User talk:AMCKen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Regarding edits to AM Mauler[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, AMCKen! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule photobucket\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 03:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Collectors2.JPG)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Collectors2.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Woking[edit]

Thank you for experimenting with the page Woking on Wikipedia. Your test worked, reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- SuzanneKn (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Reach for the Top[edit]

The Reach for the Top website (here: [1]) gives the 1971-72 champions as O'Leary, not Archbishop O'Leary. We should stay consistent with them. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But the name of the school is Archbishop... I looked it up in the phone book before making the change. : )

Kaye Don[edit]

Hi I am looking for any photo of Kaye Don which can be used on the article - any ideas where we could find one? Tony (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


I have none. Sorry.

Your edits to displacements of Wright R-540 and Wright R-790[edit]

In this diff and this diff you recently edited the displacements for the Wright R-540 and Wright R-790. At the risk of sounding excessively picky, I have two criticisms:

  • You didn't provide references for the new displacement values, which now differ from those in the ones I used.
  • If the new displacements are accurate, they still seem overly precise to me. Is it really necessary to give an engine's displacement to 5 significant figures? I would think that manufacturing discrepancies or differences in wear might overwhelm that.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


Perhaps, but sometimes it makes a difference. In the case of the R-790, it shows that the engine is really an R-785 by the usual standards. The new numbers are based on the bore and stroke as shown in the article. : )

Ken

Sorry it took me so long to respond to this. I had expected you to reply on my talk page and didn't think to check yours until much later. Also I've been busy with various non-Wikipedia issues.
I see now that you calculated the displacement values. If you include calculated figures in a set of specifications which are listed as coming from a particular reference, you really should indicate which figures come from calculations instead of the reference.
However, there is a more serious problem. Since you are calculating displacements from bore and stroke values which only have two significant figures, your calculated values should have the same number of significant figures. If the bore or stroke measurement is off by as little as 0.01 inches, the calculated displacement will be off by several cubic inches, so you can't achieve more accuracy than that. (See significance arithmetic for more on this.)
Also, if the specification reference includes a displacement value, we should trust that value unless we have very good reason to doubt it (such as if it is obviously impossible). The reference's displacement may well have been measured directly, such as by observing how much fluid is displaced in one engine cycle, and may thus be more accurate than a value calculated from the bore and stroke.
For these reasons, I have reverted your specification edits. Sorry about this; I hope it doesn't bother you.
(By the way, the standard Army/Navy engine designation system supposedly rounded the displacement up to the next higher multiple of 5, so even if the R-790's displacement was only 787 cubic inches, it would still be called an R-790.)


--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


I was thinking 'nearer' 5 was the standard, but perhaps they prefer to round up rather than down. It's good for bragging rights. I'm still not sure how to reply to 'talk', among other things I still don't know how to do - like uploading pictures. : )

Merlin (rocket engine) and Kestrel (rocket engine)[edit]

Hello, I tried hunting down a source on the relationship between the SpaceX Merlin and Kestrel engines and the Rolls-Royce Merlin and Rolls-Royce Kestrel, but I couldn't find anything. Do you have a source handy? Djd sd (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No connection other than the names being the same. : )

In that case I think it should be removed. Since there is no source, we can only speculate about the inspiration behind the naming. Djd sd (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

False precision[edit]

Hi AMCKen - just echoing the excellent advice given by Colin Douglas Howell above; please do not introduce false precision into engine specifications by increasing the number of significant figures stated. I have just removed quite a few such recent edits by you. It's also important for Verifiability that we do not state a greater precision than what is provided in our sources.

