationship between the washdown and the siphon type toilet. Unfortunately getting to the bottom of this question is also somewhat complicated by the fact that there seems to be a general lack of understanding regarding the topic, even amongst plumbers and plumbing sales people. Furthermore, there is also a lack of a standardized vocabulary just to enable meaningful discussion of the subject! For example on the Kohler USA website, a "washdown" toilet is defined as a siphoning toilet, yet I've seen washdown toilets defined in most other places as non-siphoning toilets. I think I'll opt against Kohler on this one. Since I wrote you I've trawled the Armitage Shanks (A/S) website and found that all of the toilets I found there were of the "washdown" style. Apparently A/S is the largest toilet manufacturer in the UK, so I think it's probably safe to assume that this style is the most popular in the UK.

For whatever it may (or may not) be worth, I would think that a properly designed washdown toilet would probably be more maintenance free than a siphoning style toilet, at least in the bowl department. I am guessing this, due to the much larger waterway that is found in a washdown toilet. Typically, siphoning toilets here in the US seem to all need to have a plunger kept somewhere nearby, for that inescapable eventuality, the dreaded "clog". My guess is that you folks over there have no such need with your washdown toilets. Am I correct in this theory? As you wrote earlier, perhaps the siphoning style toilets were tried in the UK for some time, then abandoned? Who knows? The "down-side" that I would imagine for the washdown style toilet would be the possibility that occasionally it might have to be flushed more than once, in order to fully clear the bowl, due to the fact that the surface of the water in the bowl never goes lower than the top of the drain inlet, as it does in a siphon-style toilet. Personally I would much rather have to simply flush a second time, than to have to face the dreaded "clog", which requires multiple flushes anyways!

I know that the flush of a UK washdown toilet seems to me to be rather loud, efficient sounding and all, but amongst all of that noise, I don't think the last bit of the flush includes that noise signifying the breaking of the siphon. Perhaps you never differentiated before? As far as toilets on the continent, I only have a few clues. I know that a German made toilet that I recently installed here in the US was a siphoning style toilet, and I am guessing that perhaps most of the continent uses the siphoning style. This is something that perhaps I will try to verify with some ceramics manufacturers from the continent.

I'll look forward to your reply.

Thanks much, Scott P. (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've now become a toilet bowl spotter. The two in my house are both from Armitage Shanks. The older one is a siphon type, judging by the sound, and the newer one is a washdown.

On the subject of clogging, I have not experienced a clogged toilet in a private house in the UK since the 1970s, so something must have improved since then. I think we have now arrived at the limit of my knowledge on this subject, so I'm not sure that I can help you any more, but feel free to ask. --Heron (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Innovative ideas

Hi! heron. I would like you to give some ideas on future studies in electronics that helps students in current scenario to come with innovative ideas. --n9t8 17:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by N9t8 (talk • contribs)

Hi N9t8. You will need to explain your question a bit more carefully before I can help you. Are you asking me to think of research projects for students? Or do you want to know about methods of teaching? I am not an expert in either of these areas, but I could try to give you some ideas if you want. Or, more likely, I could point you in the direction of some better source of information. --Heron (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy Heron's Day!

User:Heron has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Heron's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Heron! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Rlevse. I looked at the list of previous recipients and I see that I am in good company, so I am proud to be given this award. I hope that we shall work together some time. --Heron (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Me too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Victorian Architecture

Hi Heron! An article you have been concerned with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Victorian architecture, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. I'll see if I can help. --Heron (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry Ford credited with coining the term universal joint

Hi Heron, care to take a look at this discussion? Maybe you can help us further, thanks. --Van helsing (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll reply on the subject talk page. --Heron (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

4 piece cutlery picture

I happened to come across your picture when I was looking up desert spoon. What a wonderful set! Love the shape. Would you mind telling me who the manufacturer of this set is? This is the first time I've ever written anything in Wikipedia so don't know how it works; I'm not logged in or anything like that.72.235.152.150 (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you!

