User talk:BobKawanaka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, BobKawanaka! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. We're so glad you're here! If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills, the sandbox is for you. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

"Men On The Moon"[edit]

I see that you have had recent back-and-forths with someone about "men" vs "people" on the astronaut Fred Haise page. FYI, if you would like to assist with this ongoing issue, I have posted the subject at WT:SPACE. Thank you. SpaceHistory101 (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

MWP and Riesling[edit]

Please chime in at Talk:Medieval_Warm_Period#Cold_climate_grapes --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and btw. here there be dragonsPinot Noir [1]. ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Medieval warm period. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Since you haven't gotten one of these before, i guess now is the time. Please be careful not to break this rule. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As an addition: use the talk pages, instead of editwarring. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009[edit]

Information.svg 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. 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. I can't tell if you're deleting legit citations or linkspam. Can you please explain these 2 edits? Thanks! I assume you're aware of WP:V. FYI: I came across your edit while trying to figure out what to do WRT to HVAC Expert's edits' which seem to be well meaning but problematic. Elvey (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Got your reply. Still not sure about your edits. I mentioned WP:V. A link to a commercial site that makes relevant information on the page verifiable is entirely appropriate on Wikipedia. I'm going to go check the references tomorrow. On the other hand, WRT:--Elvey (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Checked. It's a borderline case; the the sources both support the article and feel spammy. Better sources are certainly out there, so I think your deletions were reasonable. Thanks for clarifying things.--Elvey (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
One exception: this edit wasn't helpful. See http://web.archive.org/web/20080121150015/http://wilcoxen.cp.maxwell.syr.edu/pages/804.html ; consider reading up on the WP:LINKROT, reverting your edit and using {{dead link}}.--Elvey (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Information.png The recent edit you made to Pedro Menendez High School has been reverted, as it appears to intentionally introduce incorrect information. Please do not continue to do this; such edits are considered vandalism. Thank you. Sitethief (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sitethief's complaint is nonsense. No Florida school was founded circa 20 B.C.E; I don't need to check any references to know that's absolute bollocks. I have reverted his rv of your edit.--Elvey (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Pedro Menendez High School[edit]

I agree with you that its not vandalism. Apologies for that. However I think that the paragraph about Pedro Menéndez de Avilés on the Pedro Menendez High School page should be shortend to: It was named for Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, a sixteenth century Spanish admiral and pirate hunter. If people are interested in him, they can click the link to the article about him. I don't think its relevant to the Pedro Menendez High School article. Sitethief (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Octopoida[edit]

Mikko's page is where I originally found this name. Some of the references he lists are not available online, so that might explain it. I assume Octopoida was Leach's original spelling published in 1817, which he changed/corrected a year later (much like the giant squid genus Architeuthis was originally spelled Architeuthus). It's a taxon name (usually derived from Latin) so the similarity to German must be coincidental. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Information.svg Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. FASTILY (TALK) 22:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ptolemy[edit]

Claudius Ptolemaeus was a Roman citizen, as evinced by his nomen gentilicum (Claudius). Calling a Roman citizen "Roman" is not contraversial or OR, just as calling a British citizen "British" or a citizen of the US as "American" is also proper - irrespective of what their ethnic origin may be. See Roman citizenship. See also the examples of Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus, Lucius Flavius Arrianus Xenophon, Lucius Cassius Dio Cocceianus, and Claudius/Aelius Galenus - all ethnically Greeks but citizens of Rome (moreover, all held office within state or local government). See also just about any figure from the Imperial period, many of whom were not ethnically "Roman" or "Italiac", but are properly be called "Roman" due to their citizenship. Thus for example Titus Flavius Josephus (Jewish) and the emperors Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta (all of north African/Berber descent), Elagabalus and Severus Alexander (both Syrian), Maximinus Thrax (Thracian), Philip the Arab (obvious...), and Diocletian (Dalmatian). Why are these citizens of Rome to be termed Roman, but not our Claudius?

Also, there is some debate regarding Ptolemy's actual ethnicity: it is not certain whether he was ethnically Egyptian or Greek. Calling him "Greek" is thus not an absolute. Please read the discussion page. Cheers. Catiline63 (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

See new lead: "Roman (of Greek or Egyptian ethnicity)". Unfortunately, there's no other way of satisfactority summarising his nationality/ethnicity. Any more becomes an essay. If people read "Roman" and get the wrong idea, then that's unfortunate. However, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must strive for accuracy ("Greek OR Egyptian", the question's not settled) and consistency (Dio, Arrian, Plutarch and Galen are also called Roman on the strength of their citizenship. See also, for example, Barack Obama, an ethnic African (and more) but listed (correctly) as American). As it is written now, what's known (nationality) comes first and what's still questioned (ethnicity) comes second.
Also, I don't think that any reader would come away from the article without having picked up that Greek learning had A LOT of influence on Ptolemy's own corpus. Cheers. Catiline63 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning[edit]