Furthermore, even if our sources sometimes may give a figure to a very high precision, please keep in mind that we're writing an encyclopedia here, not a motor manual, and tolerances of 1/10000 of an inch are not only unnecessary, but decrease comprehensibility through their increased visual clutter. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am merely converting fractions of inches, i.e. 7/16", to decimal, .4375, instead of rounding up or down and getting _false_ results. Using .44 or .4 is not accurate and isn't an encyclopedia supposed to be accurate?
You're some sort of administrator are you that you change other peoples work?
thanks
AMCKen (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)AMCKen

But you see, the problem is that 7/16" itself has rounding built into it - it's a value with a degree of certainty expressed to a single significant figure, namely, 1/16". In other words, (as far as we know) it's a figure that's been measured on a scale calibrated in sixteenths of an inch and we have no way of knowing if the "real" value is really closer to 27/64" or 29/64"; all we really know is that some value greater than 13/32" and less than 15/32" is meant. To express the same measurement with greater precision, it would have to be measured in 32nds or 64ths of an inch, or (more probably) in thou. From the point of view of precision, expressing a value as 7/16" is not the same as expressing it as 14/32", even if numerically the value of the fractions is the same.

When converting a fraction to a decimal (or vice versa), if the number of significant figures increases, it introduces a particular type of error, called false precision. To stick with our example, reporting a fractional value as .4375 is to state that it has been measured on an instrument precise to 1/1000 mm. That's fine, if the original measurement had been given in fractions of a thou, or (improbably!) as 7168/16384". But it wasn't.

In science and engineering, accuracy and precision are two very different things. When we're giving a piece of data in an article, we have no way of knowing how accurate it was; we rely on reliable sources and trust that the figure given as 7/16" wasn't really 6/16" or 8/16". However, we can (usually) readily see the degree of precision with which the figure was given, and if it was given to a precision of one significant figure, then we shouldn't distort this when we convert it to a different system of measurement.

I hope this helps clarify the problem somewhat; if not, please let me know and I'll see if I can point you to some further reading on the subject. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


I'd guess that if the aeroengine designer asked for 5 716" cylinders from the machine shop he'd get 5 716" cylinders. So 5.4375 x 25.4 = 138.1125mm. I'd probably put in only 138.1. I could put in the fractions rather than the decimals. AMCKen (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)AMCKen

The difference is that an engineer providing a specification to the machine shop will also provide tolerances for its functional dimensions (smaller tolerances = more effort to produce = more cost). The secondary sources that provide the data for Wikipedia articles do not generally contain these tolerances, they have been stripped of their tolerances and therefore already express rounded off numbers. When converting, we need to express the same degree of "rounded offness" as the figures in our source.
So, since 5 7/16" contains two significant figures, our SI conversion of it must also contain two significant figures; ie, 140 mm. Anything beyond that is a distortion of what was originally presented in the source, and by the time we get to 138.1 (four significant figures) the distortion is large.
Put another way, introducing levels of precision that are not in the original source is like randomly changing a sentence that says "a crowd of 3,000 gathered for the event" (one significant figure) and making it say "a crowd of 2,936 gathered for the event" (four significant figures) when the original source said "3,000". The distortion should be obvious there; it becomes less obvious when a unit conversion has taken place, but it's the same false precision error. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Another view[edit]

Dear Ken, I have been asked by Rlandmann if I could put another perspective on this problem. If we can take the Napier Cub article as an example. I recently created this article after taking much time to research the subject, source and tag a non-free image etc. before placing it in the main namespace for editors to expand and correct as required. There has been only one edit apart from my own, this was your edit to 'correct' the engine displacement figure and add a BMEP figure clearly calculated by yourself (which in my opinion is original research). To highlight the differences, you have altered the displacement by 0.6 cu in and 0.01 Litres. These are very small 'corrections' but more importantly they are not what is stated in the very comprehensive reference source which is:

  • Lumsden, Alec. British Piston Engines and their Aircraft. Marlborough, Wiltshire: Airlife Publishing, 2003. ISBN 1-85310-294-6.

