- 1 January 2009
- 2 Burt-McCollum
- 3 Proposed deletion of Chanrai
- 4 Disambiguation link notification for May 19
- 5 Continental
- 6 Links in Corvair engine article
- 7 July 2013
- 8 2013-07-08
- 9 July 2014
- 10 World war 2 edits
- 11 November 2014
- 12 Reference needed for something anybody can see with his/her own eyes?
Welcome to Wikipedia. The you made to Sleeve valve has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Corruptcopper (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah!, the right spelling out for the name of the Single Sleeve Valve engine inventors, whose names were used in conjunction to name their system of distribution, is Burt-McCollum, not Burt-McCullum as it appeared in the version of the article that I changed, it's easy to check in any place devoted to aircraft engines, such as www.enginehistory.org , and this a common problem in english language, as it long ago ceased to have an exact match between written spelling and pronounciation, and as there are many local and regional variations in accents, it's easy making changes in spelling, I'll check what's the current situation, but if you agree that Burt-McCollum is the right spelling out after checking it in the appropriate sources, you can revert the change yourself. Thanks for your attention and your care about the quality of the Wikipedia pages, nice week, best regards, salut + --Jgrosay (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The deletion of an article you created, Chanrai, has been proposed for the following reason:
- Possible Hoax
You are welcome to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and remove the deletion notice from the article. You may also remove the notice if you disagree with the deletion, though in such cases, further discussion may take place at Articles for deletion, and the article may still be deleted if there is a consensus to do so.
Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy. You may wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.
Hi !: you're the one in charge of this, but all the information I included in the entry Chanrai is true and accurate to my best knowledge. As I have no local information from India, it's impossible to me providing confirmatory evidence or giving the names of other's people having the same oppinion. As neither I nor nobody else can obtain any advantage by forging a note on this subject, that has no more interest than a curiosity or an archeological possibility, I suggest you maintaining the entry Chanrai, and waiting for somebody to add information, or you can e-mail your Wiki colleagues in India to supply more data on this. Please maintain the entry without erasing it, as pointed in the entry footnote, the principle of inversion of evidence load, coming directly from the law principle of innocence unless otherwise proven, may apply to non easily contrastable informations. I have no personal interest on this at all, just obtaining the confirmation or denial of the content of entry from somebody with a field connection to India religious beliefs history. Thank you for your interest, best regards, salut + You can edit the wording of my entry at your desire, I'm not a professional writer, and english is not my chidhood's language. jgrosay
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chevrolet Corvair engine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Continental (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Continental is one of the aircraft engine makers that produced air cooled engines with cylinders in a flat position, call it boxer if you like, both in 4 and 6 cylinder versions, I wrote the name Continental, as I thought that the Wikipedia internal link would bring to the Continental engine maker article, but as Continental may have several different meanings besides a maker of aircraft engines, I really don't know if the link will bring the readers there. The name Continental is well placed in the article of opposed cylinders air cooled engines, and I placed it next to Lycoming, that also produced aircraft air cooled engines with the same arrangement for cylinders, I don't have a clear idea of the purpose of you sending me a note about this, but you're in command, and usually you do it right. Thanks, salut + Jose G-A
Links in Corvair engine article
Thank you for your interest, but I'm not fully aware of the meaning of some of your comments, that look to me as internal cues for Wikipedia editors, yes, Continental is a producer of aircraft engines that built and sold flat arranged cylinders air cooled engines, in 4 cylinders or 6 cylinders types, as Lycoming did, and also Citroen and Panhard, two french auto makers, produced air cooled flat twins for their cars, ranging in total displacement from 435 cc to 850 cc, so, data added are true, and easy to check, either in the english language Wiki, or in the french edition, I always have some confusion about the meaning and limits of 'Forum', that for me is hard to distinguish or separate from 'Talk', but taking care of unappropriate entries is your job in Wikipedia, and if you consider something should be erased, it's your decission, I won't oppose, although, as you can see, I added the comment about Chanrai in another place, connected to the names Jainraisk and Chenraisig, or something like, it was some time ago and I don't remember well. By the way: in the french edition I had put a link to a YouTube video of a rotary