Your next edit to Ptolemy will breach Wikipedia:Three-revert rule.Catiline63 (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war warning[edit]

Please do not start an edit war on Efficacy of prayer by removing fully referenced quotes. That statement is logically valid and Wikipedia policies do not discriminate against writings by young people, specially if they are very smart people. The reference needs to remain there. If you are unhappy, please seek mediation, for I am one edit behind you and if a war starts you will cross the 3 revert line first. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fearsome Critters[edit]

The spelling of Leprochaun is not a misspelling of Leprechaun; however, rather the spelling of its American variant (See . Pg.17, The Leprochaun . "Fearsome Creature of the Lumberwoods") as I have before mentioned on the Fearsome Critter talk page.

Tripodero User talk:Tripodero 2:22, 02 July 2009 (UTC)

Still Adherents[edit]

I agree-- but if others do not agree, this issue can be posted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard asking for their input, and/or their informed opinion at Talk:Catholic_Church#Still_Adherents. --Carlaude:Talk 15:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

New MyCeliacID Article[edit]

Hello,

I've rewritten an article for MyCeliacID a saliva genetics test. The previous 2 articles that I've posted have been deleted, so I'm seeking help from more seasoned Wikipedia editors. Would you be able to give me some feedback on the work I've done so far? The article is currently posted here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EGOeditor/MyCeliacID. --EGOeditor (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sumatriptan is more effective than aspirin once a migraine is already established?[edit]

Can you provide any evidence for your assurance that "sumatriptan is more effective than aspirin once a migraine is already established"? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking[edit]

I'm going to try and put back some of the links in the article on limestone that you removed on the grounds of "overlinking". I suspect you over-reacted; I'm not entirely sure why you think that an article on limestone should not link to Notch Peak, a named mountain in Utah used as an example of a "spectacular rocky outcrops and islands" in the article. On the opposite side of the spectrum, linking to the article on caves might seem to you to be "obvious", but people who are reading an article on limestone are very likely to be interested in geological topics, and since limestone cave is just a redirect to the cave article, I had to make that link. I am familiar with the guideline set forth in WP:OVERLINKING; I've double-checked there and I hope you will too. Abductive (reasoning) 18:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

successive insertion[edit]

Hi BobKawanaka. You inserted the unit 731 and the seciton name Racism and Anti-Semitism successively. I don't want to think you have anti sentiment. Why did you iserted again and again? There are 2 questions. 1. Unit 731 has already writen other section, why did you write again? And If you want to insert the 200,000 casualties, show the evidence. Was there Atomic bombing test? 2. Your inserted section name is not suitable, what is racism? Do you know Japanese foreign minister is korean during the war. Japanese army had more than ten korean generals. There were Korean Representatives both House of Representative and House of Peers. Japanese Princess married with Korean prince. I don't know Jews had seats in German parliament. Did Hitler's family marry with Jews? I don't know African people had seats in Congress before the war. Did President families Married with African before the war? If you stick to write such things, you should write other countries, too.--Bukubku (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Pro-life movement‎[edit]

I left you a message on Talk:Pro-life movement‎. CarolineWH (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Campini's jet Boat[edit]

Whether campini's boat used air or water propulsion it is still an example of Internal propulsion and it is still a Jet Boat and it worked in 1931. have you considered that? Are you totally impartial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altes2009 (talkcontribs) 04:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not. Internal propulsion in a jet boat means that the water is sucked into an impeller and expelled (out the bottom of the boat). Campini's boat is a jet engine, just as in a plane, mounted on top of a boat ... there is not internal about this in reference to the jet boats of the article internal_propulsion. Hope that helps. BobKawanaka (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Campini's jet Boat[edit]

Campini jet Boat worked in 1931. And whther it used air or water for its jet, it is still a WORKING example of internal propulsion and of a jet boat. have you considered that.


Similarly Enrico Forlanini's Helicopter is the First WORKING Helicopter that took of carrying a pilot under its OWN POWER. That had not been acheived before

Altes2009 (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


I did not change your Helicopter edit. I agree with those that did, but I did not change it. BobKawanaka (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistake on apsis ratios in Orbit article[edit]

In this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orbit&diff=320076098&oldid=320065491 you assert that the ratio of b/a for the earth is 99.99% It is more like 96.9% in reality. I've removed it. Where did you get this from? Does the error occur elsewhere? Thanks. --NealMcB (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a mistake -- 99.99% is correct. See Talk:Orbit#Year-old mistake about magnitude of eccentricity for details. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)