This was quite an expensive book, one of two that I recently bought specifically for improving Wikipedia engine articles, Mr Lumsden takes great care (several pages) to state where he obtained the specification sources, where possible he has used manufacturers drawings for instance. In the case of the Napier Cub there are no metric conversions provided, I added them as allowed under MOS:CONVERSIONS and rounded them in accordance with the guidelines there, specifically 'Converted values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source value (e.g. write the Moon is approximately 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth, not the moon is approximately 380,000 kilometres (236,121 mi) from Earth)'. I should therefore have given the metric displacement as 60 Litres (I actually wrote 60.32).

If you want to add BMEP figures as a separate parameter to engine articles you could discuss it at WT:AIR, the aircraft article content talk page or the Pistonspecs template talk page (the last containing the project advice for completing the piston engine specification fields).

I am not unknowledgeable in the field of aircraft piston engines, I attended a specialist five week course (three weeks of theory, two weeks practical) at the UK Lycoming agent and overhaul facility and then spent the next four years maintaining 0-360 and 0-540 engines. I currently maintain the de Havilland Gipsy Major engine fitted to our group owned Tiger Moth. Lycoming standard practise is to supply a matched cylinder and piston kit because of the engineering tolerances involved, an engine could often be running two rebored cylinders opposite each other, both factors which will affect the manufacturer's displacement figures from the 'nominal' given in their own specifications.

To summarise, the guidelines of the project and general consensus of what editors accept as a 'standard' way of writing specification sections have been highlighted. From a personal viewpoint you could imagine that I could be dis-inclined to write any more engine or aircraft articles (or add specifications to those articles without) if they are subsequently edited to a version that does not agree with the supplied reference. I note that there are many other engine articles that you have altered in a similar manner. Yours respectfully Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Rlandmann mentions significant figures should carry through so your Cub should have 1 decimal place in the displacement, right? If displacement is calculated from fractions, the whole value of the fraction should be used in the calculation, like in my 5 716 sample, not some rounded number. I've seen quite a few where the decimal value does not reflect the true fraction and have tried to fix them. Once a rounded number enters the 'system' many others will copy it - like saying the measurement is 5.44 instead of the true value of 5.4375 or 5 716. 5.44" is NOT 5 716". Any engine with non-stock cylinders will of course have a different displacement but we're supposedly writing about factory new engines. Sorry for the trouble but I am trying to make the articles accurate.

The formula I used for BMEP comes via L. J. K. Setright using bore, stroke, cylinders, hp, and rpm.

AMCKen (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)AMCKen


Significant figures include digits both to the right and the left of the decimal point; this is not the same as simple truncation to a certain number of decimal places (as you suggest above). The number of decimal places is (in itself) irrelevant - the entire measurement must be considered.
And again, accuracy and precision are two different things. Remember that 5 7/8" is already a number with an implicit "roundedness"; to express it as 5.4 " preserves exactly the same degree of precision (and indeed accuracy) that is present in the original value. To express it as 5.44 ", or worse - as 5.4375 " - introduces a degree of precision that simply isn't there in the original source; you are effectively "making something up". If you want to provide the figure as 5.44 ", you would need to find (and cite) a reference where the value is given as 5 14/16".
I know that this may appear counter-intuitive. Wikipedia's own articles on these subjects (linked at various points above by all three of your fellow editors who have tried to explain this issue) are actually quite good; have you read them? If you have and still don't understand the problem with what you've been doing (and your continued confusion between accuracy and precision suggests that you may not have "got" the concept yet), then all you need to do is ask; there are plenty of resources out there on the web, and indeed, I'm sure, your local public library. Any decent high-school or undergraduate level textbook on any of the physical sciences or engineering will have a section on this, probably with worked examples. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The Cub, not 'my' Cub. Please see WP:OWN. No fractions were used in the original Imperial displacement, you introduced the partial inch to the figures. I am afraid you are simply not acknowledging that your edits are causing a problem even after the relevant long established guidelines have been provided several times. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 05:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


"The number of decimal places is (in itself) irrelevant" - So 1.1 is the same as 1.0?