engine design close to the canadian quasiturbine, but somebody eliminated it from the references section of the main Wankel engine (Moteur Wankel) article, and I had to put it again but in the 'Talk' section, where visibility is reduced, I have no idea of what may have happened. Regarding the first comment about the Sleeve Valve article, I've been continuously reviewing the article and all the references and data I added, so, if you still think that the deleted text should not reappear, if you have the time, please let me know. Thanks for your stimulating and kind comments in the beginning of your note, you'll never know how much I appreciate the opportunity Wikipedia gives to edit articles and spread knowledge that may be useful for others. Have a nice week, best regards, salut + --Jgrosay (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Thomas the Apostle are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dougweller!: thanks for your interest. I guessed comments about the identity of the so called 'king Gundafor', that supposedly received the apostol saint Thomas in India, was well placed in an article about st. Thomas, and my intention was just adding info to this probably somehow obscure story, and to place the Apostol's visit to India in the cultural and historical context of these times. I wanted also to open a discussion about the subject of 'Gundafor' or 'Gundaforas', that is obviously connected to the life of the Apostol, and I found no better place to open a discussion about the subject of this Indian king than there. All info I added is susceptible of being checked with some not too complex searches in the web, and as you're probably aware, I have frequent problems about the scope of the concepts 'talk', 'discussion', and 'oppinion statements or discussions'. You're in command, so you can delete the text I added, should you think it's unappropriate or insufficiently based, that is not, if you look in databases explaining the meaning of names, there are several, you'll find the name 'Gunvor', its roots and its meaning, and also several cognate names. Please feel free to delete my comment if you still think it's out of the scope of the article about the life of Apostol saint Thomas, and also to eliminate or edit partially the comments I added there. Thanks for your attention, best regards. Salud † --Jgrosay (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- And thanks very much for such a reasonable response. Any sources that meet WP:RS and WP:VERIFY and discuss the name of this king are welcome - but they do need to discuss this king. Sources need to discuss the subject directly, unlike an essay where you can combine sources that don't to make an argument. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello again!: the info I got about the meaning of the name Gunvor was obtained by searching in a name meaning database accessible in the web, for names starting with 'Gun', 'vor' is indicated in this source as meaning 'wise', but as you know 'phoras' may be cognate to 'pherens' in 'Christopher', meaning 'carry on' or 'carry over', it's so easy finding references to this, that I didn't take the effort of recording it, this would be to me something like explaining that 'open', may come from 'no pent'. Thanks for your interest. Best regards. Salut † --Jgrosay (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Permanent revolution, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. RolandR (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm RolandR. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Permanent revolution, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Permanent revolution. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
World war 2 edits
- Hi Jgrosay. I reverted your edits using rollback, which I did not intend to do. I was concerned about your third edit, and should have used a standard revert. I apologise. I was concerned that some statements lacked a source, and would have placed reasons in the edit summary. It may be an idea to take any major edits to page talk. Again, aplogies. Regards Irondome (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have rollbacked my rollback :) Irondome (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've reverted your changes - aside from being very poorly written, they were much too detailed, and contained several incorrect or debatable statements. As Irondome notes above, I'd ask that you propose any significant changes to the article on its talk page before making them. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have rollbacked my rollback :) Irondome (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