Hi. I bought them in Cambridge, England, over ten years ago, but I'm afraid I can't remember in which shop. It might have been Robert Sayle, which is now part of the John Lewis chain, or possibly Debenhams. There is no logo on the pieces, so they must have been the shop's own brand. Sorry I can't help you more. I hope you manage to track down something similar. --Heron (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cote (film director)

Sorry to bother you, but can you confirm whether you made these edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cote (film director)? Those comments were made by 70.25.54.54 who then signed their message as Heron, but without logging in. Pretty unusual behavior, and there have been enough irregularities with this AfD that I feel obliged to check up and confirm that it was really you. Thanks in advance. —Tim Pierce (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that wasn't me, it was an impostor. Thanks for letting me know. --Heron (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Clovehitch.png

Thank you for uploading File:Clovehitch.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I undeleted that image and added a GFDL-self tag to that image. --Heron (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Iec or.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Iec or.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't remember where this image came from so I'm not going to oppose its deletion. --Heron (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wise old Aesop

Hi, Heron, we've not 'met' before but I see you were on Aesop and Aesop's Fables today performing some very canny edits which deserve complimenting. WP needs more like you with an eye for detail and the gift of succinct redrafting. I see you've already been given a barnstar; consider this as a quick sleeve-brush to keep it shining! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Shucks, thanks Mzilikazi1939. On a big, messy project like Wikipedia, a perfectionist's work is never done! I hope we 'meet' again. --Heron (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:OED2-CD-1.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:OED2-CD-1.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added a rationale statement. Please LMK if I need to do any more. --Heron (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A second opinion, or some advice if you can, please

Hello. Sorry to appear "out of the blue" but I'm trying to find a neutral outsider to take a view on what's happening with The Third Man. At the moment there's something of an aching disagreement between a number of editors (of whom I would now include myself) and an apparently well-esconced though relatively new arrival over the article - specifically its "Plot". I have been impressed by what I have seen of your sensitive editing of the "Plot" of Brief Encounter and thought you might be able to help.

I am, I guess, the latest arrival in the editing process of the "Plot" section of The Third Man article, which has become, IMHO, starved to the point of losing some of its essential features. First, I tried to amend the final sentence thus: [[1]]. This was reverted without explanation; when I asked for one on the talk page, pointing out that "Holly has made some sacrifice to stay behind after the funeral, which makes [Anna's] snubbing of him the more cutting", I was told "It's a summary, not a blow by blow account of what has happened in each scene". I thought it over for over a day, then came and reread the "Plot" and attempted to at least clarify those points of the plot which seemed unnecessarily befogged by the cutting process, thus [[2]]. This was almost totally reverted, save for some trifling points of punctuation and a word or two [[3]].

Several past editors, who have similarly attempted to make the plot reflect the character of the film rather than an unhelpful and jejune summary of no use to either newcomer or aficionado, have evidently been driven away by an obdurate policy to make The Third Man appear a mere action film: sadly this includes HarringtonSmith, who I've never had the pleasure to work with but whose work I have discovered through looking at The Third Man - evidently he had considerable responsibility in giving it what quality it has.

Would you mind having a look at what is happening with this article, and the "Plot" section in particular, and letting me know if there's some sensible way of improving this situation; or if you think I am going about things the wrong way, do let me know. Sorry for having gone on at some length about this. I would be most grateful if you are able to offer any advice or assistance. Alfietucker (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alfie. Films like this deserve our best effort. I shall certainly have a look at the article and see if I can help, although I am a bit busy right now. My first thought, without having looked at the article recently, is that perhaps we need a mechanical plot summary followed by a section on interpretations. The latter must of course be referenced and not just the editor's opinion. --Heron (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back so quickly about this. I think your expert input would be very welcome, though I understand you are very busy at present. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've looked more closely at the recent edits and the present summary is quite good. I understand your desire to communicate the atmosphere as well as the action, but many editors will consider this to be subjective and I understand why they have reverted your additions even though you are well within the suggested word count limit. To take the argument to the extreme, the WP article is not meant to be a substitute for watching the film. I agree with you on the final sentence, though: it helps to know that Martins is risking missing his flight. Perhaps this is the one motivational detail that deserves to make it into this summary, due to the length and intensity of the final scene. I will try to re-insert this fact in the most objective possible way. If I were you I wouldn't worry too much about the disagreements between editors, since everybody in this case is behaving constructively and the differences in opinion are minor. This is a picnic compared to some articles I have worked on! --Heron (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for having a look - and I approve of your amendment at the end. It did need something more there; I wonder if perhaps I might return and reinstate Harry's "disappearance" following the doorway scene. Anyway, thanks again. Alfietucker (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Heron,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)