"Remember that 5 7/8" is already a number with an implicit "roundedness"; to express it as 5.4 " preserves exactly the same degree of precision (and indeed accuracy) that is present in the original value." 5 7/8" ? Sample 5 716 as 5.4" is an error of about 0.7%. Is that accurate or precise?

"you are effectively "making something up"." I'm NOT "making" anything up. 5 716 is _NOT_ rounding, it's the actual number. 5.4 or even 5.44 is rounding 5 716 and that's "making" things up. I wouldn't put 5.44 where 5 716 is the measurement so "If you want to provide the figure as 5.44 ", you would need to find (and cite) a reference where the value is given as 5 14/16(sic)"." doesn't apply. Somebody else has put in the 5.44 and I'm fixing it.

"No fractions were used in the original Imperial displacement, you introduced the partial inch to the figures." Maybe some fellow in the marketing department had already rounded 5 716 to 5.44 'cause decimals looked more flash than fractions, and everyone else after thought so too.

AMCKen (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)AMCKen

1.1 is not the same as 1.0, but neither is 1.0 the same as 1. The point here is that if a measurement says simply 1 (1 significant figure) we don't know whether 1.1 or 1.0 (2 significant figures) is the true value (or 0.8 or 1.2 for that matter); we can only include the same level of precision as what's in the original source. If the source says 1, we can't say 1.0, 1.00, or 1.000.
We don't know what (if any) error there is between 5 7/16" and 5.4" because we don't know the tolerance that the fractional measurement is expressed to. In order to support your claim that there is a 0.7% error, your source would need to show that the original value was expressed with a tolerance equal to or better than a tenth of an inch. Without that information, you are simply plucking a tolerance out of the air - which is what I meant earlier by "making something up".
A value like 5 7/16" doesn't tell the whole story from a scientific or engineering point of view - its "roundedness" comes from the fact that we only know the value to within 1/16". If it were expressed as 5 14/32" (or had a tolerance figure provided with it), we would be able to express the conversion with greater precision.
It's not up to you to "fix" what's provided in cited sources - that's Original Research. If you have a source which expresses the values to greater tolerances, then go ahead and cite the source.
I'm sorry to bring out the "stick", but since you show no signs of having taken on board any of the key concepts involved here, if you continue to ignore the policies set out in MOS:CONVERSIONS and WP:OR, I will pursue formal dispute resolution over the matter. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


"tolerance equal to or better than a tenth of an inch." "fact that we only know the value to within 1/16"" So 1/16 = .06, not .0625 (1 divided by 16), whether it is inches or any other number?? Help me out here - thanks AMCKen (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)AMCKen

I'm not really sure what you're asking, but I'll have another go.
As a pure number, 1/16 = 0.0625. However, if a source provides a measurement as 1/16" and you want (for whatever reason) to present it in the article in decimal inches, then it introduces false precision to express it as anything more precise than 0.1" (or 0.06" at the outside). Which is why best practice would be not to convert fractional inches to decimal inches. However, to render this in mm, we have to use decimals, so: 0.0625 × 25.4 = 1.5875 mm.
But now we have a problem! Can you see that our result, expressed right down to 0.0005 of a millimetre (half a micron!), is a very, very fine measurement, when (comparatively anyway) the 1/16" we started with is quite a rough measurement? We can read sixteenths of an inch on a ruler; reading 0.0005 mm is beyond the reach of a micrometer.
So, to fix this discrepancy, the final step in our conversion is now to round the final result to 2 mm (or, at the outside, 1.6 mm), which is a measurement as "coarse" as 1/16 of an inch is. (We can read 2 mm just as easily on a ruler as we can read 1/16").
In a similar way, 1/16" is a coarse value, whereas 63 thou is a very precise value, and 0.0625" is even more precise still.
Does that make more sense? (And is it what you were asking for?) --Rlandmann (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


So, on the Pratt & Whitney R-2000, using the 5.75 x 5.5 bore and stroke, the math says 1,999.481 cuin so shouldn't the displacement be 1,999 cuin and not 2,000?