No information was inadequately referenced. You can find in any Spanish source the fact that was generals Jose Sanjurjo and Emilio Mola who organized and were heading the July 18, 1936 uprising, and that them died in aviation accidents, Sanjurjo in July 1936, Mola in June 1937, after the Gernika bombings were done, the information about these bombing comes from Legion Condor sources, they said their objective was a bridge, and that civilan casualties were becuase the weather making them bomb unintended places. I have no committment to defend the nazi activities, and most who were just witnesses of these events are died, history is a descriptive science, not a substitute for a court or a trial. The former terrorist Pio Moa wrote a book, 'Los mitos de la guerra civil' -The myths of civil war', a bestseller in Spain, about the untrue facts found in many historians of Spanish Civil War, sorry, I can't retrieve the comment in Soviet press about Communist Party and Nazi party as: 'European Worker parties', but it's true. General Franco was put in command of Spanish armies in uprising in september 21, 1936, general Sanjurjo died in an aviation accident just after uprising. Ample information about the arrival of combat airplanes to Spain from abroad can be found in the book by Beatriz Pecker: 'Cronica de la aviacion española' -Chronicle of the Spanish aviation', and also in the book by Julian Gorkin: 'España, primer ensayo de una democracia popular' -Spain, first attempt of a popular democracy. The amount of damages caused by conventional bombings in Japan, and its relative importance to the nuclear bombings are known, as the fact that Japan asked for an armistice more on the premises of USSR taking bites on their homeland, 8 days after USSR declared war to Japan. The current Sakhalin island conflict comes from these days, but if you think you should delete all these comments, I don't have any force to prevent you from doing it. Sorry, English is not my childhood language, anybody may feel free to make wording changes in my additions to Wikipedia, English language, if they think its understability may be enhanced, I don't worry about this, as long as the facts depicted don't change, and I'm not the owner of Wikipedia or of the info in my comments once put in Wikipedia. I'm not sure about the way of making a 'draft addition'. Thanks for your kind interest. Have a good academic year.--Jgrosay (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- You haven't referenced, can't spell and your English is not of the standard required. As suggested above it might be an idea for you to suggest changes on talk pages, as your current offerings make this encyclopedia look as if it is written by amateurs. Although it is we don't want it to appear so. If you don't like this don't write edit summaries about painful truths. Britmax (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes I did reference, and I'll do it again, regarding Spanish civil war: Pio Moa, Beatriz Pecker, Luis de Marimon-Riera, Julian Gorkin. Regarding the obvious fact that Japanese generals got an advantage from V I Lenin succeeding in defeating and murdering the Tzars, and then withdrawing from the WWI European war, he got support from Germany with this aim, and also discontinued the conflict with the Japanese, reference is any history book or article, for example, Wikipedia. That Japan requested for and obtained an armistice just 8 days after the USSR declared war to Japan, and Russia begun occupying Japanese territories, this could be checked in any source about WWII, most probably, this was the reason for the decision, and not the A bombings, but you'll need direct info from Japanese generals and from Emperor Hiro-Hito to ascertain the thruthness of any of these explanations, and motivations are not facts, are outside history, as no evidence is usually left about it. Taking into account the temporal sequence, and the information comparing damages from conventional and A bombings, the difference is more in the expenses incurred in planes by the bombing side, the most plausible explanation for Japan demaning for an armistice in WWII is avoiding too much bites on their land by the USSR, Russia being a traditional enemy, and the USA and the allied forces had no direct interests in the Japanese land. I don't want to be TOEFLER, but adding true facts to articles. Thanks. Best regards. Salut +--Jgrosay (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Volkswagen Beetle, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Reference needed for something anybody can see with his/her own eyes?
Hi!: I can't catch the meaning of your comment. The british patent number is enough reference. If you access ESPACENET, a world-wide patent database, open and free of cost, and enter in: 'advanced search', either the number of patent: GB570814, perhaps a zero should be added: GB0570814, or enter: 'R Fedden', or: 'Fedden', as applicant (Application date for this patent appears as 1943), and the key word: 'vehicles', or 'vehicle', you'll get immediateley the patent by Roy Fedden for review and download; in the section: 'Drawings', a car with not only the general arrangement, but also the line of the 'VW Beetle', is shown. Reference is self-evident, no valid reason for deleting it. It's also known by all having read something on aerodynamics, that the rear of a streamlined body is also important, besides front, in reducing drag, no need to reference this, as there's no need to reference that: '2+2=4'. The fact that R Fedden participated in the developement of Sleeve-Valve aeroengines at Bristol, with the previous work by Harry Ricardo, can be seen on the Wikipedia Sleeve-Valve article, and also Harry Ricardo and Roy Fedden appear in the: 'Hall of fame' of British mechanical engineers, no need to reference them, as there's no need to reference the place where admiral Nelson died. Did you know that Voltaire, in his: 'Philosophical letters', wrote that: 'English write libels, not history'?. That something is unknown to you doesn't equal that it's wrong, if you knew evrything, people will read you, not Wikipedia. Mene, teces, phares. Salut †--Jgrosay (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)