Great! A worked example! :)
We're starting with two values: 5.75" (three significant figures) and 5.5" (two significant figures). In cases like these where the data is describing the one item and has come from the same source, we can probably assume that both values have the same degree of precision, so we'll assume a third significant figure and treat 5.5" as if it were 5.50".
We also need a suitable value for π. Constants have an infinite number of significant figures; but I'll just use what my calculator has built in: 3.141592653589793238
So the displacement of each cylinder is:
3.141592653589793238 × (5.75"/2)^2 × 5.50" = 142.8197472753047411 cu in, and for the whole 14-cylinder engine is 1999.476461854266375 cu in. (14 is a pure number, and therefore has an infinite number of significant digits).
However, our answer now claims to be precise to 0.000000000000005 cu in! How do we know what to round it to?
Just like a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, a calculated value can only be as precise as the least precise figure that was fed into it. Therefore, we need to round 1999.476461854266375 to three significant figures, since the numbers that we started with were also only precise to three significant figures. So, reading from left to right, "1" is a significant figure, as is the first "9", and the second "9" - but we're now up to three significant figures, meaning that we now have to round off the fourth digit. But this is also a "9", and when we round it, it causes the digits to the left of it to round up as well, giving us a final value of 2,000 cu in, correct to three significant figures.
Note that if we were being really strict, we'd have had to confine ourselves to only two significant figures, since, strictly speaking we only assumed a third significant figure for 5.5 right at the beginning. In this particular case, though, it doesn't make any difference, since the result would have been the same if we'd started rounding at the third digit instead of the fourth.
Your suggested solution of 1,999 cu in could only be supported if we started with values for the stroke and bore that had four significant figures in them, ie: if the source had given us 5.750" and 5.500". --Rlandmann (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, I've just undone your overcorrection to the Pratt & Whitney R-1690 for the same reason: the specifications started out with three significant figures for bore and stroke; therefore the final displacement can also only have three significant figures. I'm happy to step it through for you as I did above for the R-2000 if this doesn't yet make sense to you. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


That could explain where you guys are coming from. When I was in high school we used significant _DECIMALS_. 5.75 and 5.5 would use one decimal place in the answer as 5.5 has only one decimal. Worked for me for almost 40 years.

"(14 is a pure number, and therefore has an infinite number of significant digits)" So saying the engine has 14.0 cylinders is different significantly than saying 14 + infinite decimals cylinders? (Not that one actually would say 14.0 cylinders).

"1999.476461854266375 cu in. (14 is a pure number, and therefore has an infinite number of significant digits).

However, our answer now claims to be precise to 0.000000000000005 cu in! How do we know what to round it to?"

Well, it's LESS than 1999.5 so why not 1999? You're rounding up MORE than 1/2 unit. (Your 'π' used more decimals than mine.)

TA

AMCKen (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)AMCKen

Arbitrary break[edit]

I wasn't in your class, so I can't vouch for what you were taught, but with respect, I suspect that either your teacher had it wrong (or was simplifying things) forty years ago, or you're recalling it incorrectly. Significance arithmetic hasn't changed over the years. Here's a quote from The Theory of Measurements by Albert de Forest Palmer, published in 1912:
The number of decimal places was, in and of itself, irrelevant in 1912 and remains so in 2008. The total number of non-placeholder digits to the left and right of the decimal point must be considered.
Why don't we round 1999.4 to 1999 in this case? Because 1999.4 has five significant figures, 1999 has four significant figures, and the values we started with have three significant figures. So, starting from the left, the "1" is significant, the first "9" is significant", and the second "9" is significant. We're up to our full quota of three significant figures now, so the third "9" is not significant and is only used for rounding off the significant figures to the left of it. If the computed value had been between 1990 and 1994, we would round to 1990. If it had been between 1995 and 1999, we would round to 2000. Obviously, the latter is the case.
However, if we had started with figures given in thou that were accurate to four places (ie, the source had given us 5.750 and 5.550 – note four significant figures each) the result would be different. We would keep the third "9" as significant and now look to the next digit ("4") for rounding. So, if we'd started with values this precise, then computed values between 1999.0 and 1999.4 would round to 1999, and values from 1999.5 and 1999.9 would round to 2000 (or 2000.0 if you wanted to make it explicit that the final zero to the left of the decimal point was significant and not just a placeholder). So yes, under these conditions, 1999.4 would indeed round to 1999.
The point about "14" being a pure number and having an infinite number of significant digits is this: at first glance, "14" appears to have only two significant figures, which would mean that in our calculation of the total displacement of the R-2000, we could only consider two significant figures in our result (not that it would have made a difference in this particular case with all those "9"s...). However when we stop to think about what the "14" is actually referring to, this is clearly nonsense. "14" is a pure (dimensionless) number because an engine can't have 13.999 or 14.001 cylinders. Therefore, we can treat 14 as 14.0 or 14.000 or 14.00000000000000 and simply ignore it when working out the number of significant figures that our answer is allowed to have.
Do you need me to walk through the R-1690? If so, it's no problem. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources[edit]

On a different subject; I noticed you added this material to the Short Sunderland article but didn't provide a reference for it. Claims such as something or someone being "the first" to do something really need to be verifiable. Could you please add the source of this information to the article? --Rlandmann (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How would I put

http://books.google.ca/books?id=W0WFe7WZlcwC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=%22G-AGJM%22&source=bl&ots=e712pa4OLJ&sig=BjUfGE1OSzxTDfathCRoOCzSEjI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

in? AMCKen (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)AMCKen

Take a look: it's a two-step process. First, a "ref" tag goes directly after the material you've contributed, usually (as in this case) containing the author's surname, the year of publication, and the page number. Second, in the "References" (or, in this case, "Bibliography") section, we put the full bibliographic details of the work it came from, including title, publisher, and place of publication. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Tau Ceti (band)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Tau Ceti (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. digitalmischief (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure as heck didn't give me much time to reply before deleting it!! Well known band at the time, released records, had airplay, etc. I've seen other band entries with less. Send a copy to me and I'll see what I can do. AMCKen (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)AMCKen

Articles about bands, corporations and individuals that appear to make no claim about the significance about their subjects can (and often are) deleted on sight – there's no waiting period required for this.
I've copied the text of the article to your sandbox, where you can continue working on it and hopefully find some reliable third-party sources to demonstrate that they were notable.
Hope this helps! --Rlandmann (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Tau Ceti (band)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Tau Ceti (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Spacevezon (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Continued changes to cited information[edit]

Dear Ken, can I respectfully ask you once again to stop changing clearly cited information as in here [2] and here [3]. Can I also point you to the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, particularly the first paragraph which in essence is saying even if you believe it is wrong the reliable source (in both cases Alec Lumsden's book) is the information to use. One edit changed the capacity figure, the other changed decimals to fractions which is not how it is given in the reference besides being a completely pointless exercise. You simply don't seem to appreciate the extra unnecessary work that you are causing for myself and other editors. Regards. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Lumsden is not the be-all end-all some people think he is. I've seen bigger errors than this in his 'citations'. People should not take his word as final. Is it not the idea here to give accurate information? Errors from bad data shouldn't be left for the world to see, should they? Thanks AMCKen (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)AMCKen

You should therefore challenge the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability, if you have a reliable source with more 'accurate' figures then please feel free to add them, citing your source at the same time. I would regard an alleged 'error' of one cubic inch in 1500 as extremely minor, bearing in mind that this a general encyclopedia. Regards Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
My source is usually a calculator. Using the bore, stroke, and number of cylinders it is easy math. Should I cite the make and model? : )
Giving 1501 instead of 1500 (which engine was this?) doesn't take up any more disk space and is more accurate - why shouldn't we use it? thanks again AMCKen (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)AMCKen

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I am flattered. AMCKen (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Darts invite[edit]

Darts in a dartboard.jpg You have been invited to join WikiProject Darts. We are dedicated to improving and expanding darts-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in darts and/or your edits to Darts-related articles. If you would like to join, please click here, and add your name to the bottom of the list of project members.

Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 20:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Steeldarts.jpg

Unfinished discussion at WikiProject Darts[edit]

Hi, I invite you to finish the dispute for the importance ratings on darts articles.

Click here to see discussion.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Darts at 16:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Recent aero engine article edits[edit]

Dear AMCKen, can I please respectfully ask you once again to stop making self-derived changes to clearly cited aero engine specification figures. This problem has previously been explained to you at great length by myself, another editor and an administrator, the advice is still visible above on this talk page. The main policy that you are apparently ignoring is Wikipedia:Verifiability, please note the first line of that policy:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Please also note the aircraft project guideline for completing aero engine specification sections given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/page content#Engine specifications, particularly bullet point three:

Avoid false precision. Where the specifications are cited by a reliable source the figures and conversions may differ from that obtained with a calculator or conversion programme, per Wikipedia:Verifiability they should be left uncorrected.

I now consider your recent edits to aero engine specification sections as disruptive editing as you are apparently continuing to ignore previous advice, it is causing me a lot of unnecessary work restoring the affected articles back to a verifiable version (which includes re-checking that the figures are exactly as given in the source in case of transcription error). I note your queries on article talk pages, in all cases I have checked the figures against the source and have confirmed that they are as as stated in the articles. If any errors exist it is not caused by my or any other editor's inputs but is in the cited source. Thank you. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

After having come across some of your recent engine edits I was just coming here to add a warning on replacing reliable sources with your own calculations, but I see another editor has beat me to it. Replacing reliable sources with your own original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. The encyclopedia is built entirely on the policy of verifiability, not on "my pocket calculator is better than your pocket calculator". If you think an engine spec is incorrect then find a better reliable ref to back up your changes. Going around replacing data from such sources as the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheets, which is officially accepted engineering documentation is disruptive editing as it takes a lot of manpower to track this problems down and fix them again. Please stop doing this. - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I am also putting info in the discussion page where the source (Lumsden - again) is in error. Does no one have any more accurate figures than him? Surely someone somewhere must have as his are apparently wrong. For instance - Armstrong Siddeley Deerhound. If the engines were built in 16ths of an inch, and someone converts to decimal and then rounds down to 2 or 1 decimals places, errors are compounded. Many internet sites are of no use as they only copy the entries in wikipedia. AMCKen (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
That is not relevant to this discussion which only concerns your editing behaviour, not alleged errors in sources. Do you agree to cease making changes to cited information against wikipedia policy as noted above (by four individual editors now) or do we need to go to the community for a resolution? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Packard DR-980, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop adding unreferenced calculations to engine articles as per the many messages on this talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So, if anyone publishes whatever figures they want, it is considered _gospel_ even if the math doesn't 'add up'? This would allow typos and other errors to be considered as 'correct' until someone publishes other figures. Unfortunately Lumsden has more than a few errors in his book and it should not be called the 'be-all end-all' for figures such as these. I am not synthesizing anything nor making a personal analysis. Look at the entries for the Rolls-Royce Merlin and the Packard V-1650. Which figures are the correct ones? Math says 1647/27 isn't quite right - 1649 is closer but that is 27.02 litres, not 27.04. An encyclopedia is supposed to dispense knowledge, not promulgate errors. Sorry if I am rambling on but it is late in the day.... Please reply. AMCKen (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The reply is that you simply can not continue to do what you are doing, the relevant policies have been highlighted quite clearly for you (now by three editors and two administrators). You are not acknowledging that you are causing problems. If you continue to make similar edits then a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct case will have to be opened, I would rather not have to do that. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
So you guys are OK with dispensing erroneous information to the world? AMCKen (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia relies entirely on verifiability, not on The Truth. - Ahunt (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay experts, what about the Packard 1A-2500? The source (which has errors of multiple tens of cuin) says 2540 cuin. The sign in the photo attached to the article says just 2500. Math says 2490 (rounded to the nearest whole cuin). AMCKen (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your original research shows, by Wikipedia policy you need a reference to change it. This is not just arbitrary. If you start adding your own original research because you think it is "right" then someone else, with a different calculator or a different set of assumptions will claim their OR is more accurate than yours. That is why, by policy, we rely on verifiable references. - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
So the sign in the photo of the engine is not a verifiable reference? AMCKen (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure signs have been used as refs before, but this one may not be that reliable as it sounds like it was rounded off. 2540 and 2490 rounded off to two significant digits are both 2500. - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
'Aircraft Piston Engines' by Herschel Smith says 2500cuin. which is a darn sight closer to reality than 2540. Perhaps the marketing department called it a 2500 instead of a 2490 'cause it sounded better. "Sure signs have been used as refs before, but this one may not be that reliable as it sounds like it was rounded off" - _some_ books aren't reliable either. The US military method of 'rounding' (sometimes up, sometimes down) to the nearest 5 cuin for the designation is only an approximation. They could call it an R-1900 instead of R-1820 if they wanted to impress someone with 'mine is bigger than yours'. "different calculator or a different set of assumptions " such as? You do the math - 12 cylinder engine, bore 6 3/8", stroke 6 1/2", what do you get?  : ) AMCKen (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy[edit]

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
You too!

Aviastar[edit]

Please don't link to Aviastar. It's a horrific example of copyvio throughout - see WP:AVIASTAR. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's where the pictures are. Got another place for pictures? AMCKen (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Pictures or no and other sources or no, you can't link to Aviastar per WP:ELNEVER point #1. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! You too. AMCKen (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Errors[edit]

Fascinating edit here!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rolls-Royce_Pennine

(It's caused me to lose the will to have anything more to do on the edit side of WP - you take it up if you like)

31.52.97.94 (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've sent a reply. : ) AMCKen (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks! Incidentally, with regard to the nonsense at Crecy, you might like to know that Gunston in 'Rolls-Royce Aero Engines' has 'cylinders of 5.1 in bore and 6.5 in stroke, giving a capacity of 1593 cu in (26 litres)'. 31.52.97.94 (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Your powerful reply at 'Talk: Pennine' prompted me to revert. Thanks! 31.52.97.94 (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know the truth about the Crecy? And not just a re-tell of erroneous data from others? : ) AMCKen (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Chrysler B and RB Engine Nomenclature[edit]

Dear AMCKen, I have read the entirety of your talk page, and agree with your math. I disagree with your insistance on changing historical nomenclature. I agree that engineers have likely been swayed by marketing to "up the ante" and increase the sizes of their engines. However, even if this has occurred, engines, like all products come to be known by the name given them. Regardless of whether the Chrysler 383 c.i. engine is 372 c.i. or 392 c.i., the Chrysler Corporation identified it as the "383" in both historical documents and advertising campaigns.

To change its historical name to the "372" is the equivalent of changing all references of "Wild Bill Hickock" to "Wild William Hickock". While accurate, it is not the name he is known by and would introduce problems for those attempting to research him.

I have no issue with you modifying the actual displacement specifications of engines to be more mathematically accurate, but to insist on changing the historical nomenclature of engines to match mathematical measurements, only introduces confusion.

Bluenotefan (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I had a look. I'm not sure I did that - wasn't me. AMCKen (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)